stringtranslate.com

Обсуждение в Википедии:Известность (вид)

Предварительное обсуждение

Пожалуйста, добавьте ссылки на предыдущие обсуждения и страницы, о которых вы уведомили здесь. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 20:56, 10 июля 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Часто задаваемые вопросы

Разве это не просто подтверждение того, о чем WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES говорил годами?
Это цель.
Изменит ли это количество примечательных видов по сравнению с существующими правилами?
Это не предусмотрено. Хотя это может облегчить неспециалистам-редакторам понимание того, что следует считать примечательным, а что нет.
А что, если источников нет или есть только те источники, которые я не считаю надежными?
Буквально невозможно, чтобы вид был принят таксономистами, если нет академических публикаций о виде. В некоторых случаях существуют дополнительные требования к документации, выходящие за рамки опубликованных надежных источников. Информация о соответствующих академических источниках включена в каждую запись во всех авторитетных базах данных видов. Если вам нужна помощь в поиске академических источников, обратитесь за помощью в соответствующий WikiProject.
Сколько видов подпадают под это определение?
Может быть, около двух миллионов, половина из которых — насекомые. Это то же самое, что и в текущей системе. У нас уже есть статьи примерно по одному из шести этих видов, включая большинство принятых позвоночных (т. е. птиц, рыб, амфибий, рептилий и млекопитающих).
Разве в мире не миллионы бактерий и вирусов?
Это отдельные организмы. В вашем теле, вероятно, более 30 триллионов микробов, но в вашем теле, вероятно, менее 1000 различных видов. На данный момент существует всего около 15 000 известных вирусов и 25 000 известных прокариот.[9][10] Оценки того, сколько непризнанных видов существует в мире, значительно различаются, но непризнанные виды не считаются значимыми ни в текущей, ни в предлагаемой системе.
Может ли нераспознанный вид быть примечательным?
Да, это случается редко. Например, вирус, вызывающий COVID-19, был временно известен по данным WP:GNG до того, как его официально признали таксономисты.
Применимо ли это к ископаемым видам?
Нет. Дискуссия об ископаемых видах завершилась решением рассмотреть ископаемые виды отдельно, позднее. Если вы заинтересованы в присоединении к будущей дискуссии об ископаемых, пожалуйста, добавьте эту страницу в свой список наблюдения или подпишитесь на уведомления в Wikipedia:Служба запроса отзывов#Политики и рекомендации Wikipedia .
Освобождает ли это виды от обычных правил массового создания или изменяет правила массового создания?
Нет.
Не будут ли люди просто спамить миллионами маленьких статей WP:UGLY ?
Они этого не делали в течение последних 20 с лишним лет, а в этом проекте те же правила, которые мы использовали в течение последних 20 с лишним лет, поэтому вряд ли это изменит темпы создания статей.
Запрещает ли это объединение статей?
Нет. Вопрос Wikipedia:Notability#Создавать ли отдельные страницы (также известные как NOPAGE и PAGEDECIDE) применяется ко всем темам, как и политика Wikipedia:Consensus .

WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 21:27, 10 июля 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Это предложение не читается как SPECIESOUTCOMES. SPECIESOUTCOMES рассматривает растения и животных. Это предложение объединяет их в эукариот, включая одноклеточные виды, что является огромной разницей. Затем оно переходит к прокариотам и вирусам, которые очень отличаются. Виды прокариот имеют нечеткие границы, с межвидовым генетическим обменом в экосистеме, а вирусы даже не являются жизнью. SmokeyJoe ( обсуждение ) 07:16, 20 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
SPECIESOUTCOMES напрямую не упоминает растения и животных. Он имеет ссылки на правильное название (ботаника) и допустимое название (зоология) . Правильное название (ботаника) перенаправляет на правильное название , в котором есть раздел об использовании термина в таксономии прокариот. Все эукариоты регулируются либо зоологическим кодом, либо ботаническим кодом (который был переименован из Международного кодекса ботанической номенклатуры в Международный кодекс номенклатуры для водорослей, грибов и растений, чтобы прояснить его сферу действия). Существует несколько групп эукариот с качествами как растений, так и животных, виды которых были названы в соответствии как с зоологическим кодом, так и с ботаническим кодом; см. ambiregnal protist . Plantdrew ( обсуждение ) 16:58, 20 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я думаю, что этот FAQ был слишком кратким и, следовательно, неточным. Цель — сделать существующую практику официальной. Species results предназначен только для наблюдения и описания результатов существующей практики; это не формулировка для SNG. North8000 ( talk ) 17:33, 20 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Что делать, если нет источников или есть только те источники, которые я не считаю надежными?
Буквально невозможно, чтобы вид был принят таксономистами, если нет академических публикаций о виде. В некоторых случаях существуют дополнительные требования к документации, выходящие за рамки опубликованных надежных источников. Информация о соответствующих академических источниках включена в каждую запись во всех авторитетных базах данных видов. Если вам нужна помощь в поиске академических источников, обратитесь за помощью в соответствующий WikiProject.
Это неверно и должно быть исправлено. ICZN (все виды животных) принимает номенклатуру из ненадежных, ненаучных источников и не предписывает или не упоминает «таксономическое принятие», явно оставляя на усмотрение отдельных исследователей решение о том, соблюдать ли приоритет для синонимов. Неясно, какие таксоно-специфические базы данных заявляют, что вид «действителен» или как достигается такой консенсус. Это серьезный вопрос, который необходимо решить, в противном случае не будет никаких указаний по значимости видов животных . JoelleJay ( обсуждение ) 01:11, 2 сентября 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Раздел «Предыстория и интерпретация»

Есть ли возражения против удаления раздела «История вопроса и интерпретация»? Я бы поддержал его удаление, поскольку он не содержит много информации по существу. Руководство не меняется от того, включено оно или нет, что, как мне кажется, говорит о том, что раздел не нужен. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 17:38, 3 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Да, это кажется неуместным, как будто это что-то, что должно быть прикреплено к RfC, а не к самому руководству. –  Джо  ( обсуждение ) 18:48, 3 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я добавил это и думаю, что это хорошая идея, но это была жирная правка, и если кто-то возражает, пожалуйста, удалите ее из-за "R" в BRD. ; Я не возражаю и не буду даже немного обижен. North8000 ( обсуждение ) 20:44, 3 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Мое обоснование было/есть:

  1. Как упомянул Джо, еще одна возможность — включить его в RFC. Выше обсуждалось, сделает ли это формулировку RFC предвзятой. Это решило бы этот вопрос.
  2. Решения о «знаменательности» включают в себя другие факторы, а не только критерии руководства по значимости. ( Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) Хотя на первый взгляд это не критерий значимости, он обеспечивает соответствующее рассмотрение в решениях о «знаменательности» при использовании этого SNG, и это то, что соответствует тому, что, как я думаю, является намерением большинства людей, работающих над этим. Мы не хотим, чтобы это вызвало большие изменения, включая создание новой массы или «сборочной линии».
  3. СУЩЕСТВУЕТ опасность того, что это руководство может непреднамеренно изменить статус-кво, а не кодифицировать его. Статус-кво заключается в том, что большинство статей о новых видах нарушают (или являются крайними случаями) текущие руководящие принципы wp:notability. Поэтому нахождение в этой «сумеречной зоне», вероятно, делает создателей более осторожными... возможно, добавляя больше источников и материалов, чтобы меньше отставать от GNG. И избегая создания массового или производственной линии или типа завершения. Это обеспечивает немного больше безопасности в этом отношении. И, возможно, немного дополнительной уверенности для людей, которые в противном случае могли бы выступить против этого SNG из-за вышеуказанных проблем.

С уважением, North8000 ( обсуждение ) 21:02, 3 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

@ Kevmin отменил откат, поэтому, я думаю, необходимо обсуждение на странице обсуждения. – Novem Linguae ( обсуждение ) 23:54, 3 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я посчитал это дополнение уместным, поскольку обсуждение несколько раз затрагивало идею о том, что любой редактор, не вовлеченный напрямую в эту часть процесса, вполне может подумать, что это совершенно новое и не имеет за плечами 2-х десятилетий истории и прецедентов как «культурное поведение википедистов». -- Кев мин § 00:07, 4 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Может быть, но я не думаю, что это относится к самому предложению. Лучший курс действий, по моему мнению, — это подробно рассказать об истории предложения в разделе «Поддержка». C F A 💬 00:11, 4 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я склонен опустить это. Это правда, и это то, чего я ожидаю. (На самом деле, независимо от того, будет ли это предложение принято, отклонено, скорректировано и т. д., я ожидаю, что сообщество продолжит делать то же самое, что и раньше — моя цель здесь — записать, что делает сообщество, для большей ясности и прозрачности, не пытаясь изменить то, что делает сообщество.) Однако это не обязательно полезно для применения этого предлагаемого руководства, особенно для тех, кто не знаком с историей Википедии в этой конкретной области. Это немного похоже на то, как если бы вы сказали: «Езжайте по улице, пока не доберетесь до того места, где раньше был желтый дом». Если вы не знаете, где раньше был желтый дом, или если у вас есть два редактора с разными убеждениями относительно того, где раньше был желтый дом, то эти инструкции бесполезны. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 17:19, 4 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Как описано выше, я думаю, что это хорошая идея, но не буду недоволен или расстроен, если ее удалят. Давайте просто взвесим и решим так или иначе, а затем двинемся дальше: North8000 ( обсуждение ) 13:43, 5 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Предыстория и интерпретация

Перенесено из Википедии:Известность (виды)

Целью создания этого руководства было соответствие существующей практике и отсутствие серьезных изменений в отношении создания или удаления статей. Его следует интерпретировать в этом контексте.

— перемещено сюда пользователем WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 23:14, 9 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Предложение принять это руководство

Следует ли принять Wikipedia:Notability (виды) в качестве руководства по значимости для конкретных предметов ? WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 23:25, 9 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Обсуждение (NSPECIES)

При составлении этого проекта я намеревался максимально точно соответствовать давней практике сообщества. Я хотел бы поблагодарить других редакторов, которые весь последний месяц помогали мне собирать всю информацию в одном месте и терпеливо объясняли мне то, чего я не знал. Предложение стало сильнее благодаря их участию; любые ошибки остаются за мной. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 23:27, 9 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

BilledMammal, я сначала поставил место для обсуждения в рамках этого обсуждения на WT:RFC . Нам нужно найти способы поощрять вопросы и обсуждения вместо того, чтобы подталкивать редакторов сразу к голосованию. Например, это было бы подходящим местом для вас, чтобы сослаться на User:BilledMammal/NSPECIES и объяснить, почему вы считаете, что слияние до уровня родов может быть лучше, чем текущая практика сообщества. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 04:03, 10 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Самая большая проблема с этим предложением заключается в том, что оно нарушает как WP:PRIMARY , так и WP:NOTEVERYTHING . По словам эксперта в данной области, ситуация, когда вид описывается, а затем о нем ничего не публикуется во вторичных источниках, вероятно, справедлива по крайней мере для 90% всех описанных видов. Это означает, что для 90%+ видов не будет существовать вторичных источников, и поэтому PRIMARY запрещает нам иметь статью. Кроме того, для большинства из этих 90%+ видов будет недостаточно информации, чтобы мы могли представить просто резюме темы, а не все знания по теме, и поэтому NOTEVERYTHING запрещает нам иметь статью. В том виде, в каком это руководство написано, оно нарушает две из наших самых важных политик, WP:OR и WP:NOT , и мы не можем принять руководство, которое так противоречит устоявшемуся консенсусу. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 04:13, 10 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Ваша интерпретация WP:OR по отношению к первоисточникам может не быть единой в сообществе; см. комментарий Anomie на Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#we might need to fix wp:or . Возможно, это стоит более широкого обсуждения. Curbon7 ( обсуждение ) 05:01, 10 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
В текущей формулировке WP:OR предельно ясно заявляет, что мы не можем основывать статьи исключительно на первоисточниках; не следует основывать всю статью на первоисточниках .
Возможно, это изменится, но пока этого не произойдет, мы не можем создавать правила, которые это нарушают, и я думаю, что обсуждение, на которое вы ссылаетесь, касается связанной, но другой проблемы и не приведет к изменениям в цитируемом аспекте. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 05:59, 10 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Сообщество может создавать любые правила по своему усмотрению, как оно всегда и делало.
Строка, которую вы цитируете из WP:OR, была добавлена ​​в 2009 году. Контекст на странице обсуждения (сама строка не обсуждалась) указывает на то, что редакторы были обеспокоены проблемами WP:NOTPLOT . Соответственно, определение первичного источника гласило: «опубликованные заметки лабораторных и полевых экспериментов или наблюдений, написанные лицом(ами), проводившим(и) или наблюдавшим(и) эксперименты». Мне кажется, что «опубликованные заметки» — это не то же самое, что «рецензируемая научная журнальная статья» или «справочник». Следовательно, я не думаю, что имелось в виду запретить статьи Википедии, основанные на журнальных статьях и справочных работах. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 18:03, 10 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Ничего не удалено? А как насчет перенаправления? А как насчет смержей? SmokeyJoe ( обсуждение ) 22:19, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Единственный раз, когда кто-то пытался объединить больше двух за последнее время, закончился тем, что его перетащили в ANI, и все правки (более 500) были массово отменены. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 22:24, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
....что очень похоже на то, что произошло в пространствах GEOLAND и NSPORTS в результате их стандартов "предполагаемой известности". Люди могут до посинения говорить, что "конечно, это никак не мешает объединению", но реальность такова, что если хотя бы один другой редактор не согласен с объединением, то стандарт "предполагаемой известности" является причиной, не требующей дальнейшего обсуждения, для их разделения, независимо от того, какой бы консенсус ни был достигнут ранее по поводу объединения. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 08:12, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Ну, я думаю, уроком из этого инцидента может стать дружеская беседа об объединении статей перед внесением 500+ правок. Я не верю, что Wikipedia:Merging работает по стандарту «если хотя бы один другой редактор не согласен», но мне интересно, считаете ли вы, что это предложение что-то изменит.
Без этого предложения он смело сделал 500+ правок и был отменён. С этим предложением результат, по-видимому, был бы тем же. Мы не можем дважды-экстра-супер-отменить правки только потому, что предыдущие отмен были сделаны в рамках WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES и консенсуса, а любые гипотетические будущие смелые правки будут сделаны в рамках SNG и консенсуса.
Или вы думаете, что при старой системе его перетащили в ANI и вернули по консенсусу, и если мы продолжим работать по старой системе (т. е. вместо того, чтобы принять это предложение), то результат волшебным образом будет другим в следующий раз, когда кто-то смело объединит десятки статей? На ум приходит поговорка о «повторном выполнении того же действия, но ожидании иных результатов», и я не могу найти причину полагать, что она неприменима. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 18:05, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Статистика подзаголовков

В разделе опроса редакторы сделали комментарии вроде Только небольшое меньшинство статей о видах содержат только одно предложение . Чтобы определить, верно ли это, я просмотрел каждую статью с помощью Template:Speciesbox , чтобы определить, насколько часто статьи о видах являются подзаголовками.

Я обнаружил, что:

Вопреки распространенному мнению, в рамках общего результата NSPECIES наблюдается значительный уровень создания проблемных статей, и мы должны ожидать, что этот уровень увеличится, если это предложение будет принято, особенно учитывая, что авторы предложения не видят никаких правил, запрещающих отдельным редакторам выпускать от 24 до 49 шаблонных статей в день или от 8760 до 17 885 в год .

Это не праздное беспокойство; есть 22 редактора, которые создали более 1000 статей с тремя или менее предложениями. Это массовое создание продолжается и по сей день, и редакторы, такие как JoJan, создали 1394 статьи о видах за последний год, причем контент часто копировался из работ, авторские права на которые истекли.

Более того, многие из них невозможно будет расширить даже до уровня заглушки, не нарушая WP:OR — этот последний аспект является важным отличием, поскольку любая статья может быть расширена, если мы проигнорируем наши правила для оригинальных исследований. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 16:07, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Спасибо за проведение этого анализа. «Подзаголовок», хотя эта концепция была отвергнута консенсусом сообщества в 2005 году, традиционно определяется как статья, содержащая не более чем типичное словарное определение, поэтому 7% существующих видов могут подпадать под подзаголовки, а 93% — нет.
Есть ли шанс, что вы сможете сделать то же самое, только проверив ссылки или URL? Также ходят слухи, что в этих статьях почти нет ссылок на источники. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 16:13, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
49%, а не 7%. Определения в словарях обычно варьируются от одного до трех предложений, поэтому я привел цифры для статей, содержащих до трех предложений.
На запуск уходит почти целый день, но я могу — можете ли вы пояснить, что именно вы ищете в отношении ссылок? (Может быть, перенести это на мою страницу обсуждения, чтобы не засорять эту дискуссию?) BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 16:17, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Определения в словарях обычно состоят из менее чем одного предложения, поэтому их доля составляет 7%.
Я считаю, что медианная статья Википедии содержит около четырех предложений и две ссылки. Вы доказали, что половина существующих статей о видах имеют медианную длину или больше. Теперь мне интересно, какой процент имеет медианное число источников или больше. Одной из потенциальных сложностей является то, что многие из них называют WP:General ссылки , поэтому статья может называть (например,) четыре источника, но не использовать четыре пары тегов ссылок. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 16:34, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Но не редкость, когда словарные определения имеют длину до трех предложений. Независимо от этого, мы спорим о семантике — суть в том, что существует огромное количество неуместно кратких заглушек видов, и это предлагаемое руководство ухудшит ситуацию.

Я считаю, что средняя статья в Википедии состоит примерно из четырех предложений и двух ссылок.

Я был бы удивлен, если бы это было правдой, и еще больше удивлен, если бы это осталось правдой, если бы мы исключили массово созданные шаблонные статьи. Можете ли вы связать эти цифры?

Мне теперь интересно, какой процент имеет среднее число источников или больше.

Я постараюсь сделать это для вас к концу выходных. BilledMammal ( talk ) 16:47, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
К сожалению, я припоминаю эти цифры из препринта, который я видел год или два назад, и я не думаю, что он был опубликован. Однако быстрый просмотр Special:Random показывает, что там много коротких заготовок, так что, вероятно, это по крайней мере приблизительно верно.
Заглянув в словарь (ISBN 978-039567610), можно увидеть, что очень редко определения в словаре состоят из трех предложений. На самом деле, в этом словаре вообще нет полных предложений в определениях. Я прочитал каждую запись на случайно выбранной странице («регистрированная медсестра» для «повторного прослушивания»), и ни одно из определений не было одним предложением. Было много слов с несколькими определениями, но сами определения почти всегда представляли собой одну фразу , и ни одно определение не состояло более чем из двух фраз. Единственные полные предложения на странице были найдены в объяснении синонимов слова regret . Например, вот одна из записей:
re•gret•tab•ly (rĭ-grĕt'ə-blē) нареч. 1. В степени, заслуживающей сожаления: прискорбно кратко . 2. Как предмет сожаления.
Для этого одного слова у нас есть два определения, по одной фразе на определение. В одном из определений есть пример того, как использовать слово, но полных предложений нигде нет. Интересно, вы имели в виду количество определений на слово, а не длину каждого отдельного определения. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 17:22, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Я считаю, что средняя статья в Википедии состоит примерно из четырех предложений и двух ссылок.

Я просмотрел 10 000 случайно выбранных статей , за исключением страниц с разъяснениями и списков.
Из этих 10 000 только 16% имели три или менее предложений, а среднее число предложений составило 13. Для сравнения, среднее число предложений для статей о видах составило 4. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 18:48, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Хорошо, значит, мы добиваемся прогресса.
Как ваш алгоритм учитывает Dogtown, St. Louis , в котором есть пунктуационные ошибки, или Balkan Rhapsodies: 78 Measures of War , в котором есть цитаты из нескольких предложений? Я думаю, что посчитал бы последнее как 6 предложений, а кто-то другой мог бы посчитать его как 11, но он записан как 13. Я считаю 12 в Campbell v. Clinton и IEEE 802.11 (устаревший режим) , но ваш скрипт говорит им 13. 1640 в палеонтологии сообщается как 1 предложение, но оно содержит 5. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:05, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я отвечу в User talk:BilledMammal/Average articles , так как это не по теме данного обсуждения. BilledMammal ( talk ) 19:17, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Когда вы говорите невозможно расширить... не нарушая WP:OR , вы на самом деле имеете в виду "невозможно расширить... не полагаясь на источники WP:PRIMARY "? Я предполагаю, что вы не имеете в виду "невозможно расширить без редакторов, выдумывающих вещи, основанные на их собственных убеждениях и опыте".
@ Anomie , это, вероятно, относится к нашей дискуссии на заправке Village о том, должна ли PSTS быть частью NOR или ее собственной независимой политикой в ​​отношении контента. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 16:37, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я имею в виду невозможность расширения без нарушения любого аспекта WP:OR . Это включает, но не ограничивается, WP:PRIMARY - многие непримечательные темы имеют опубликованные необработанные данные, которые редакторы могли бы использовать для написания статьи, но не должны, поскольку это было бы оригинальным исследованием. BilledMammal ( talk ) 16:44, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Использование необработанных данных не является оригинальным исследованием. Неправильное использование любого источника — даже позолоченного рецензируемого вторичного научного источника — может привести к оригинальному исследованию, но возможно правильно использовать необработанные данные, не нарушая ни одной части какой-либо политики. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 17:27, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я не понимаю, как необработанные данные OR. Если они опубликованы, то это первичный источник. Cremastra ( talk ) 17:30, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Исходные данные не являются OR, но их использование для написания целой статьи без ссылок на вторичные или третичные источники является OR. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 17:33, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
@ Cremastra , я думаю, идея здесь в том, что WP:PRIMARY , который для неважной исторической информации случайно находится в Wikipedia:No original research , говорит: « Не основывайте всю статью на первоисточниках», так что если вы «нарушаете» это, то вы также «нарушаете» весь NOR. По моему мнению, PSTS должны быть своей собственной политикой, а не втиснуты в середину NOR.
(В то время, когда было добавлено это предложение, обсуждение на странице обсуждения касалось проблем WP:NOTPLOT , и только такие источники, как оригинальные рукописные полевые дневники, считались первичными источниками. Книги и журнальные статьи, описывающие новые виды, большинство редакторов в то время считали вторичными источниками.) WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 18:51, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Aa — мой новый любимый род. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 16:52, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Он уже некоторое время принадлежит мне; название рода, по-видимому, было изменено автором, чтобы оно всегда стояло первым в алфавитном списке BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 16:58, 14 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это массовое создание продолжается и по сей день, и редакторы вроде JoJan создали 1394 статьи о видах за последний год, причем контент часто копировался из работ, авторские права на которые истекли. У вас есть какие-то конкретные проблемы со статьями JoJan? Содержит ли они неверную информацию? Они плохо написаны? Кроме того, использование материалов из общественного достояния в Википедии разрешено. voorts ( обсуждение / вклад ) 02:27, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Первая статья от него, которую я посмотрел, это Alinda elegantissima . В ней есть 1 встроенная ссылка, которая даже не работает. Она не проходит WP:V как однопредложение-заглушка и плохо написана.
>Кроме того, использование материалов, являющихся общественным достоянием, разрешено в Википедии.
Это разрешено, но это лениво, и материал, достаточно старый, чтобы быть общественным достоянием, потенциально устарел. Traumnovelle ( обсуждение ) 04:13, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Хочу отметить, что встроенная ссылка, которая даже не работает, работает — вам просто нужно нажать кнопку в правом верхнем углу, чтобы переключить сайт с отображения только морских видов на все виды в базе данных. Я не знаю, почему у WoRMS такой сайт, я думаю, что это ужасная система, но этот источник не сломан. Ethmostigmus 🌿 ( talk | contribs ) 08:16, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Согласен. Это стандарт для WoRMS. И включение текста из общественного достояния является одной из основ Википедии – WP:EB1911 объясняет, как Начиная с 2006 года, большая часть все еще полезного текста в Энциклопедии 1911 года была адаптирована и включена в Википедию. Особое внимание уделялось темам, которые не имели эквивалента в Википедии в то время. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 12:54, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Давайте сейчас напишем JoJan , так как три разных редактора упомянули его по имени. Нехорошо говорить о людях за их спинами. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 18:07, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ WhatamIdoing : Действительно, нехорошо так говорить о людях. Это выглядит так, будто меня назвали и опозорили. Я вношу свой вклад в Википедию последние 20 лет, и за это время я создал тысячи статей об улитках и даже расширил множество уже существующих заготовок, ранее созданных ботом. Я согласен, некоторые статьи, которые я создал, были заготовками. Но это потому, что я не мог добавить больше информации из-за авторских прав или отсутствия интернет-ссылки. Но большинство новых статей содержали большую часть информации, которую я мог добавить из текста, находящегося в открытом доступе, и они содержали необходимые данные. Часто мне приходилось переводить описание с латыни или французского на английский (и это, вероятно, было впервые в Интернете). Я загрузил тысячи фотографий улиток в Commons (и во многих случаях они потребовали много поиска в Интернете). Так что не называйте меня ленивым. JoJan ( talk ) 14:19, 17 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Самая первая статья о виде, которую я нашел

Итак, я нажал «random» три раза и нашел Alvania turtaudierei на третьем клике. В этой статье два предложения и один источник (база данных WORMS). Ссылка не работает, но это можно исправить, отменив выбор «extant» в поле поиска и повторив поиск. Это перенаправит вас на страницу сведений о таксоне, на которой я нахожу, что это было описано в Cainozoic Research. Что такое Cainozoic Research? Это свободно распространяемый журнал, выпускаемый WKTG дважды в год. Кто такие WKTG? Это группа, открытая для любителей и профессионалов всех областей. Я уверен, что это замечательные люди, но, прочитав это, я уже начинаю сомневаться.

Ссылка на, по-видимому, нефункционирующее окно поиска предоставлена ​​на странице Cainozoic Research, но поскольку я не могу заставить его работать, я нахожу, что соответствующая статья доступна на ResearchGate по этой ссылке. Загрузив статью, я вижу, что соответствующий раздел по сути является только разделом на стр. 271-272, с фотографией окаменелой раковины Alvania turtaudierei и описанием формы раковины словами. Это явно первоисточник, написанный человеком, описывающим свое открытие.

Проверяя создателя статьи, я вижу, что в тот же день, когда они создали эту статью (1 февраля 2024 г.), они создали 32 практически идентичные статьи со скоростью одна каждые ~3 минуты, по-видимому, путем вставки слов из базы данных WORMS в шаблон. Проверяя другие даты, это, по-видимому, типичная скорость создания. Опять же, я уверен, что они хорошие люди, но эта скорость создания с использованием шаблонов является учебником WP:MEATBOT массового создания типа, который оказался глубоко проблематичным в других областях (см., в частности, случаи иранской «деревни» Carlossuarez46 и спортсмена Lugnuts , оба из которых стали возможными благодаря SNG «предполагаемой известности»). В частности, при простом вводе данных в шаблон на высокой скорости легко вносятся систематические ошибки, и полученная статья оказывается очень низкого качества. Учитывая, что нас заверили, что массовое создание не является проблемой в пространстве WP:SPECIES , я обеспокоен тем, что это, по-видимому, продолжается и не подхвачено другими членами сообщества. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 12:54, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Что особенно разочаровывает, так это то, что этому пользователю были предоставлены права автоматического патрулирования и администрирования.
Предоставление автопатрулирования пользователям, которые могут создавать статьи о митботах, определенно проблематично. Но это все еще проблема плохих пользователей, а не плохой политики. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 13:02, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Создание руководств, которые одобряют такие творения и затрудняют исправление проблемы, является плохой политикой. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 13:05, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Где политика говорит: вперед! Создавайте статьи безответственно!
Это не SNG, который «одобряет» такие творения. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 13:10, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

Где политика говорит: вперед! Создавайте статьи безответственно!

Там, где это снижает стандарт создания статей - такие творения были бы невозможны без SNG. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 13:16, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
«Сошло с рук» что? Бесплатное пожертвование статей в онлайн-энциклопедию? Я начинаю думать, что самое разрушительное, что сделали Карлос или Лугнатс, это радикализация группы редакторов, заставив их думать, что написание коротких статей — это какой-то эзотерический вид вандализма. –  Джо  ( обсуждение ) 13:29, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ Джо Просто ради назидания процветания, их разрушительная вещь заключалась в создании гор крайне низкокачественных статей о вещах, которые либо не существовали, либо были не такими, как они описывали, которые затем выплеснулись в более широкий интернет. В случае C46 это привело к тому, что на картах Google Maps по всей Центральной Азии и западной части США были обнаружены местоположения несуществующих «деревень», часто в открытой пустыне (например, воображаемая деревня Даларам). Человеко-часы, потраченные на уборку их беспорядка (а уборка даже не сделана наполовину), значительно превышают все хорошее, что они когда-либо делали здесь. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 13:46, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ FOARP : На каком основании вы предполагаете, что деревня воображаемая? Это зафиксировано в переписи, о которой идет речь. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 13:52, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ Cremastra - Ну, начнем с того, что на этом месте (единственном месте, указанном во всех источниках) ничего нет, и оно явно находится посреди открытой пустыни, в десятках миль от любого поселения.
Затем давайте перейдем к сути иранской переписи: она подсчитывает людей в населенных пунктах ( абади ), которые не обязательно должны быть постоянными поселениями. Для кочевников это могут быть простые места подсчета, а не деревни. Даже в более густонаселенных местах это могут быть магазины, насосы, заправочные станции, мосты, автобусные остановки, фабрики, фермы (и т. д. и т. п.) и не обязательно деревни. Мы удалили более 10 000 таких статей, основываясь на том, что в них четко указано, что там никто не живет , но те, в которых указано, что у них есть население, очень сложно просмотреть по отдельности и выяснить, правильно ли это сделал C46 или нет. В этом случае очень похоже, что он ошибся, поэтому я и говорю здесь «воображаемое». FOARP ( обсуждение ) 14:15, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Все, что я могу сказать, это то, что когда люди пытались что-то сделать с Lugnuts/C46, они немедленно указывали на «предполагаемую известность» SNG как на не требующее дальнейшего обсуждения оправдание того, что они делали. C46 буквально сказал, что мы должны были доказать, что его вклад неверен, а не он должен был доказать, что он прав. Lugnuts делал примерно то же самое , и не раз — бремя доказывать, что его статьи неверны, лежало на других людях , а не на первых порах доказывать, что они правы . И почему это так? Потому что для создателя масс «предполагаемая известность» SNG на самом деле просто перекладывание бремени на других редакторов, чтобы они проверяли его работу, потому что им больше не нужно этого делать. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 13:31, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Бремя всегда таково, из-за WP:5P3 . Если кто-то решит, что ему не стоит беспокоиться обо всех этих вещах с известностью (в конце концов, это всего лишь руководство) и начнет писать статьи о том, что ему нравится, его ничто не остановит. Это, вероятно, в конечном итоге приведет к проблемам, но только после того, как другие проверят и определят проблемы в их статьях. Мы не можем заставить людей следовать нашим правилам, только реагировать на их правки. –  Джо  ( обсуждение ) 13:44, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Часть «в конечном итоге» происходит гораздо быстрее в области, требующей GNG. На территории SNG они могут уйти на десятилетие в написание плохих статей и все равно не быть пойманными. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 13:49, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Пользователи, которые создают большое количество похожих заглушек, являются основной причиной существования autopatrolled. Если сообщество видит проблему с этими творениями, с ними нужно разбираться систематически, а не по одной – как это было с Carlos и Lugnuts, например. Поскольку NPP рассматривает каждую статью индивидуально, обычно в том порядке, в котором они поступают, это плохо подходит для обнаружения или решения проблемных крупномасштабных творений, и, таким образом, сброс их в очередь NPP не делает ничего, кроме как засоряет работу.
Конечно, мы должны помнить, что подавляющее большинство крупномасштабных усилий по созданию заглушек не являются проблематичными. –  Джо  ( обсуждение ) 13:14, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
IDK - Я как-то делал обзор десяти лучших авторов статей и обнаружил, что большинство из них были заблокированы/удалены из-за облака. Фактически, единственным, кто все еще работает, был сэр Николао. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 13:54, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Мне кажется, это хорошо. Раньше я ничего не знал об Alvania turtaudierei , теперь я знаю, что это такое, где были найдены его окаменелости, и два надежных источника, чтобы начать искать больше информации (кстати, распространение научных журналов открыто и бесплатно — это хорошо ). В чем проблема? –  Джо  ( обсуждение ) 13:09, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Меня беспокоят не сами статьи, а их полубыстрое создание, которое, как указывает FOARP, делает ошибки более вероятными. Но я не вижу в этом доказательств против предложения, а только доказательство того, что пользователи должны быть осторожны Cremastra ( talk ) 13:13, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ Джо - Здесь нет двух надежных источников. Список базы данных WORMS полностью основан на статье Cainozoic Research , так что на самом деле это один источник. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 14:44, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Список WoRMS показывает, что редакторы WoRMS принимают вид и не считают его синонимом. WoRMS на самом деле представляет собой набор из нескольких баз данных, которые независимо редактируются экспертами; подбаза данных здесь — MolluscaBase. Редакторы MolluscaBase не включают ни одного из авторов статьи Cainozoic Research, поэтому это независимое вторичное мнение. Насколько я могу судить, MolluscaBase не возражает ни с одним из таксономических выводов статьи Cainozoic Research.
Однако MolluscaBase имеет случаи, когда они принимают некоторые виды, описанные в одной статье, и рассматривают другие как синонимы. Alvania pluricosticillata была описана в 2021 году и рассматривается как синоним MolluscaBase. MolluscaBase принимает 4 из 6 видов, описанных в статье 2021 года, и рассматривает два других как синонимы (источником для синонимизации A. pluricosticillata является эта статья). Plantdrew ( обсуждение ) 17:04, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Но если редакторы WoRMS не опубликовали комментарий по этому виду своими словами, то чем это отличается от редакторов и рецензентов журнала, которые принимают результаты исследовательской статьи в достаточной степени, чтобы опубликовать ее? На самом деле, редакционная коллегия кажется менее академически надежной, чем любой журнал, поскольку в нее входят любители (самопровозглашенные «гражданские ученые» и «частные исследователи») без академического образования в соответствующей области. Почему мы должны рассматривать неявное коллективное принятие имени посредством включения в эту базу данных (и есть ли какие-либо доказательства того, что их дискреционные полномочия в отношении чего-либо как синонима представляют собой нечто большее, чем «это было опубликовано позже»? фильтруют ли они свои записи таким образом, чтобы перечислялись только виды, которые были предметом нескольких публикаций, или они перечисляют все так, как это заявлено в первичной статье, пока не будет доказано обратное?) — по оценке того, кто с такой же вероятностью имеет докторскую степень по палеонтологии, как и не имеет никакой другой квалификации, кроме коммерческого сертификата в области HR и энтузиазма в отношении малакологии — эквивалентно в доказательстве научного консенсуса нескольким значимым вторичным источникам экспертов, необходимым для демонстрации важности и NPOV для любого другого научного предмета? JoelleJay ( обсуждение ) 04:29, 17 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Почему вы так, очень, очень хотите дискредитировать этот источник? WoRMS ясно говорит: «Содержание WoRMS контролируется таксономическими и тематическими экспертами, а не менеджерами баз данных». А также отмечает, что «Мы не можем обещать, что не допустим ошибок, но мы обещаем отслеживать и давать обратную связь по любым сообщениям, указывающим на ошибки. Обратная связь очень приветствуется!» Cremastra ( talk ) 15:04, 17 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ FOARP Не пытаюсь игнорировать вашу точку зрения, она по-прежнему совершенно верна, но я просто хочу отметить, что Alvania turtaudierei — это ископаемый вид, который (в настоящее время, ожидая консенсуса от WP:PALEO ) исключен из презумпции значимости в соответствии с этим руководством. Ethmostigmus 🌿 ( обсуждение | вклад ) 04:03, 18 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Может ли кто-нибудь объяснить, почему проводится такое различие? Источник идентичен тому, который подошел бы под это руководство для существующего вида. FOARP ( обсуждение ) 06:53, 18 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
См. FAQ выше и это обсуждение — я не особо разбираюсь в палеобио, поэтому не буду высказываться по этой теме лично. Ethmostigmus 🌿 ( обсуждение | вклад ) 07:06, 18 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Краткое резюме: Некоторые редакторы хотели бы, чтобы сообщество рассмотрело изменение давнего подхода к ископаемым видам. Мы договорились провести этот разговор позже, предполагая, что будет принято более широко согласованное базовое предложение. Возможные результаты разговора, посвященного ископаемым, — отсутствие изменений (т. е. поощрение слияния), соответствие правилам для существующих видов и отсутствие консенсуса (в этом случае он не будет упомянут на этой странице, или, возможно, будет ==См. также== в Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Какие статьи следует создавать ). WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 18:35, 18 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]

Опрос (NSPECIES)

Раньше я был сторонником (в целом) объединения, но теперь я изменил свое мнение, потому что: 1. Я бы очень запутался, где искать материал. 2. Когда неспециалисты редактируют, скорее всего, будут неуместные элементы. 3. Пока есть хотя бы какой-то материал (что, я думаю, должно быть нормой) (и это такая высокоэнциклопедическая область, как виды), что бы это ни было, это была бы статья, так организована Википедия. North8000 ( обсуждение ) 14:14, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Подкрепляя то, что уже является реальностью, если это будет успешным и станет SNG, его можно будет настраивать и развивать, как и любой другой SNG. По моему мнению, никто не будет говорить, что одобрение фиксирует каждую деталь первоначального SNG. Несмотря на большую тщательную работу над этим многими людьми до RFC, я думаю, что все признают, что было бы чудом, если бы первоначальная версия была полной и идеальной. С уважением, North8000 ( talk ) 20:04, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Уточняю, я не думаю, что есть опасность серьезного массового создания... сообщество и руководящие принципы просто не позволят этого. По моему мнению, есть риск увеличения меньшей версии этого... конвейерного/дополняющего/подсчитывающего количество статей типа работы, потому что статус-кво таков, что они официально не разрешены, и поэтому люди с большей вероятностью будут вкладывать больше контента/источников в новые статьи, поэтому я выступаю за добавление «предназначенных для отражения существующей практики», в том числе в заключение. Но по моему мнению, эта потенциальная проблема невелика по сравнению с преимуществами, и мы также можем работать над ней, чтобы развить ее после того, как она станет SNG. С уважением, North8000 ( обсуждение ) 20:55, 19 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
По моему мнению, такой риск существует , потому что люди могли бы быть более осторожными (= вкладывать больше в любую статью, которую они создают), потому что они в настоящее время технически нарушают правила. Вот почему я написал «намерение — кодифицировать существующую практику» в своем посте «Поддержка» и призвал других сделать то же самое. North8000 ( обсуждение ) 14:43, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@Mangoe , я обеспокоен тем, что вы могли не понять предложение. Это не предложение каждого вида, который кто-то предлагает именно потому, что таксономия предлагаемых видов нестабильна. Это каждый вид, уже принятый соответствующими таксономическими органами, — и ничего больше (если только он не подходит для GNG). WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 16:26, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
  • вы никогда не сможете удалить : это уже так.
  • или, что еще важнее, объединить : как было указано выше, критерии объединения отличаются от значимости (см., например, WP:NOPAGE ), и данное предложение не влияет на это.
Угольное перо ( обсуждение ) 14:46, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ Дэвид Фукс , насколько вы уверены в утверждении, что освещение просто не способно создать что-либо, кроме статей из одного источника для подавляющего большинства видов ?
Я нажал на Special:RandomInCategory/Articles с микроформатами «вид» десять раз и нашел медиану из трех источников, цитируемых в статьях о видах (диапазон от 1 до 16; 20% цитировали только один источник). Я посмотрел на одну из двух статей с одним источником ( Haemodorum ensifolium ) и менее чем за минуту обнаружил, что для этого растения есть запись в Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation , и, вероятно, есть запись в Flora of Australia: Hydatellales to Liliales . WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 16:23, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Так почему же в этом случае требуется SNG, если, по-видимому, можно легко найти несколько источников? FOARP ( обсуждение ) 14:35, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Это предложение объясняет давние фактические практики сообщества, что повышает прозрачность и должно немного сократить (и без того небольшое) количество обреченных AFD. Это также может увеличить количество действительных AFD и предложений по слиянию, и я надеюсь, что это даст менее опытным редакторам некоторые инструменты для выяснения того, является ли данный предполагаемый вид на самом деле принятым видом.
По сравнению с WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES , он также определяет некоторые релевантные темы, которые не считаются примечательными, что, по моему мнению, также является хорошей идеей. Например, есть некоторые примечательные плазмиды , но если это предложение будет принято, они должны будут претендовать на статью в GNG. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 16:57, 15 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Хорошо, но вы не ответили на вопрос: вы говорите, что в этих статьях всегда доступно несколько источников, так зачем нам руководство, в котором говорится, что один источник — это нормально? FOARP ( обсуждение ) 07:27, 19 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Чтобы избежать пустой траты времени на номинации от номинаторов, которые не понимают разницы между существованием источников и их присутствием в качестве ссылок в статье Википедии? — Дэвид Эппштейн ( обсуждение ) 07:47, 19 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
В предлагаемом руководстве ничего не говорится об источниках, оно просто призвано кодифицировать текущую практику неудаления статей о видах. Нам не нужно это SNG, чтобы разрешать или запрещать какую-либо конкретную практику, оно просто должно сказать: «это текущий консенсус по статьям о видах». Ethmostigmus 🌿 ( talk | contribs ) 08:01, 19 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
После прочтения обширного обсуждения становится ясно, что дискуссия идет не о том, являются ли виды примечательными или следует ли полностью удалять статьи о них в АдГ, а о том, когда виды следует освещать в отдельных статьях, а когда — в более обширных статьях о их родах.
Поэтому абсолютно необходимо, чтобы руководство четко и недвусмысленно сформулировало свою позицию по поводу такого рода слияния – даже если эта позиция проста, как «это руководство ничего не говорит о редакционных решениях о том, должна ли информация по значимым темам быть отдельной или частью более широкой статьи». В противном случае я согласен с SMCCandlish, Fram и David Fuchs: существует реальный риск того, что «все таксономически описанные виды считаются значимыми» (непротиворечиво) будет воспринято как «все таксономически описанные виды заслуживают отдельных статей и не должны объединяться со своими родами» (еще более спорно).
В том виде, в котором они написаны, руководство этого не делает. Оно признает идею о том, что мы можем захотеть охватить заметный вид в более широкой статье, а не на отдельной странице ( редакторы должны использовать свое здравое суждение, чтобы определить, будет ли лучше для Википедии отдельная статья, отдельный список или объединение контента в статью о более широкой теме ). Однако это появляется только в разделах о прокариотах и ​​вирусах — это явно отсутствует в более широком введении и разделе об эукариотах. Согласно максиме количества , неуклюжее предположение заключается в том, что редакторам не нужно судить, будет ли лучше для Википедии отдельная статья, если вид является эукариотом. – Tera tix ₵ 16:56, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
все таксономически описанные виды заслуживают отдельных статей и не должны быть объединены с их родами, это было бы неправильной интерпретацией руководства и должно рассматриваться как таковое. Это всегда попадает под WP:NOPAGE , что является установленным отдельным руководством. Cremastra ( обсуждение ) 16:59, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Это было бы дублированием существующего руководства без причины. Все, что делает и должно делать это руководство, это устанавливает, что виды с действительным/правильным названием считаются примечательными. Известность не требует отдельной статьи. WP:PAGEDECIDE по-прежнему применяется здесь, как и в любом другом SNG, и объединение является редакционным решением, не связанным с известностью. C F A 💬 17:05, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я согласен с вами обоими, что именно это и должно делать руководство. Меня беспокоит то, что оно написано таким образом, что делает неверную интерпретацию неоправданно более вероятной. – Tera tix ₵ 17:20, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Так ли это? Я так не думаю. Сказать, что что-то (что угодно) считается примечательным, значит сказать, что оно, по-видимому, подходит для Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article . (Это перенаправление прямо на Wikipedia:Notability .) Предполагаемая примечательность, согласно WP:N, «не является гарантией того, что тема обязательно будет рассматриваться как отдельная, отдельная страница. Редакторы могут по своему усмотрению объединять или группировать две или более связанных тем в одну статью».
Все темы, которые считаются значимыми (=то, о чем говорится в этом предложении), могут быть объединены по усмотрению/согласно консенсусу редакторов. Но если вас это беспокоит, мы могли бы предложить какой-то текст. Он мог бы быть таким: «Как и в случае с любой другой темой, редакторы могут по своему усмотрению объединять или группировать две или более связанных тем в одну статью». Я бы предсказал, что несколько редакторов выступят против из-за ненужной избыточности в соответствии с Wikipedia:Политики и руководящие принципы#Контент , а большинство вообще не будут беспокоиться ни о чем. Любое точное описание в конечном итоге не будет иметь никакого эффекта, за исключением того, что приведет к появлению нескольких дополнительных слов на странице. WhatamIdoing ( обсуждение ) 17:46, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
Для ясности, я против изменений этого предложения в ходе RFC. Но как только он будет закрыт, если он будет закрыт с принятием (или если этого не произойдет, и кто-то захочет переработать его для второй попытки), тогда его можно будет изменить, расширить, переписать и т. д., как и любое другое руководство. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 17:49, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я рад, что руководства станут немного более избыточными, если это означает, что их позиции по спорным вопросам станут более ясными. Есть по крайней мере один опытный редактор, который явно воспринимает руководство как установление презумпции против слияния вверх, и есть еще несколько, чьи комментарии действительно имеют смысл, только если они понимают руководство как неблагоприятное для слияния вверх. – Tera tix ₵ 02:27, 13 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
@ Teratix : Вы, кажется, !проголосовали три раза в этом RfC, один раз в 'поддержку' и дважды 'против'. Пожалуйста, вычеркните два из этих !голосов. Дональд Олбери 17:36, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я этого не сделал, возможно, вы неправильно поняли примечания, которые я разместил в комментариях других редакторов, чтобы указать, что они были перемещены из VPP, где это обсуждение было кратко продублировано. – Tera tix ₵ 17:38, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Теперь я это понял. Приношу извинения за недопонимание. Дональд Олбери 18:32, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Я просто считаю, что всеобъемлющая база данных таксонов выходит за рамки энциклопедии. Pagliaccious ( обсуждение ) 21:25, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Разве любой источник, документирующий, что вид был принят таксономистами, не является вторичным (а также независимым ), по сути, по определению? Newimpartial ( обсуждение ) 21:42, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Предложение не в том, что «это автоматически или по сути примечательно, потому что существует». Предложение в том, что «это предполагается примечательным, потому что мы можем гарантировать, что об этом написан научный источник».
Кроме того, технически, «только вторичные источники устанавливают значимость в соответствии с WP:GNG ». SNG используют разные подходы, и некоторые (например, NGEO, NPROF) не требуют вторичных источников. Тем не менее, если вы считаете, что все SNG должны требовать вторичные источники, даже если они этого не делают, или даже что этот должен, независимо от того, что делают другие, то это совершенно обоснованное мнение, и редакторы имеют право на свое мнение. В сообществе всегда было большое разнообразие мнений о том, что представляет собой вторичный источник и необходимы ли они для значимости. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 22:10, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]

только вторичные источники устанавливают известность в рамках WP:GNG

Это неточно - см. WP:WHYN
Кроме того, WP:PRIMARY применяется ко всем статьям, и если статья не имеет права существовать в соответствии с основной политикой, мы не должны считать ее значимой, поскольку это приведет к путанице и созданию статей, которые необходимо удалить. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 22:15, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответ ]
WP:WHYN — это не политика (или руководство); это объяснение. WP:PSTS — это политика, и она отмечает, что статьи должны основываться на надежных, опубликованных вторичных источниках , но также отмечает, что является ли источник первичным или вторичным в конкретном случае — это не атрибут самого источника, а скорее связь между источником и утверждением. Независимость — то же самое.
Поэтому я спрашиваю еще раз: разве любой источник, который мы, вероятно, используем, чтобы показать, что вид был принят таксономистами, не является одновременно вторичным (по отношению к идентификации вида) и независимым (от исследователей, открывших вид)? Я склонен ожидать, что соответствующие источники будут иметь эти характеристики. Newimpartial ( talk ) 22:32, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
ПОЧЕМУ это руководство?
И нет, он, скорее всего, не будет ни вторичным, ни независимым. Наиболее вероятным источником, не относящимся к базе данных, который будет использоваться (и по мнению SME, в 90%+ случаев других источников не будет), будет оригинальное описание вида. Кроме того, поскольку оно написано исследователями, которые открыли вид, оно не является независимым от них. BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:54, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Отвечая на ваш вопрос, раздел WP:WHYN , насколько я могу судить, призван дать объяснение остальной части WP:N, а не иметь силу руководства.
Кроме того, я не уверен, почему вы только что указали источник, не являющийся базой данных . База данных RS, которая авторитетно указывает, что вид признан, кажется мне таким же хорошим источником для видов, как база данных RS, которая указывает, что место официально признано и обитаемо, для официально признанных, обитаемых мест. Newimpartial ( talk ) 23:01, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Поскольку согласно WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE , мы не можем зеркалировать базы данных.
Кроме того, базы данных не являются вторичными источниками. BilledMammal ( обсуждение ) 23:08, 12 августа 2024 (UTC) [ ответить ]
Почему базы данных не являются вторичными источниками? Как, скажем, GBIF считается "первичным"?
And is User:WhatamIdoing/Database article indiscriminate? Cremastra (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they’re a repository of primary information. And articles based solely on database sources would be a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE violation. However, this chain has become a little deep, so I will back out now. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the community shares the view that databases are primary sources "by definition", or more precisely, that they are primary sources for all claims that could be cited to them in articles. (This view appears to reflect an assumption that primary or secondary is a characteristic of sources themselves, whereas WP:PST characterizes sources as primary or secondary in relation to specific claims.)
Also, the point of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE is that all information presented on wikipedia must be accompanied by its relevant context. There is actually nothing in the section about databases (except two special kinds of databases: lyrics databases and software changelogs), and nothing in the section discouraging the use of databases in article development. And I for one suspect based on recent discussions that a table of species in a "roll-up" article is more likely to provide decontextualized data (and therefore run afoul of NOTINDISCRIMINATE) than would a short standalone article.
Finally, concerning this additional reply: the view that WP:WHYN is currently understood as placing requirements on article creation that are not expressed elsewhere in WP:N has not been supported by the community any time I have seen the argument made. Therefore I conclude that the section is not intended to have the force of a notability guideline, even though it appears on a guideline page. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught in WP:NPPSCHOOL that data (and databases) are always primary. Nevertheless, I still support this proposal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then NPPSCHOOL is wrong, and see https://omim.org/entry/609423#text for a database entry the single-handedly disproves it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting counter-example. This seems more like an encyclopedia (tertiary) than a database of keys and values (primary). I think the idea that keys and values (data) is always primary is a reasonable position. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Life often also has secondary of tertiary information. Their website has inexplicably crashed, but if you look at an archived copy of their data page for hexapods, you'll see that most, if not all, data are sourced to, and linked to, papers or other databases. Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to say that NPPSCHOOL teaches a number of convenient fictions, about notability and sourcing standards in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I missed it previously; if WHYN isn’t supposed to have the weight of a guideline then it should be in an essay, not a guideline. As it stands it is a guideline, and the consensus of this discussion should be evaluated in that context. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in the distinction between fact and presumption, but I still stand by my own statement prior to that quote: a primary source is not enough to even presume notability. It's my opinion that presuming notability from an established name is erroneous. You're also correct that consensus-driven SNGs overrule WP:GNG, and it's clear that I'm not in the consensus. I hope that my oppose can encourage other editors to reevaluate the proposal, since I believe that it still runs afoul of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDB. I'd most like to hear the opinions of fellow editors on whether this is akin to permitting in writing a comprehensive (accepted) species database within Wikipedia, and especially whether this is within the scope of Wikipedia as a project. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of WP:NPLACE? C F A 💬 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it suffers from the same issue of presumed notability derived from properties of the subject other than its coverage in secondary sources. Pagliaccious (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not everyone agrees on if all articles need to meet GNG. C F A 💬 02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put me down as another person who thinks that WP:GEOLAND has resulted in the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of stubs about places that are not notable in any possible way, and often don't actually exist in the way (or in the place) described in the article. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the reasons I've laid out before. Including:
  1. "Official acceptance" of a species name can involve nothing more than one organization acknowledging that an unreliable, self-published source has primacy in naming rights. It does not verify that what the publication says about the species is accurate, that its proposed taxonomic position is feasible, or that it is even a new species at all. It relies explicitly on other researchers to adopt or not adopt that name via publication of their own secondary coverage of the topic.
  2. There is nothing to suggest that the primary research papers announcing discovery of a new species are any more scientifically reliable, encyclopedic, or impactful than any other research paper. Certainly they are at least as prone to self-promotional efforts as any other discipline, perhaps even more so due to the ability to name innumerable things after yourself. See for example the centuries-old phenomenon of mihi itch: the state of those whose main ambition is to describe new species (or other taxa: subspecies, hybrids, genera, etc.) as a mean to immortalize their names. Consider also the case of amateur herpetologist Raymond Hoser, who has "published" descriptions of hundreds of new taxa on a personal website he calls the Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Many of these taxa have since been reclassified as not new, are noted to contain egregious descriptive and taxonomic errors, have absurd and unscientific names, and/or have been usurped by actual scientists intentionally ignoring naming primacy etiquette due to the aforementioned issues.
  3. Nomenclature codes for different taxa are governed by organizations that have wildly different requirements for formalizing something as a new species, and in fact can have very different definitions of what even is a distinct species in the first place! Inconsistency between nomenclature orgs and the very fluid boundaries between taxa ranks even within one org contribute to the problem of taxonomic inflation: excessive increase in the number of recognised taxa in a given context, due not to the discovery of new taxa but rather to putatively arbitrary changes to how taxa are delineated.
  4. Combining the above, this guideline will endorse the creation of potentially millions of stubs on organisms based on arbitrary definitions of "species" or even outright PROMO fraud, each containing information exclusively sourceable from a single primary article that may have merely been posted on some amateur collector's personal website, and 90% of these topics will never receive direct attention from anyone else in the world, let alone be the subject of any secondary analysis or any validation of the original paper's claims about range, behavior, larval stages, genetics, or any other characters that aren't discernible from the provided type specimen (if one is even needed).
This would be a guideline that actively flouts our policies on primary sources and INDISCRIMINATE and encourages creation of articles completely divorced from any expectation of coverage, scientific importance, or even confirmation of existence. AFAICT the vast majority of supporters of this proposal are completely unaware of these staggering issues, which absolutely should have been disclosed in the proposal so that people actually know what they're !voting for. A new species discovery is not some rare event that must meet reified, objective, validated standards in taxonomic classification; thousands of new species are announced every year, by people ranging from multiple tenured professors to a single backyard amateur, publishing in journals ranging from Nature to un-peer-reviewed vanity journals to self-published websites, based on the testimony of one group, and very frequently only distinguishable from other species by an arbitrary cutoff like 2% divergence in a barcoding gene (or when even 2% is too high, at the level of individual nucleotide substitutions) that does not have any meaningful taxonomic context. JoelleJay (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite hyperbolic and fundamentally misunderstands the proposed guideline. Hoser's names are invalid under the ICZN and would clearly not be independently notable under this guideline. (I was mistaken - Hoser's names are not considered invalid by the ICZN, though they still would not be considered notable under this guideline) I must emphasise that guideline states that species are presumed notable, not that all described species are considered valid and must have their own article - species that are distinguishable only by genetic differences are an obvious case in which upmerging to genus level would be warranted, and nowhere in this guideline is there a mandate for individual articles to exist at all. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoser's names most certainly are treated as valid-until-proven-otherwise under ICZN, which explicitly clarified that they do accept unscientific, self-published, un-peer-reviewed papers such as his for nomenclature claims. This has in fact been lamented in several reliably-published academic articles (emph mine):

In short, the new (and really terribly formulated) taxonomic names that this individual throws out at the global herpetological community represent a sort of taxonomic vandalism; we’re expected to use these names, and – indeed – they’re supposedly officially valid according to the letter of the law, yet they besmirch the field, they litter the taxonomic registry with monstrosities, and they cause working herpetologists to waste valuable time clearing up unnecessary messes when they really should be spending their time on such areas as conservation, biological monitoring, toxicology and the documentation of ranges and environmental preferences.

And since when do AfDs on species require anything more than "meets NSPECIES" to avoid deletion or upmerging? JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I completely mixed up the ICZN's determination on Hoser's names, I will strike that comment. However, I think you have missed something important - this guideline states that accepted species are presumed notable, not guaranteed notable (and, again, notable =/= must have an independent article). In the case of obvious nonsense like Hoser's names, it is very easy to refute their notability. I don't edit in the herpetology space, but we don't seem to have any independent articles for Hoser's dubious taxa now, and that isn't something that would change under this guideline. His work is dubiously (self) published and widely refuted by other herpetologists - this is suitable to refute the presumption of notability. Currently, we trust editors to use their best judgement in matters of dubious taxa, and that is what will continue to happen under this proposed guideline. If you would like to suggest a change to the guideline to more explicitly clarify guidance on species inquerida/unplaced names, your input would be appreciated. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the same paper:

What are these “rules”? As you can see for yourself at the ICZN site, a new name has to be published in a permanent, duplicable form that’s available to others, it has to be clearly stated as a new name, it has to be published within the context of the binomial (or binominal) system, and it must be established on a type specimen – basically, a key reference specimen. Notably, many of the key ideas that we typically associate with the publication of scientific research – like standards of practise, an appropriate level of scholarship, and peer review – are, actually, not required by the ICZN.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethmostigmus: I think there is some confusion about the meaning of "accepted species", which I attempted to clarify in the runup to this discussion. Being "accepted" (or "valid", or what have you) under a nomenclatural Code is necessary (because it forces the author to provide a description) but not sufficient for a species to meet the criteria of the proposal under discussion. Nomenclatural acceptance (i.e., "can we use this name as a label for a species") is not the same as taxonomic acceptance (i.e., "is this group of organisms really a species") which is why the latter and not the former is specified in the proposal. The requirement for taxonomist(s) curating the database to agree that the described species is really novel and not something already known is what filters out most of the things Joelle is objecting to. Choess (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess Which is part of why I am objecting to I do think providing extra guidance on how users should assess the validity of a name is a solid idea. Put very simply: for plants, algae, and fungi, we defer to the guidance of the ICNafp (names listed at IPNI/MycoBank/Index Fungorum), for animals we follow the ICZN (names listed at ZooBank). "Taxonomic acceptance" is something that can really only be determined if other researchers are discussing it, i.e. it receives secondary coverage. If certain taxonomic databases only list a species after there have been multiple publications on it and the curators can give their critical assessment of its validity, then that's great and they should be in the guideline proposal! But I have not seen evidence that this is true for all taxa (IOW, that each taxon is covered by a database that always provides such significant secondary evaluations, citing the source articles), and if it is true then THAT should be the criterion for inclusion because it indicates secondary coverage is far more probable and thus might actually comply with PAGs. But the proposal as it is now implies that simply appearing in ZooBank or whatever, attached to a "reliably-published" description, is by itself necessary and sufficient to "presume" notability. JoelleJay (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t address point 3, but I think that 1 and 2 would be fixed by requiring that the description be non-self-published at the least and not considered unreliable by the taxonomic community. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we know if they are considered unreliable by the taxonomic community if no one else has yet published on them? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Hoser example points to "how we can know". For most taxonomic groups (but not all) there are online authority files, checklists, and catalogs. Some of these are effectively automated, and will include everything, regardless of its merit - e.g., GBIF. However, there are many such sources that are NOT automated, and are instead managed actively by taxonomic experts, and therefore ARE genuine authority files. None of Hoser's names is listed in any of the human-curated herpetological authority files or catalogs, because herpetologists universally boycott his names and do not recognize them as being validly published, despite their technically marginal compliance with the ICZN. Does it require research and specialized knowledge to distinguish between a true authority file and a name-collecting bot like GBIF? Yes, I suppose it does, and that's unfortunate. Still, there are lines of evidence one can use to determine whether the taxonomic community recognizes a species/genus name as valid, so while it is difficult to tell, it is not impossible. TBH, the established policies in Wikipedia that prohibit self-published sources, if applied to taxonomic literature, would do a VASTLY superior job at weeding out the bad taxonomy that has made it into print since roughly the year 2000, when a new wave of self-publishing took off. In that time frame we have seen really awful self-publishing herpetologists, dipterists, lepidopterists, coleopterists, hymenopterists, and more. In a nutshell, and speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, I would endorse the rigorous enforcement of Wikipedia's "no self published sources" (with a potential cutoff around 1999) as a check against the thing you are worried about - that a bunch of species articles could be created referring to the effectively fictional names appearing in self-publishing authors' vanity publications. Dyanega (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least we need to have sufficient content to write an article that is verified by someone else. This does not do that, instead it allows millions of articles to be created based on content that may have been checked by no-one before being published. In the GEOLAND space we have seen many examples of how exactly this kind of content in gazetteers like GNIS and GNS have led to the creation of many thousands of articles about places that don't exist, and which subsequently had to be deleted en masse. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, can you explain what you mean by "based on content that may have been checked by no-one before being published"? So, for example, this proposal specifies that a virus can only be presumed notable if it's already been accepted by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (or if it passes the GNG, but that's unlikely). Acceptance by the ICTV is proven by determining whether it's listed in their spreadsheet of accepted species. The first one in the current list is Alphalipothrixvirus beppuense. The spreadsheet links to a changelog documenting its past: https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202308643 including dates of acceptance and the method by which the approvals happened (e.g., "online meeting" or "email ratification").
Is there anything in that source, or the actions of that scholarly body, that makes you think any virus on their list could fairly be described as "checked by no-one before being published"?
This is not the equivalent of someone generating a list of every place name they've ever found or every athlete they've ever heard of. These are significant scholarly organizations. One of them requires publication in a specific peer-reviewed scientific journal. Surely none of us think that peer-reviewed journal articles are "checked by no-one before being published"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay raises examples above of what are essentially self-published sources from which species could be produced that would pass this guideline. I'm sure the ICTV are a good bunch of people of course. FOARP (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal begins like this: "In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable..."
When someone's claims about a species are being called "vandalism" by the rest of the field, I don't think that sounds like "accepted by the relevant international body". I think I'd use words like "disputed" and "rejected" and "controversial" to describe that situation, but not "accepted". Do you think that having someone's work called "taxonomic vandalism" is a good indication that it's accepted by the relevant scholars? If not, then I'm not sure why you would think that an un-accepted species would pass this proposed guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely are accepted by the relevant international body. This was made even more explicit in 2021, when the ICZN unequivocally confirmed that Hoser's discoveries are regarded as valid and stated herpetologists' voluntary decision to ignore and overwrite Hoser's names "might be a better way forward than a suppression of Hoser's works by the ICZN". That means that any issues with Hoser's contributions can only be rectified if other researchers individually decide to ignore his nomenclature in their own publications on those species. Which necessarily means other people write about them, something that may not ever happen and certainly will not happen at the time the nomenclature meets the proposed criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is accepted as a useable name for publication. That does not mean the taxon is recognised as valid. Bringing up Hoser's fake species as a reason to oppose this proposal when this proposal reflects existing practice, under which Hoser's taxa are not given individual articles not least because he publishes in an unreliable source, is nonsense. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly constitutes recognition of the taxon as being valid in cases where no other researchers have published on it? How are editors supposed to determine that a particular species in ZooBank is "considered valid" by the taxonomy community if the community has not commented on it? Where can I see whether Allengreerus ronhoseri is "valid" on this page? Are we just supposed to know that the journal he published in is an SPS? Hoser is also almost certainly not the only taxonomic vandal out there; the problems with contributions are only noticed if others discuss them, and for some niche taxa that may be decades after they appear on ZooBank (or never). JoelleJay (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know whether Allengreerus ronhoseri is a valid species, you could try googling it - that is to say, doing the kind of basic research any editor would be expected to do when creating any article. This is really not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.
How are editors supposed to determine that a particular species in ZooBank is "considered valid" by the taxonomy community if the community has not commented on it? If a species description appears in a reliable source, it has likely been peer reviewed, and may be presumed notable. If a species description is published in an unreliable source, that is a perfectly good reason to assume it is non-notable under this guideline until it is discussed in a reliable source.
Are we just supposed to know that the journal he published in is an SPS? Yes. Checking if a source is reliable is the first step of including a reference in an article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight:
- An article can be created and survive AFD with "Keep per NSPECIES" as the only rationale if the name is listed by ICZN.
- It can only be deleted if the editor then goes and does what the ICZN themselves doesn't do - check the reliability of the journal from which it was sourced?
Is there any other database that we simply hand the keys of Wikipedia over to in this fashion? Despite knowing that they actually don't check their own sourcing to our standard? FOARP (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to actually understand what the ICZN actually is/does. The ICZN is a code that sets out how we name animal species (nomenclatural rules). It is not a database and it does not give input on the taxonomic validity (ie. whether a species is a new species, or a subspecies of another species, etc) of a newly published name - it just tells us whether or not the name is allowed to be used, it doesn't say anything about the species itself. If my explanation doesn't make sense, give the ICZN article and/or nomenclature codes article a read. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're actually not supposed to base any criterion presumptions off of appearing in the ZooBank database the ICZN administers, despite what you suggested: I do think providing extra guidance on how users should assess the validity of a name is a solid idea. Put very simply: for plants, algae, and fungi, we defer to the guidance of the ICNafp (names listed at IPNI/MycoBank/Index Fungorum), for animals we follow the ICZN (names listed at ZooBank) ...? JoelleJay (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said assess the validity of a name and not "assess the validity of a taxon" for a reason. Those are different things. A synonym is a valid name without being its own taxon. Either you are intentionally trying to misrepresent me and this guideline, or you are betraying a tremendous lack of knowledge of this subject matter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said Regarding taxonomists and where to find them directly before that, in response to a comment asking specifically about “All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists” needs sourcing. Is "accepted by taxonomists" not supposed to mean "taxonomically accepted" but rather "nomenclature is accepted"? JoelleJay (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you view my comment in full and in context it's pretty clear that I was listing the various nomenclatural codes and associated databases as the first port of call when trying to determine the validity of any given species. It is literally the most basic check you can do, hence why I specified they were to be used to assess the validity of a name and said that I was putting it very simply. I quoted SmokeyJoe saying Regarding taxonomists and where to find them to make a joke about Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). Either you misread my comment or you're engaging in bad faith strawmanning. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case you expected everyone else to recognize that your direct response to SmokeyJoe's question--about how to ascertain whether a species is "accepted" in the context of language in the proposal--does not actually answer that question at all, since (as apparently everyone already knows) obviously the ICZN et al only governs the names and does not indicate the species "acceptance", a completely different concept that you did not describe anywhere in that comment... JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a simple set of databases through which one can begin the process of ascertaining the validity of a species, by determining the validity of its name, as the basic first step. It was a general question so I gave a general, basic answer - unlike with plants and viruses, there is no single database that tracks which animal species are accepted, so I chose to keep it simple and just name the nomenclatural codes. Can you please stop hounding me on this and diverting this discussion away from the actual policy? You're wasting both our time. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the above-discussed acceptance of Hoser's names by the ICZN. Please tell me why an article on one of Hoser's additions would not fall within the situation I discussed above? FOARP (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, this scenario you put forward would not happen. A name being nomenclaturally accepted by the ICZN does not make any assessment on its taxonomic validity. Anyone who came to a species AfD and based their vote to keep an article because it is nomenclaturally valid would be betraying the fact that they don't understand taxonomy, let alone this policy (which states that valid species are presumed notable, not that all valid names are notable). We already merge/redirect synonymous names, and we would continue to do so if this guideline passes. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were really concerned about this (assuming the proposal is adopted), we could always add a sentence later like "Raymond Hoser's work on reptile classification, which has been described by one palaeozoologist as "taxonomic vandalism", is a simple example of published work that is not accepted by relevant taxonomic authorities and therefore not considered notable under this guideline". Even if you believe that it is a problem, it is by no means an insurmountable problem.
Also, I think it's worth understanding the scale for this question. There are fewer than 4,000 reptile species. This represents 1/500th of the number of species. I believe that we already have articles on most of the real species and none on Hoser's rejected classifications. Consequently, the practical effect of adding or not-adding such a sentence – or adopting or not-adopting this proposal – on our reptile articles is basically nil. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how do we know it's valid if the scientific community hasn't commented on it at all? Merely being published in RS, even in a peer-reviewed journal, means almost nothing when it comes to the accuracy of the author's descriptions/interpretations/proposed taxonomic placement (it's not like reviewers are personally traveling to visit the type specimen or the original collection site, or repeating the experiments I say I've done, or...). So why exactly should it probably underwent peer review be an acceptable threshold for species notability on Wikipedia if being published in what we call RS has no consistent correlation with whether the actual research community considers the species "valid" (some of the hundreds of taxa Hoser has described are accepted by at least some other researchers, so it's not like being published in vanity press means nomenclature and proposed taxonomy are always ignored/usurped)? Why decide that compliance with WP:RS (a guideline that would include SPS by experts!) is a barrier but not compliance with the policies WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT? Why should peer review, apparently in journals of any quality, be sufficient to establish a species meets WP:N when it most definitely is not for any other scientific topic? JoelleJay (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think a subcommittee meeting approving a request to regularize 111 species names with proper binomial nomenclature is remotely indicative that a species has been "checked" in any meaningful way, let alone in a way that provides verifiable secondary commentary? Their discussion isn't even published! By that standard I could write an article on my F31 proposal (which, it turns out, was founded entirely on completely incorrect data interpretations reported by my lab in Nature) on the basis that it was discussed and approved by a significant scholarly organization? And their discussion on it actually is published... JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to assume that recognized species are of encyclopaedic interest in a sense in which your F31 proposal is not (the same sense in which legally-recognized, inhabited places are of encyclopaedic interest and films that have not entered principal photography, are not).
This is actually a great example of how any purely formal, context-free criterion based on sourcing utterly fails as an indicator of encyclopaedic relevance, at least when it comes to zones at one end or the other of a spectrum of inherent interest. Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes each species "of encyclopedic interest" in a way that each Alexa fluorophore, or each disease-causing allele for a particular gene, is not? If no one else has discussed a topic in their own papers--and, in fact, is even expected to publish on it in the future--and the only external attention it's verifiably received is inclusion in databases/repositories by an academic org, then how exactly can we claim it is encyclopedic? I also was not arguing that my F31 proposal actually meets any sourcing-based notability guideline -- the discussion it garnered is clearly non-independent, among other things -- I was only pointing out that ICTV subcommittee meeting releases are much worse evidence of a topic "having been checked by other people" than even NIH study group feedback on doctoral student fellowship applications. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I can't tell you exactly why the community considers recognized species as being more like legally-recognized places and less like un-made films, when it comes to encyclopaedic interest, but it seems quite clear to be that the community in general holds this view.
If I were to offer a post-hoc rationalization of my own, it would be that the act of recognizing a species - however flawed - imbues the topic with interest, in much the same way as a hamlet without official recognition falls one side of a boundary but a village (even if it is smaller than the hamlet) falls on the other side if it is part of an official geographical hierarchy. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with other commentators that the reason why some people think this about species on here is that they believe cataloguing specieses to be part of a noble mission. In contrast documenting astronomical bodies, chemical formulas etc. is not “noble” in these people’s view. I accept that this is well intended, but it is not building an encyclopaedia, which is necessary a summary of knowledge rather than a reproduction of it. FOARP (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and the history of species AfDs indicates that most* editors feel that species are an inherently encyclopedic topic. It's not about cataloguing (that's clearly not the goal - none of us supporting this proposal intend to have Wikipedia articles for every single species, that's not feasible or necessary), it's about the topic being of use and interest to Wikipedia's readers. When a lay person searches for information on a given species, they are most likely hoping for a Wikipedia article on it that summarises the relevant literature. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"none of us supporting this proposal intend to have Wikipedia articles for every single species" - but this guide basically entrenches the position that we should, that there is no species with an accepted name that cannot be the subject of an article on Wikipedia, regardless of how little is known or written about it.
I also don't accept that "Keep per NSPECIES" votes are really thought-out statements in support of the encyclopaedic nature of species (above asteroids, stars, galaxies, chemical formulas etc. covering which is apparently not a "noble mission"). They are just as easily read as a vote for the proposition that we are not a encyclopaedia for the purpose of covering species, but instead a directory. We had similarly long periods of no Olympians ever being deleted until the community realised what was going on, again with "Keep per NSPORTS" votes being cited in support of that position. We also still have GEOLAND treated as a reason for covering every single geographical entity covered in a Gazetteer, again, regardless of whether there is (or was ever) anything to actually write about. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't say anything about what we should have articles on. It only says what's likely to be accepted (e.g., whatever's accepted by taxonomic authorities) and what's likely to be rejected (e.g., almost everything else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, given the way in which mass-creation works, once an SNG exists that allows the contents of a database to be transformed in to low-quality articles, "likely to be accepted" becomes "impossible to stop".
C46 could (and did) simply point to GEOLAND as a no-further-discussion-needed excuse for what they were doing. See here for a discussion in which GEOLAND is repeatedly-referenced shield for what turned out to be a massive campaign of negligent article-creation that has so far required the deletion of ~20,000 articles (and counting). FOARP (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an apples and oranges comparison. A newly described species has at least one type specimen deposited somewhere for other academics to examine. A species represents real organisms that exist and are (in the case of most eukaryotes, the taxa this proposal presumes notable) observable to anyone who happens to come across them. Species very clearly fall into a category similar to places and landmarks, not astronomical objects or chemicals. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A newly described species has at least one type specimen deposited somewhere for other academics to examine" - JoelleJay has described the numerous instances where this is not true, and provided good evidence for that position. Moreover, since when has possible availability of a sample in a depository not open for consultation by editors been our standard for availability of sourcing? FOARP (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? How is availability of a type specimen different from the plasmids I've submitted to AddGene or the strains I've gotten accepted into official C. elegans repositories? Anyone can order these to examine them (and with the strains they will get live animals genetically identical to the ones I submitted) -- that's the whole point of making sure published reagents are available to the community! And I fail to see the distinction between species and astronomical objects or chemicals when all of them are equally available for other researchers to validate with the methods considered acceptable in that field. Chemicals especially are even more accessible for reproducibility purposes than any type specimen since researchers can literally just synthesize it themselves or ask for a sample of it from the authors without having to travel to the particular museum in Australia that holds the sole physical evidence of its existence. JoelleJay (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know from previous discussions that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT matter for you, but if you can't see the difference between an species of insect and a chemical component, I really don't know what to tell you. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to know that the answer to this is simply to say that this is an WP:ILIKEIT issue for you. I've also got to point out that this proposal includes viruses, something about which there is still a debate of sorts as to whether they are even living organism and not just a very complicated chemical process. Actually I don't know how this standard would treat prions, which are often put on the other side of the "life"/"chemistry" divide. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I think we are both getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory, so I'm going to cool it for a bit - these comments are coming in quite fast an in large numbers and I imagine it is making this discussion difficult to follow. If you reply to this comment, know that I am not ignoring you if it takes a while to respond, or if I don't respond. I'm still reading and considering your comments, I just don't want to be disruptive. Feel free to reach out on my talk instead if there's anything directed at me in particular.)
I actually edit in this area, primarily expanding stubs, so naturally I want there to be official, consistent guidelines on this matter. I support this guideline for a variety of reasons, but me liking biology is the least of those, and there are plenty of taxa that I personally love but do not think are notable enough for individual articles (looking at you, Rutilia species complexes where the individual species are near impossible to differentiate).
I don't see why this proposal including viruses is an issue? Viruses are classified with similar taxonomy to cellular life, so it makes sense to include them - this guideline doesn't attempt to make any determinations about what is/is not alive. I assume (?) prions fall under the similar element(s) mentioned in the virus section, so they should follow WP:GNG under this guideline (as they do currently). Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do explain how each of the millions of species of insects is inherently more encyclopedic--that is, deserving of a standalone, because practically that is exactly what this guideline has always been endorsing--than a new fluorophore or worm strain when the latter can and often do easily have more information in their primary-published descriptions, necessarily have much stronger requirements proving their "diagnosis" as novel (including, for many databases, actually being published in peer-reviewed journals), are much more accessible for reproducibility purposes (literally the construct/animal itself and often its sequence/primer designs must be available after publication), and are curated and summarized in reliable scholarly databases. And what IDONTLIKE are guidelines that actively subvert NOT and PRIMARY, I am extremely consistent across all topics in this regard and it has nothing to do with my feelings on taxonomy. JoelleJay (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Species very clearly fall into a category similar to places and landmarks" - you know that places and landmarks don't get a presumption of notability under NGEO, right? FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my comparison to places and landmarks was in relation to their verifiability and observability, compared to molecules or distant astronomical objects which are not observable by (or especially understandable to) the general public. I know that WP:NEO goes not give a presumption of notability, though it does state: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. This is essentially my opinion of how species article should be handled. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not support a guide that requires the kind of sourcing needed for a landmark (I.e., multiple independent reliable sources)? FOARP (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a part of WP:NGEO that requires multiple sources for landmarks? I genuinely can't find it, apologies if I'm just missing something. The natural features section says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article, but my reading of this is that a single source, if suitably reliable and detailed enough to write an independent article, is generally sufficient.
At the end of the day, I take the approach (informed by WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST/WP:NTEMP) that article content/sourcing is a matter separate from notability. There's also the ongoing discussion over whether species descriptions are primary sources or not, if primary sources should be used at all, if databases are primary or secondary sources or should be used at all... There are a lot of factors to consider here. That said, I don't oppose having some sort of minimum sourcing requirement, for species articles or anything else - I just don't it's something that should be handled by a notability guideline, or something that sinks this proposal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single source is not sufficient to write a stand alone GEOFEAT article, most such articles that end up before AFD get redirected/merged to a more general article as suggested in GEOFEAT. WP:GEOLAND is the SNG that gives a presumption of notability, but that is limited to legally-recognised populated places (and frankly is very problematic). FOARP (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? Do you actually mean to say that if I have an entire book on the history and construction of the a GEOFEAT subject (e.g., the Golden Gate Bridge), you don't think I'd be capable of writing a stand-alone article about that, and it'd end up getting merged and redirected to a more general article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're on the same page, WP:GEOFEAT covers all "Artificial geographical features", specifically including:
  • officially recognized cultural heritage and national heritage features,
  • settlements, administrative regions, and populated places
  • engineered constructs such as buildings
  • infrastructure (e.g., bridges, dams, train stations, road networks)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve been through this particularly on stuff on the registered list in the UK - just being on the list doesn’t give notability. The case were an entire book was published about something by a reliable publisher *and no-one else ever wrote anything about it* is such an edge case it hardly needs discussing (I think even in the GNG space that might be given the benefit of the doubt). FOARP (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually asking about that edge case. I'm asking why you believe A single source is not sufficient to write a stand alone GEOFEAT article. I can write an article with "only" one whole book. I bet you can, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I don't like the alternative of merging weak species articles into articles on genera. Unlike with species, there is nothing biologically fundamental about genera, so their constituent species can change considerably as the fashion changes whether to lump or split. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biological fundamentality of species is easily overstated. They are hard to define, and can also be lumped or split. Our current convention when naming monotypic genera is to choose the genus name, not the species name. CMD (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there can be debate about species boundaries, but the criteria are less arbitrary than for genera, leading to considerably more agreement and stability in this aspect of the taxonomy. I've always thought naming monotypic genera is a barmy policy, but it is not really relevant to the current debate. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also disagreed with the convention in the past, however it seems we are a minority. CMD (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the original species description can often be extensive enough to be well worth summarising in Wikipedia even though no secondary literature exists. Why is this ok for a species discovery article and not for a discovery article for any other scientific topic? Papers on novel astronomical objects, reagents, subcellular bodies, etc. will each have just as much or more encyclopedic information on the topic, and yet we need other researchers to have published their own contextualization of it--and to verify that the claims of the original paper are accurate--to deem it important enough for a standalone page (or to be mentioned at all!). JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The community has clearly shown, with Lugnuts and other cases, that there is no tolerance for out-of-process mass creation" - Getting anything done about Lugnuts took a MASSIVE effort from people (Billedmammals, Reywas92, JoelleJay, FRAM, Mangoe. and myself as well as others) who are saying that we *SHOULDN'T* do this. For many, many years Lugnuts was able to get away with what they did because of SNGs exactly like the one being proposed here. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything stopping someone from doing this right now, given WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES? Is this guideline, reflective of existing practice, actually going to give anyone a new method with which to get away with mass creation, when WP:MASSCREATE and WP:PAGEDECIDE will still apply as they do now? Not sure if I'm missing something, because I just don't see how this guideline will actually change anything in this area. Seems like a matter for WP:BOTPOL, WP:NPP, and/or WP:PERM. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear. Please replace with Lugnuts and other cases with after the Lugnuts ban. Curbon7 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lugnuts ban came after the C46 case, which itself came after all the trouble with Dr. Blofeld. Simply stopping one negligent mass creator creates no barriers against others. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might make sense as an answer if all we had ever done was "simply stopping one negligent mass creator", but it fails to address the point that, unlike in those past instances, WP:MASSCREATE exists and will apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MASSCREATE also existed at those times. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... we're looking at a situation in which one editor definitely violated a legal policy (copyvio) and possibly violated a procedural policy (bot policy) to mass create articles. And we're supposed to believe that adopting a notability guideline will prevent major policy violations? Or that not adopting it will discourage major policy violations?
If someone's willing to violate major policies, I doubt that a notability guideline will make any difference at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding SNGs should provide guidance about use of sources, not provide blanket exemptions from actually needing them: to my eye, the former is what this guideline actually does. For each type of organism, it says where to look to tell if taxonomists have accepted it. This advice is directly helpful to any less-than-expert editor, telling them which sources to look up and when. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe what we're hearing is that less-than-expert editors would prefer to see something more cookbook-like, such as this:
"The only legitimate taxonomic authority for viruses and similar lifeforms is the ICTV. To determine whether a virus has been accepted, go to https://ictv.global/msl and download the most recent spreadsheet listing all of the taxonomically accepted viruses. If it's listed there, it's an accepted species and is presumed notable. If it's not, then it's not." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something like this, at least for the prokaryote and virus sections. Providing guidance for eukaryotes is much more complicated, and will come with caveats ("reliable sources may disagree on taxonomy - editors are encouraged to consult with the relevant WikiProject"?), but I don't think it's totally unworkable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of guidance is useful, as the majority of our editors would probably not know the difference between a valid name and a valid taxon, and referral to lists like these could prevent a lot of pointless bickering (not all, obviously, there will always be edge cases, and sometimes even cases where there is a real issue to sort out) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actual mass creation of articles would be a problem if it happened, but it hasn't actually happened in this area, it isn't favored by this guideline, and the attempt by BM effectively to redefine mass creation to include small-scale manual creation of articles - well, that hasn't met with approval from the community, either. (And yes, my sense of community sentiment is based on having read this entire discussion, as well as its recent antecedents.)
TL;DR - this new SNG should reduce friction without cost to the encyclopaedia, which is exactly what a new guideline ought to do. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications (NSPECIES)

Suggest we close this September 2nd or shortly thereafter

This is just a pro forma statement. The proposal hits 30 days on September 1st, suggest we get this closed approx September 2 or shortly thereafter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently 476 comments from 68 people, or about 1.7 tomats of text, so I don't imagine that it will be closed very quickly after it's posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests. It'll likely take two or three hours just to read everything. It's possible that we'll get a response quickly, but some RFCs wait on the list for a month, especially when they are very long.
The last new person to join the conversation was five days ago, and the previous person was four days before that, so I think it's probably reached its natural conclusion. However, I suggest letting the RFC bot pull the tag, so there can be no doubt about whether a full 30 days has elapsed since the initiation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the dates. It started at the end of August 9th, so it will hit 30 days at the end of September 8th (UTC time). We should wait until the bot removes the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I struck my error. I would also strike it in the section title but that might mess up something. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the list at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. Overall, the discussion has slowed quite a bit, but just in case anyone is wondering, until it's actually closed and summarized, there's no rule against adding a last-minute comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum two sources

Sourcing

For species to be worthy of a standalone article, the usual requirement for multiple independent secondary sources is somewhat relaxed, in favour of two reliable sources, independent of each other, that verify the description of the species, and it’s naming.

My !vote for approval was “premature”. An example of why it is premature is the lack of objective substance. Sourcing is pretty obvious.

Talking to JoelleJay above, I read that a concern is accuracy, people claiming to have discovered and named a species may well do so inaccurately. They may be renaming a variant of another species.

WP:N calls for multiple (two) sources. WP:N calls for these sources to be independent and secondary. This subguideline is weakening the requiring for proper secondary sources. It should not not be weakening the requirement for two independent reliable sources (“2RS” as DGG used to say). 2RS (independent from each other) is a very low threshold that should be held.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, I don't think WP:N calls for multiple sources. The WP:GNG calls for multiple sources. Were you referring to the GNG above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is within N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WP:N also says that meeting the GNG's requirements is not the only way to qualify for an article. I don't mind if someone wants to say "I think we should change our approach and require species articles to comply with the GNG" (or with part of it, in this case), but I object to making it sound like the GNG's requirements apply universally, when WP:N says the opposite: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) – not GNG and SNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the GNG says multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis mine), so requiring multiple sources in all cases is more than the GNG does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And not requiring any secondary sources is way less than what the GNG does. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors opposed to the proposal on the basis that "people claiming to have discovered and named a species may well do so inaccurately. They may be renaming a variant of another species" are clearly not reading the actual proposal, which is on notability of species, not on notability of names of species. Even in cases where a species might have two correct names (synonyms), there would only be one species that these names refer to, and therefore only one potential Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What David said. If I publish a monograph describing 17 common weeds from my backyard as new species named after myself, the names will be "valid" in a nomenclatural sense, but the experts curating taxonomic databases such as Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online will consider my names synonyms of their existing names and redirect to those. They will not be "accepted by taxonomists" in the sense of this proposal. The curator of the database deciding "this name is attached to a group of organisms that are different enough to be a species" versus "this name is attached to a group of organisms that already have a name as a species" is what provides the independent check on the describing author. Choess (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Choess. Which "curated taxonomic databases" should be used as authorities for eukaryotic species? Do you think that it would be possible to include this information in the guideline, especially for editors who are unfamiliar with taxonomics? What should be done in the event that two preferred databases are in dispute? I'm asking because I've seen discussions of this kind in WikiProject Plants (examples from trawling the archives here and here), and I would appreciate some guidance in how to determine the existence of a correct name... or a valid name. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think two things are crossed here. "correct name" and "valid name" are nomenclatural terms. This means (eliding a lot of finicky details) that the name is associated with a specimen, the type, and that it has a description that helps distinguish it from other species, along with various other requirements. That provides no guarantee of taxonomic acceptance—taxonomists might feel that a pre-existing name can be applied to the specimen, and that the new name, though correct/valid, is not necessary. As far as the determining whether a name is taxonomically accepted, that could vary quite a bit depending on the group of organisms. The two databases I named are probably the best resources for vascular plants (although POWO is not good for ferns and lycophytes); I can't speak authoritatively for other groups. For areas where there isn't a clear central database, if someone was trying to demonstrate that a particular species was accepted, I would probably want to see the species treated as real in secondary source(s) (not just a name in a copied checklist), or perhaps a description in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal specializing in the field (where it's been scrutinized by reviewers with the skill to distinguish a new species from a trivial variation). Doug Yanega's comment makes me wary of monographs, even those published by experts in the field. It's really just a special case of the question "Do scientists generally agree that X is true?" and can be argued in the same way; in principle you could cite a bunch of references from the literature to say that the databases are wrong in one particular case, but in practice that seems unlikely.
When there's a disagreement between databases over whether a group of organisms should be treated as two (or more) species or as a single one ("splitting" and "lumping"), I think it's largely a matter of editorial taste. To pull from my own work, about halfway down Myriopteris rufa#Taxonomy is a paragraph discussing how certain populations have been treated as a separate species under a different name. On the other hand, if I was able to write at great length about both species that are sometimes lumped together, I might prefer to keep them separate. The really important thing in such a case is to be transparent to the reader and note which sources lump, which split, and, if possible, the distinction made between the two species by the sources that do split them. This allows us to maintain WP:NPOV when authorities disagree. Choess (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Choess, I appreciate your detailed and thorough response. Pagliaccious (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Choess says, preferred databases vary depending on the group of organisms you're dealing with, and there are a lot of them. Off the top of my head, some taxa-specific resources that come to mind are World Spider Catalogue for spiders, Chilobase for centipedes, Systema Dipterorum for flies, FishBase for fishes... There are also some regional databases, which sometimes disagree with their international counterparts (see Glossodia major - here in Australia, authorities place it in the genus Glossodia, while World Flora Online considers it a species of Caladenia). Some WikiProjects have their own preferred taxonomic sources (for example, WP:BIRDS generally follows the taxonomy set out by the International Ornithological Congress) but most don't seem to provide specific guidance. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is overkill. But I would support Choess' idea above of "being able to describe the species"/what differentiates it from other species (a diagnosis). The problem is how to fold that in to a notability guideline, but that's not that different from the guidance at WP:GEONATURAL. Cremastra (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already the proposed rule. The second paragraph of the proposal says achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication. Therefore, if it qualifies for an article under this proposal, we will always be "able to describe the species". I thought the suggestion here was that an SNG should do more than care about "being able to describe the species" and instead do something closer to "require that notability depend upon whether the description has already been typed into Wikipedia". IMO that's not really the place of a notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's a good idea or not, the RFC is weighing in of the guideline as of the date of the RFC. We can't scramble that now. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC was launch prematurely. It has served to attract editors, so it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing to limit development on the basis that an RfC is running. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I strongly disagree with the proposed "Let's approve the guide and then fix it later" approach. From long experience, it is very, very difficult to fix a guide like this after it has gone in to operation. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing a WP:PROPOSAL in the middle of discussions about whether to adopt it is usually a bad idea. Imagine a world in which someone opposes a proposal and feels like he's losing. How can he force a win? One method that's been tried from time to time is to make a non-trivial change to it, and then try to call into have all prior support !votes invalidated, on the grounds that the proposal is now significantly different from what those editors supported.
There are already ideas for two future discussions (fossil species and whether to create a centralized list of where to find out whether a given species has been accepted), so I don't see why a third would be impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good idea, but has a severe structural problem unless it just a general discussion item for future possibilities. Otherwise, exactly what is it? A proposal to modify a currently non-existent SNG? A proposal to after-the-fact modify the proposal that many people have already weighed in on? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have enough information to know whether this is a good idea, but I suspect that it's not.
Taking the formulation of this idea from @SmokeyJoe above that we want "two independent sources attesting to the species recognised as a species in at least two different places", I think it's, um, probably not based on knowing anything about the subject matter. Here's an example that illustrates why:
  • Fact: The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses is the only (legitimate) taxonomic authority for viruses in the world.
  • Fact: If a species is recognized by the ICTV, then its name and other information will be in a spreadsheet on their website at https://ictv.global/msl
So what would "two independent sources attesting to the species recognised as a species in at least two different places" looks like? I'm not sure. Maybe a paper that says "Look, the ICTV added that new virus to their official list"? And a social media post from an WP:SPS expert that says "I can't believe the ICTV added that new virus to their authoritative list so quickly"? Why would we want that, when we have free, up-to-date access to the official, authoritative list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know about species, and I know about Wikipedia. Is the mindset here that anyone either making or reviewing (AfC, NPR, AfD) new species articles must know these things, with your confidence?
Why are you asserting facts about viruses when this is really about eukaryotes?
Two independent reliable sources? If you don’t know what that looks like, then are you arguing both as a subject matter expert and casual visitor who doesn’t know about sourcing? I think editors who are subject matter experts should definitively not be assumed, but editors who understand reliable and independent sourcing should be assumed. Beyond understanding reliable and independent sourcing, the new article reviewers should not have to know anything beyond what this guideline tells them. At the moment, this guideline does not read as useful to anyone who would come to it looking for useful help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first guideline to use subject-specific terminology. See WP:NASTRO. And I still don't know how h-indexes work for WP:NACADEMIC. C F A 💬 23:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H-index#Definition and purpose.
H-index has been consistently rejected for NACADEMIC. I proposed that H-index < 20 means fails NACADEMIC, and H-index > 40 means passes NACADEMIC. A very simple object metric that covers a lot of bottom end cases, even though it has a huge undetermined zone and at the top end is usually redundant to other criteria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot apply a single threshold for bibliometrics such as h-index consistently across different disciplines with very different citation standards. Almost all high-energy physicists would become notable and almost all pure mathematicians would become non-notable under that standard, not the desired outcome. One cannot apply a standard like "two sources are enough" to GNG consistently across different subjects with very different sourcing standards. Subjects where one source is an in-depth entry in a dictionary of national biography are very different from subjects with multiple local-news puff pieces. It seems that the same desire for a procrustian one-size-fits-all numeric rule, regardless of differences among subjects, is infesting this discussion, despite clear evidence that this makes no sense for some types of organism presented above by WhatamIdoing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That’s your, and others’, reason for rejecting H-index from another SNG. My point is that it is a straightforward metric.
It’s not a desire for procrustian, but for objective, easily determined, criteria, which can be understood by nonexperts.
I think the current text is of no use to non experts.
2RS makes sense for species. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current text is of no use to non experts. And yet, all the technical terms – and sometimes you need technical terms – are linked and glossed. As I showed below, the text can be easily understood by clicking on two links, which surely isn't too much work. Taxonomy can be complicated, but it can also be explained, and we have some good articles doing just that. Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text requires clicking on links to be understood. The text should be expanded to be useful on a simple reading. More clarity, less brevity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, it is a proposal to insert a meaningful objective criterion into the SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be done when editors have already voted in favour of the existing proposal? You'll have to wait for this RfC to end to propose major changes to it. C F A 💬 22:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So, a RfC is pseudo protection.
The resistance to requiring two independent reliable sources is astounding. It amounts to editors supporting: Articles on species need only a single source. No requirement for secondary source material. No requirement of independence.
This proposed SNG is absurd, unsupportable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRV. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
This proposal, not requiring two independent sources, is incompatible with WP:NRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you would rather try to ram through a more stringent guideline which would probably fail, so that we'd end up with the current bizarre situation of a de facto SNG? Cremastra (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requires two independent reliable sources is too stringent? Absurd.
I would rather guidelines contain objective guidance for the non expert. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine a requirement for two independent sources, but I'm struggling to imagine why we would want the specific part about attesting to the species recognised as a species in that requirement.
Imagine, e.g., that the community created a rule saying "Every US Census-designated place is presumed notable", and someone comes along and says "That's a good rule, but you need two independent sources that attest to the fact that the US Census actually designated this place. You can't be sure that the United States Census Bureau designated this place just on their own say-so. I mean, what if the government is wrong, or lying, or incompetent, or something, and they listed places on their own website as being recognized by their own agency, but they didn't actually recognize them? You really need to have independent sources to know whether that government agency actually designated that place as a census-designated place."
Or that the community created a rule that said "Every US National Historic Landmark is presumed notable", and an editor says "It's not good enough to look at the official list https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/list-of-nhls-by-state.htm If you really want to know whether the federal government designated a place as an official, federal-government-recognized National Historic Landmark, you're better off looking in local newspapers, because they're independent."
But that's basically what you wrote here: Viruses are recognized by the ICTV, and the ICTV provides a complete list of all recognized viruses, but you wrote that you'd like to have two independent sources attesting to the species [being] recognised as a species by the ICTV. If the goal is to "attest that the species has been recognized", then why not rely on the authoritative source?
I could imagine preferring a two-part system, e.g., "recognized by the appropriate taxonomic authority and for which editors could find at least two reliable sources about the species in general (i.e., not specifically attesting to whether the taxonomic authority recognizes the species)", but this thing about wanting independent sources "attesting to" the official action being taken, and not accepting the official action itself, is not a sensible idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the attesting part then. It was only meant to suggest some bare minimum of content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the proposed guideline exclude non-experts? All technical terms are either linked (eukaryotes) or glossed.
I am not a subject matter expert, and reading the sentence Non-accepted species, including operational taxonomic units, prokaryotic species with a provisional or candidatus name, and newly described species, should be considered under other notability rules I find myself a little confused. But after just skimming the lead of operational taxonomic unit (something I hadn't previously heard of), and looking at Candidatus, I understand the sentence much better. Cremastra (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cremastra. I am also not a subject matter expert, but I am still confused by the current guideline. The lead reads all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable. How am I or other non-experts meant to determine what the relevant international body of taxonomists is, or how to determine that acceptance? Furthermore, the key publications relied upon for taxonomic acceptance, and often many other sources, can be found in many species databases. What are those key publications, and which species databases are preferred? I've brought this up in other parts of this RfC, and I have had some helpful answers to these questions, but my real point is that it's reasonable to expect other non-experts to be confused as well; I think that any other non-expert would appreciate this information within the actual guideline. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pagliaccious, the existing guidance says:
"Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016."
Do you find the proposal more helpful or less helpful than the existing advice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing guidance isn't a guideline. It doesn't matter whether it is more or less intelligible than the proposal. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcuts to the existing advice have been clicked on about twice a day for the last couple of years, and there are 400 pages linking to them, which is kind of a lot for something that "doesn't matter". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion, you can try asking at a WikiProject. I was working on some articles about snails last year, and found sources giving variant species names, so I asked here and received a useful answer. You may not get a useful answer every time, but it never hurts to ask at a WikiProject. Donald Albury 21:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Donald Albury. I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I was asking mostly rhetorically. Most people in the different Biology WikiProjects are exceedingly helpful and kind, but I think that it would be unreasonable to expect the average non-expert editor to ask for this information whenever they refer to this proposed guideline. Instead, I think it would be very helpful to ask each WikiProject and consolidate this information for the purpose of this guideline, or at least have some kind of guidance for non-experts. Again, I appreciate your response, and I did not mean to mislead you by asking. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking of this proposal as being primarily aimed at editors who don't write articles on this subject? Are you thinking that the key point of an SNG is to tell someone with no knowledge or interest in the subject area how to quickly figure out whether to approve a page in the Draft: namespace or send an article off for deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WhatamIdoing. Certainly I am thinking of editors who write articles on this subject. I have both knowledge and interest in the subject area, I have created articles in the subject area, and I still think that the guideline needs improvement. However, should we expect that the condition of the notability of an article is only accessible to editors who are intimately familiar the the subject, or make it accessible to anyone? Suppose that you're a newbie who doesn't understand why their article has been deleted. I think that the reason should be clear rather than obscure. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have created an article about a species (whether real, purported, or imaginary), I would hope your research into the subject informed you about whether the species is accepted as an actual species by the scientific community.
If it's deleted at AFD, I would expect the editors there to explain why it wasn't suitable. Editors have been doing that at AFD for years now, and I have no reason to believe that is likely to change. If it's not deleted at AFD, then it's probably not being deleted for any reason relevant to notability.
On the more general point, one editor has warned multiple times about redundancy. Another editor has said that the whole proposal should be reduced to a single sentence. The proposal is currently seven paragraphs, and it already has some redundant parts. It sounds like you would like it to be much longer and to provide a more cookbook-level of detail. I don't feel strongly about the ideal, but I do hope that everyone can see that it's 'physically' impossible to accommodate both the "too long" and "too short" viewpoints in the same page.
Because the community's tendency towards instruction creep, I expect the proposal (if adopted) to accumulate more detail over time. It might be someone assembling One List to Rule Them All, or it might be a dozen people adding "just this one little detail", but it's very rare for notability pages to get shorter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring two, or three, or any number of "independent reliable sources" doesn't actually provide "objective guidance". First of all, even if the question of which sources qualify as "independent" and "reliable" were absolutely clear-cut, picking some number as a threshold is still a subjective preference. One doesn't sound like enough, three seems too demanding... One can measure volume with a scientific instrument, but Goldilocks' favorite size of porridge bowl is a matter of taste, not a law of nature. Second, we can and do argue over "independence" and "reliability", and the best we manage is a consensus of those who show up.
The same goes for trying to put numbers to academic notability. Even if there were no ambiguity in computing an h-index, for example, the question of where to draw the line is always going to be a judgment call. And digging a level deeper, it turns out that there is ambiguity in how to compute an h-index. Scopus will give a different number than Google Scholar because the corpus of the latter is less restrictive. There will always be fuzz in citation profiles, cases where reasonable people can differ about what should be counted and how. The answers may even vary from one field to another. Drawing a hard numerical line may provide a comforting illusion of objectivity, but it is not feasible. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective, at the SNG level. “Reliable” is rarely controversial for databases. “Independent” might get tricky. AfD can decide.
H-index is simple and straightforward. SCOPUS and google scholar give slightly lower and higher numbers, but they never flip from 20 to 40. Numerical lines make it easy to reject PhD graduates self promotion as meeting NPROF, no call for “hard” lines, except two sources is a big step beyond one source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring all articles to have titles that include the letters "s" and j" is absolutely objective, and absolutely meaningless for whether the result will be encyclopedic. Your numerology is of a similar type. The fact that you can quantify something does not make that quantification a useful thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a single source and two sources is not numerology. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't call it numerology, but it does suggest that two weak sources are better than one stellar one, which is IMO not a good tradeoff.
Also, you say above that you are looking for "some bare minimum of content". Does this mean that you want notability to be determined by what's already been typed into the article, rather than what sources are available in the real world?
If an example would help, look at User:WhatamIdoing/Database article. There's one inline citation and one ==Further reading== source. Is that enough for you? Would one of those be enough for you? If none were typed on the page, would that be enough for you, since they obviously exist in the real world? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source must have some bare minimum of content.
Entomocorus benjamini. Multiple source exist, so it would be a “keep” from me at AfD. I would WP:SLAP the nominator because multiple sources are easily found by a google search.
Your database article, on its face, would fail. It needs improvement not deletion or redirection (upmerging). Luckily we have WP:BEFORE, and I wish that following was mandatory.
It fails because the further reading “source” doesn’t mention the fish by name. This further reading source, if it did mention the fish by name, is slightly complicated by it being a Wikipedia article, which for me means having to check that the mention is in one of that article’s references.
So, its two independent reliable sources must exist. And I am happy for NSPECIES to go soft, explicitly, on requiring secondary sources, and on the amount of content in the sources, especially the lesser source.
Also, I happen to be in the camp of “all extant animal and plant species are presumed notable”. Challenging examples will be single celled eukaryotes, such as a species of yeast or algae named in only a single scientific paper. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand part of this comment.

the further reading “source” doesn’t mention the fish by name. This further reading source, if it did mention the fish by name, is slightly complicated by it being a Wikipedia article, which for me means having to check that the mention is in one of that article’s references.

The further reading definitely mentions the fish by name, and isn't a Wikipedia article at all. Are we looking at the same thing? Cremastra (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ==Further reading== source is a paper published in a notable peer-reviewed academic journal article (volume 11, pages 398 through 404, just like it says). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, my apologies. I took the wikipedia article Carl H. Eigenmann to be the further reading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WAID’s example is enough for me. The further reading is a valid source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under this proposal, in order for a supposed species to be recognized as notable, someone has to describe it and differentiate it from other species, publish the description in proper form, and expert(s) have to agree that the first person did in fact find and describe a new species that is different from other species (which they might do by accepting that species in the database that they control). I feel that those conditions address both the verifiability and the independent confirmation of the species. It sounds like you're unhappy with the proposal in part because it doesn't give actionable guidance to new page patrollers, who won't necessarily understand the subtleties of "taxonomic acceptance"; is that something you'd like to see addressed? Choess (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing GNG-compliance.
The only occurrence of “describe” on the project page is non applicable to what you’re saying. I do not find “differentiate” anywhere on the project page. It sound like you’re reading way beyond what the proposal actual is. Do you read “significant description” as “describe it and differentiate …”, including the part about “expert(s)”??
Yes, I am not approving of an SNG that doesn’t give actionable guidance to non experts (AfC, NPP, AfD). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like your statement could be shortened: you would not approve any SNG. Because what you want is GNG and GNG only, and there is no point in having an SNG that merely repeats GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would approve of this SNG if it held to 2RS, and if it listed the relevant authoritative databases, and if it were rewritten in a style that reads as useful to the non expert to assess whether a new article complies. It is currently way too brief, bordering devoid of useful content.
The GNG does give the usual standard for inclusion. I approve of NPROF. All other SNGs I read as predictors of GNG compliance.
Approving this SNG would be a big thing, documenting that species do not require GNG compliance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that a database entry in a "relevant authoritative database" counts as one of the "2RS" that you would like? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, leaning “yes”. But not if the database automatically includes the entry on the basis of a single report, and that single report is the first RS. That would not be independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So given a situation in which:
  • A paper is published in a scientific journal that provides a description of a (purported) new species. The description in the paper is sufficient for an expert to differentiate the new species from other known species: "Wikipedia wikiensienne is a species in the Wikipedia genus that is exactly like all the other Wikipedia species except that it has a unique..."
  • A designated committee of experts meets periodically and votes on which of recent publications should be accepted as valid species.
  • The committee (for this species) votes in favor: "Resolved, to accept Wikipedia wikiensienne in Noble order as a valid species, with the paper by WhatamIdoing 2024 for authority".
  • Someone (e.g., a staff member working for the committee) records this fact in a publicly accessible database. The ones the committee rejected do not get recorded (or perhaps they get recorded as having been rejected).
then you'd consider that to meet your 2RS goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if the Wikipedia editor only looks at the database – but the database cites the original paper – that's still 2RS, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t ever tell editors that it’s technically acceptable that to not include the references because they only need to exist. Tell them to include the database, as a reference or as an external link. Please don’t expect that AFC and NPP reviewer will do their own searches to discover the existence of the minimal sourcing.
NB This is very weak “independence”, not nearly good enough for WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t ever tell editors that it’s technically acceptable that not include the references because they only need to exist. I have to agree with this one. Let's not encourage "but the sources are out there!" editing. If there are references out there to support notability – great! Put them in! I've always found the fact that we need a {{sources exist}} tag somewhat depressing. But this is a tangent away from the central discussion. Cremastra (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see {{sources exist}} instead {{notability}}. Triage is helpful, even if spamming in a source or two would be much, much, much more helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one telling them that sources only need to exist; WP:NEXIST is telling would-be deleters that. Also, if this gets adopted, I don't think that AFC and NPP folks need to do any searches at all. All the reviewer needs to know is that the article was accepted by the group named in the guideline, so it's presumed notable. Also, from their POV, nothing's changing. The (few, and 100% unsuccessful) attempts to delete articles covered by this proposal were not coming from AFC and NPP folks. Several of them came from editors who saw whingeing about how it's totally unfair that two-sentence species articles are accepted because they're just not that important, but experienced AFC and NPP folks seem to know what the community's standards are.
What I described in those bullet points above is the process used by ICTV. It is literally impossible – and I mean literally quite literally, as in "according to the letter of the regulations" – for a virus to be accepted by the ICTV without at least two reliable sources having been published. If there is acceptance by ICTV, then there are always two reliable sources. The existence of the chronologically later/ICTV acceptance proves the existence of the earlier/scholarly source.
So when you say that this whole virus thing is terrible, because we need 2RS, I'm left wondering whether you understand the proposal, because the proposal actually guarantees a minimum of 2RS. Those 2RS might not be separately listed in the Wikipedia article (which is its own problem), but the proposal guarantees that 2RS has been met in the real world for all covered viruses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, what I do is monitor WP:NPPEASY#Unreviewed species articles. I check if the species has been accepted and is not a synonym of an existing article, then stub sort (if applicable) and add WikiProject tags, before marking as reviewed. There are quite a few NPP reviewers that do this so I don't think we're worried about this proposal (as it doesn't change anything). Species articles are usually reviewed within a few hours of creation. C F A 💬 16:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Species are an unwritten SNG. They are always kept at AFD, so you can assume they are notable. Make sure it's not a hoax by checking the species name on a website such as CoL.”
Assuming that the Catalogue of Life is a reliable authoritative database, Wikipedia:NPPEASY#Unreviewed species articles reads to me as ensuring WP:2RS. Allow for “hoax” to be read as “mistake” to the same effect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the virus part implies 2RS, then why resist inclusion of it as a requirement?
Who (where) says the whole virus thing is terrible? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's already there? The second paragraph says that there's always an academic paper. The virus section says that an academic paper isn't enough for viruses, and you need to have ICTV approval as well. I count real well up to two, and one academic paper plus one ICTV approval = two sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were a proponent of clear and simple writing. You’re defending the text on the basis that it’s authors are able to decipher implications of simple principle like 2RS.
While the RfC WP:Soft protection is at work, should I take up another Kim Bruning suggestion, let’s set up a wiki to do edit proposals? Should I fork the project page to a subpage, where we can freely edit it make it clearly read what you say it says? Some time in the future, it can be history merged.
Or can we have the RfC point to a particular version in the history?
I’ve now read this talk page and archive from the start. This is a case of groupthink by the few main authors of the page, supported by some others with a noncritical wish that the SNG would just exist already. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is actually clear and simple. If you have 2RS, but one of the two is not the ICTV, then this guideline is not for you. If you have the ICTV approval, then you have 2RS.
What it doesn't do is swear fealty to the principle of 2RS. It merely enforces it without professing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear.
ICTV? I’m not much concerned about the viruses. I’m more concerned about the single-celled eukaryotes.
When a new SNG discards requirements of significant content and secondary source content (de facto already done), it really should be clear that it does still hold to multiple independent reliable sources. “Profess” is a tad grandiose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of groupthink by the few main authors of the page, supported by some others with a noncritical wish that the SNG would just exist already. This is an uncharitable and frankly unnecessary comment. Those who've supported this proposal have largely done so on the basis that it reflects existing practice. I appreciate your concerns about the proposal and all the feedback you've given, as I believe you are participating in good faith, but diminishing the intelligence of all the other editors involved in this discussion is entirely uncalled for. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{od}

The new SNG does not discard requirements of significant coverage in the sources. The new SNG requires significant coverage in an academic source.

Getting a species accepted requires a significant description in an academic source. Depending on the sub-field, there may be additional requirements (such as physically delivering the organism to a designated storage facility), but there is always a significant description. Ergo: If the species is accepted, then SIGCOV is always met.

This proposal requires the species to be accepted; therefore, it requires the existence of a significant description in an academic source. We could, if it would reassure you, write something like "This guideline requires SIGCOV. For the purposes of this subject area, SIGCOV is defined as the description that was used by the taxonomic authority to determine whether to accept it as a species. Note to AFC and NPP folks: No legitimate taxonomic authority accepts a species as valid without such a description being published in an academic source, but a lot of these are paywalled or otherwise difficult to access quickly, so a 100% reliable shortcut to finding out whether a significant description has been published is to find out whether the taxonomic authority has accepted the species."

Instead, we've summarized this without the jargon: This guideline uses the taxonomic acceptance of the species' name as a simple and practical indicator of the existence of published sources, because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication. Note the pair of words that I highlighted for you.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m repeating myself, but that’s a 46-word disguised-passive-voice sentence. It may be pleasing to its subject expert authors and jargon-free, but it’s textbook bad instruction. I hope it will be allowed to be made more accessible after the passing of the RfC. The longer version is convoluted with implied oblique referencing. It is not better. Try to make each sentence short, direct and actionable.
What is a definition of “significant description”? How does that compare with WP:100W?
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, SmokeyJoe, would something like this meet what you would be looking for with WP:100W? Because that is an example of one of the shorter and abbreviated forms of description of a species in the scientific literature. At around 150 words, depending on how you count them, it should qualify as significant coverage, correct? SilverserenC 04:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would satisfy me.
However, whatever the measure, I would prefer it to replace the nebulous “significant” SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significant description is defined by the reliable sources. If it's not enough to do the job (which is determined by depth of detail, not a simplistic word count), the taxonomic authorities won't accept it. If the taxonomic authorities don't accept it (whether for inadequate description or any other reason), then this proposed SNG also doesn't accept it. That said, as an example, the original adoption of Alphalipothrixvirus beppuense (which was recently renamed, and is now alphabetically the first in the ICTV spreadsheet) was accompanied by about 900 words and five figures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you run with 150 words of description? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example taxonomic description contains enough information to distinguish the species from other known members of the genus, which should be enough to count as significant description. Some species need more details, others may need less. For additional highly significant information on the species, the next higher taxon description can be added. Rinse and repeat until you reach the top level. That would be a full description of any species of living organism, and it has all been published and is theoretically available. This is enough to satisfy taxonomists that the species is unique, and could be considered the definitively significant information on the species. What more could be necessary if taxonomists consider this sufficient? All the rest is just the interesting stuff. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that taxonomists consider these descriptions sufficient? There is no requirement for peer review or even publication in an academic source for an animal species to become a valid name in the ICZN. There is no evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation until someone else publishes on it, but that is not required by this proposal at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true enough. Most people accept a description on the assumption that the author was competent and lucky enough to spot enough distinguishing features to write a workable description good enough for practical purposes within the state of the art at the time. There is always more that can be said, and often it is necessary to revise a description that has worked well enough so far but under further examination is no longer sufficient. This may occur several times, and a description is always open to review and possible revision as long as a type specimen is available. Where do we draw the line? Currently accepted/recognised species imply that at least some experts consider the description notable enough by their standards to include in their lists for now. We can indeed choose to stipulate a more stringent requirement for notability of an organism, but do we need to? If so, why do we need to? I would vastly prefer small amounts of content on a species to be included in an article providing some context, but sometimes there isn't one yet. At the least there should be a redirect for every registered valid name and an entry somewhere for every valid taxon which would be a target for the relevant redirects. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation until someone else publishes on it Putting it on an official listing or database is publishing an evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation. The relevant question for us is whether it is sufficient, which is also a question of whether we consider the list or database reliable. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it on an official listing or database is publishing an evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation. Is it? The ICZN is regularly criticized because it explicitly does not evaluate the scientific merit of a species discovery when making a name available. And while the ICZN requires that names be published, as defined by the commission’s official Code, “publishing” doesn’t actually require peer-review. That definition leaves room for what few would call science: self-publishing. “You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so,” Doug Yanega, a Commissioner at the ICZN, told me. “No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” ... Vandals have zeroed in on the self-publishing loophole with great success. Yanega pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit. Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema, which he started in 2006 as editor and main contributor. ... Publications like these let bad science through, taxonomists say. According to them, vandals churn out names of so-called “new species” in their journals, often when the scientific evidence to support a discovery is lacking. And if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that it is publishing, that it is an official opinion on the validity by default. You say it is often unreliable. This may be so. The two points are not mutually exclusive. We have to draw a line somewhere, and verifiability not truth is currently one of the lines we have drawn. I don't necessarily think it is a good one, but it may be the best we can get. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomists and the ICZN itself unequivocally consider such "journals" to be self-published.
Wikipedia considers self-published sources to be unreliable unless they are by very well-regarded experts, which is not going to be the case for anyone who had to set up their own personal blog just to get published and certainly does not apply to anyone considered a taxonomic vandal. Verifiability requires publication in reliable sources, which means any details sourced to the original publication (i.e. pretty much everything needed for an article to be a stub) are by definition unverifiable. We have an ICZN commissioner stating that these sources are un-peer-reviewed glorified blogs and that the ICZN does not perform any evaluation of scientific merit before making a name "valid". We have dozens of actual academic articles discussing how this is a major problem in animal taxonomy and how it has resulted in literally thousands of unscientific "new species" cluttering taxonomic databases that can only be fixed if/when actual scientists independently publish on those species and choose to ignore the principle of priority (or, more often, discover the self-published species are actually messy junior synonyms).
What more evidence do you need that merely "having a valid name" is not remotely in line with Wikipedia policy? JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - procedurally, any proposal to add new language specifying a minimum number of sources for articles in the domain of NSPECIES needs to be made after the SNG proposal RfC has been closed, one way or another. The implications of adding any such language depend on the nature of the close (i.e., whether we have a new SNG or not). Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't change the RFC question at this point, but I don't think we have to stop talking about it. SmokeyJoe appears to have a genuine (if likely misplaced) concern that scientific descriptions of organisms might be too short to write an article about. Editors are also accustomed to seeing SNGs that use more Wikipedia jargon, so they might naturally be suspicious about whether an SNG written in ordinary English is trying to lower our inclusion standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m more concerned that, despite your confidence that the convoluted high language text already implies it all, that someone will start creating species articles based on a single report that is scraped into a comprehensive database. While you seem very confident that this couldn’t happen for a virus, I am unconvinced that this generalises to all species of all kinds, and I want to lock in that the non existence of multiple independent sources is a good reason to delete a challenged species, whether a hoax, mistake, or fantasy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're saying that the original publication + an entry in the canonical database for its subject are not two sources? But above you said they were. Which is it? And for all your concern for objectivity, the meaning of the word "independent" is one of the least objective parts of GNG. Are the original publication + an entry in the canonical database independent of each other? Are a publication and another publication that confirms the species independent? Or can "independent" mean only its usual meaning for independent discovery in the academic literature, that two different groups of biologists working without knowledge of each other happened to find the same thing and that only after their two publications was it discovered that it really was the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is it? One is a database curated by humans who decide to include a new species. The other is a database that scrapes data from the literature and includes everything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independence may be a challenge to agree on, but I think it’s important that any topic have two independent sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re asking good questions about independence. I think there are choices to make. For species, I support a generous interpretation, while for NCORP I support a harsh interpretation. But that’s a tuning question, when there isn’t agreement that one is not enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now with this discussion of interpretations you agree that your earlier claim "Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective" is false? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective, at the SNG level. “Reliable” is rarely controversial for databases. “Independent” might get tricky. AfD can decide was poorly written, especially if the first sentence is to be quoted in isolation.
Requiring two sources is objective. Two, not zero, not one. A new species should require a minimum of two sources.
These two sources should be independent and reliable. “Independent” and “reliable” may be debatable, not objective.
One source should be significant coverage, for which I would much prefer something objective. I would accept 100 or 150 words, and don’t want to argue with others who might want this to be tougher. I do not argue that the second source needs to have the same significant coverage. The second source only needs to verify the first, by which I mean, to be evidence that someone else has accepted the first source.
The big thing being dropped in this SNG is the usual requirement for sources to be secondary sources, the historiographical term. I support this dropping, unlike others on this talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Two sources" is objective, but "two independent sources" is not necessarily objective. But, as I feel like I have explained multiple times now, this proposal does require "two sources". The two required sources are:
  1. the original significant description of the species in the academic literature, and
  2. the published source proving that the species has been accepted by the relevant taxonomic authority (usually a database entry).
As I said above, I count real well up to two, and that's two sources. The existence of the second requires the publication of the first. Therefore, if the second exists, then at least two sources – (1) the original academic paper plus (2) the subsequent taxonomic acceptance – WP:NEXIST.
If you believe that you have found an instance of a species being accepted by a taxonomic authority without anyone first describing that species in a prior publication, please share that information with us.
If you believe that two sources isn't really two sources, then please explain how, e.g.
  1. An academic publication
  2. A database entry
are just one source.
The points of subjective debate include:
  • whether those two are independent of each other;
  • whether the first is independent of the species (at least one editor has argued that the discovery of species is a self-promoting COI situation); and
  • whether the original field notebooks and the original academic publication are both primary sources ("MEDRS rules") or if the field notebooks are primary and the publication based on those original notes is secondary (original PSTS rules).
But none of those are about whether a century-old publication and a database entry are "one source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s what the SNG means, then why not have it state it plainly? Will you always be around to explain it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy if we added a sentence that said, "Just to reassure editors looking at this from a GNG mindset, if the taxonomic authority has accepted the species, then there are definitely at least two reliable sources"?
The rule as proposed requires not "any old two reliable sources", but a very specific "second" source. It is more restrictive than 2RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. NB I am already happy that on a thorough explanation, the SNG is not nearly as lax as I found it on my first few readings. And I would be very happy if it listed the authoritative or canonical databases, and helped me easily identify the opinions of taxonomists. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please amend this blatantly false claim if the taxonomic authority has accepted the species, then there are definitely at least two reliable sources"? JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I think the taxonomic authority should be defined, on the SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not describe another editor's arguments as blatantly false? Cremastra (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how the claim is false beyond reasonable doubt. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe JoelleJay thinks she has already done that, repeatedly. If I were her, I think I'd be feeling extremely frustrated at this point – rather Cassandra-like, in fact. I doubt that there is any value in her repeating herself at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may also be an instance where "reliable source" is used to mean "a source that is correct" or "a source that a particular editor accepts as reliable", rather than "a source the community regards as reliable for the claims that are sourced to it". Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatantly false" is a strong claim that should not go unchallenged. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood, @Cremastra, see my comments today. The only criteria needed for the ICZN to deem a species name "valid" is for it to be "published" (and this explicitly includes un-peer-reviewed self-publication by amateurs who are widely considered vandals), follow standard binomial naming conventions, and merely purport to diagnose a new taxon. As I quote elsewhere: “As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid”. There is no assessment by ICZN beyond that: “You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so. ... No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” That is a direct quote from an ICZN Commissioner.
A species sourced solely to someone's glorified blog and its listing on ZooBank would therefore meet NSPECIES, and since this proposal further encourages stub expansion through incorporating primary-sourced details on its characteristics, we could host substantial material written in wikivoice that is sourced solely to un-peer-reviewed, unscientific SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A species sourced solely to someone's glorified blog and its listing on ZooBank would therefore meet NSPECIES No, it wouldn't. You're misrepresenting the proposal and you're misrepresenting the role of the ICZN. ZooBank is a database of published names, not a taxonomic authority, and is not sufficient taxonomic acceptance under this proposal. Interesting how you've decided to share a quote from this article[24] while ignoring the comments of another ICZN commissioner, @Dyanega, who has participated in this very discussion and says: For most taxonomic groups (but not all) there are online authority files, checklists, and catalogs. Some of these are effectively automated, and will include everything, regardless of its merit - e.g., GBIF. However, there are many such sources that are NOT automated, and are instead managed actively by taxonomic experts, and therefore ARE genuine authority files. None of Hoser's names is listed in any of the human-curated herpetological authority files or catalogs, because herpetologists universally boycott his names and do not recognize them as being validly published, despite their technically marginal compliance with the ICZN. [...] In a nutshell, and speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, I would endorse the rigorous enforcement of Wikipedia's "no self published sources" (with a potential cutoff around 1999) as a check against the thing you are worried about - that a bunch of species articles could be created referring to the effectively fictional names appearing in self-publishing authors' vanity publications. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this proposal doesn't require anything beyond a name being valid according to the ICZN for a species to meet NSPECIES. The ICZN says The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission. We have taxonomists explaining that that means an available name is valid until other taxonomists choose to boycott it in their own publications. I agree with Dr. Yanega that we should not accept self-published sources, but currently the proposal completely ignores the fact that a species can have a valid name without being reliably published. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPS that the scientific community considers unreliable are obviously not reliable sources, but the ICZN still deems species published in them "valid" because the Code was created before self-publishing became easy and they haven't updated it.
“You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so,” Doug Yanega, a Commissioner at the ICZN, told me. “No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” ...
Vandals have zeroed in on the self-publishing loophole with great success. Yanega pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit. Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema, which he started in 2006 as editor and main contributor.
“He has his own journal with himself as the editor, publisher, and chief author,” Yanega says. “This is supposed to be science, but it’s a pile of publications that have no scientific merit.” (In response to questions about the legitimacy of his journal, Hawkeswood delivered a string of expletives directed towards his critics, and contended that Calodema has “heaps of merit.”) ...
Publications like these let bad science through, taxonomists say. According to them, vandals churn out names of so-called “new species” in their journals, often when the scientific evidence to support a discovery is lacking. And if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. JoelleJay (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see anything in this proposal suggesting that a species is notable in the case where the publication proposing the species designation is regarded as unreliable or as vandalism? Because I don't.
Like all presumptions to notability, this one is rebuttable, and a demonstration that the species name has been proposed by and is solely used by a taxonomic vandal, would be an effective rebuttal of the presumption, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ray Hoser's taxonomic sins are legion, even if the names are deemed as accepted by the ICZN. By publishing in his own non-peer-reviewed journal, he has named over 2300 taxa in the last 25 years. The science behind these new species descriptions has been deemed insufficient at best and flat out incorrect in other cases. However, the scientific communities as reflected in their respective authoritative databases (yes, "databases" - but ones with editorial boards that review their entries) have decided not to accept such taxonomic vandalism.
His work also serves as a test case for the current concerns of our use of poorly supported (but technically "accepted") names as a basis for an article, or even a mention on (English) Wikipedia. Over the last week, I have reviewed over half all of Hoser's 1,339 published species names (A-J) and found only one name (Acanthophis wellsi) that has a corresponding Wikipedia article, or is even mentioned on the genus page. This is because Acanthophis wellsi is the only species (of the first 719 checked so far) that is also accepted by the Amphibian and Reptiles Project's preferred source, the Reptile Database. Most of Hoser's work is on reptiles, but there are also a fair number of frogs (checked against Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), and at least a few marsupials (checked against Mammal Species of the World - MSW3).
As I continue to go through the remaining published species names, I will find at least one other species (Pseudechis pailsei) that has a Wikipedia article and this species is also listed as accepted in the Reptile Database. Over the last week, I have reviewed all of Hoser's 1,337 published species names and found only three names (Acanthophis wellsi, Pailsus pailsei, and Pailsus rossignollii) that have a corresponding Wikipedia species article, or even mentioned in the Wikipedia genus article. This is because these three species are the only ones that are also accepted by the Amphibian and Reptiles Project's preferred taxonomic source, the Reptile Database. Most of Hoser's work is on reptiles, but there are also a fair number of frogs (checked against Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), a few marsupials and rodents (checked against Mammal Species of the World - MSW3), and even two species of fishes (checked against Fishbase ver. 06/2024).
The system as it currently stands works, and has worked well for us even in the face of perhaps the world's most prolific taxonomic vandal - Raymond Hoser. Loopy30 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC) updated 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Loopy30, @Newimpartial, all this proposal says is All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae, or a valid name (zoology) for animals and protozoa.
The ICZN allows self-published names to become "available", and these are considered "valid" unless and until the species is critically invalidated by other researchers publishing on it. The ICZN is not itself verifying that each available name actually corresponds to a novel species, or that its claimed characters or environmental/behavioral attributes are accurate (the costs would be insane if for every publication of a new species an ICZN rep traveled to wherever a type specimen had been deposited, or to wherever it was collected, to examine it themselves...).
I am concerned about what happens when a name from a self-pub is made available but no one else has commented on it yet, since such a name would be valid according to the ICZN. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't put in an additional requirement of two independent sources, we don't need to explain to everyone what that requirement actually means. And if it's mostly redundant anyway, the net effect of not encumbering ourself with extra rules and extra explanations would be negligible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can of course talk about anything we like on this Talk page, including things that we might want to do after the RfC closes. I just don't think this section can be in any way actionable until after a close. (I also, by the way, disagree that it’s important that any topic have two independent sources - a "principle" that already doesn't apply in such areas as NPROF and NGEO - but I don't think that disagreement is relevant until we either have, or don't have, an SNG.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll be amazed if someone can show me an NPROF-meeting page for which there is only one source.
For NSPECIES I think multiplicity (at least 2) in verification is particularly important because the report of a species (thinking a single-celled eukaryote) can easily be plain wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since many PROF articles are dependent on SELFPUB sources, and university websites (and other scholarly projects) are not independent of their employees (or participants), I think there are many policy-compliant NPROF articles that lack two independent sources. Some probably have none at all.
I don't actually disagree that a species article ought to have two sources and that one of these should be independent of the discoverer (which isn't at all what you're proposing, but it's the threshold I would propose). But I also think this whole discussion is premature. Newimpartial (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told repeatedly that zero independent sources is acceptable for most of NPROF, but usually they can come up with two non-independent sources, e.g., the prof's own webpage and an 'about the author' blurb in the back of their book. Also, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 194#c-WhatamIdoing-20240628182400-Horse Eye's Back-20240628172600 because someone asked that question just a few weeks ago.
@SmokeyJoe, you've repeatedly implied on this page that single-cell eukaryotes are more likely to be misidentified than single-cell prokaryotes. Can you explain why you think someone's more likely to misidentify a species of protozoa than a species of bacteria? I'm wondering if the "eukaryotes" is a red herring, and your real concern is about microbes vs species visible to the naked eye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“repeatedly implied on this page that single-cell eukaryotes are more likely to be misidentified than single-cell prokaryotes”? I thought I had steadfastly avoided making such comment. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you an example about a multi-cellular eukaryote, and you replied that you're concerned about "single celled eukaryotes".
  • I give you an example about viruses, and you reply that you're concerned about "single-celled eukaryotes".
  • Up in the FAQ, you're worried about "eukaryotes, including single celled species". Down here, you say that you're concerned that "a report of a species (thinking a single-celled eukaryote) can easily be plain wrong".
That sounds like a pretty specific and significant concern with single-celled eukaryotes. Yeasts and algae are usually easy to handle in the lab than prokaryotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried culturing protozoa? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only under supervision. I've also been disinvited from a friend's lab because I like to bake bread. She did human cell cultures and had spent the previous six months decontaminating her incubators after a summer intern got some yeast into them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have hesitantly implied that challenges lie with microbes not visible to the eye, especially when you reply with confidence about virus species. I have interest, not expertise, in microbes that live in symbiosis with other microbes, and involves DNA being shared across species within their ecosystem, which confounds reliability of sequence analyses as the method for defining species. In this field, single reports are not to be relied upon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be worried about prokaryotes instead of eukaryotes, except that the taxonomic authority did all the worrying for you decades ago, and they solved the problem by not accepting prokaryotes that can't be grown in the lab well enough to provide two official depositories with a live, cultured type strain. They don't accept prokaryotes allegedly identified via DNA sequence. The net result is that most prokaryotes that exist in the world aren't accepted by the ICPN, and therefore also aren't accepted by this proposed SNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited circles, I feel I see more signs of overexcitement over supposedly new single-celled eukaryotes. It might be because they lend themselves to more dramatic images and cartoons. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On NPROF, digressing because I have been fascinated by it for 17 years, my conclusion is that it should be viewed at a predictor of whether the topic will meet the GNG and then that it will pass AfD if challenged. There is some limited circularity in that. For academics, articles are not really about the person, but about their research, and “independence” is complicated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the story that it's "really" about their research, but the older discussions say that they created these rules because universities won't ever lie about their employees, and each (notable) person's research work is so important to the world, and yet so uncovered by the world, that eliminating the requirement for independent sources is the only "fair" way for important academics to get their fair share of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No action until after the RFC on the guideline is completed We certainly can't modify it now. This doesn't rely on it having some type of protection. This is because it IS the RFC, and you can't modify an RFC proposal in the middle of the RFC. It's fine to have any general discussion about possible future changes, but for me personally I'd rather wait until after the RFC to comment on any proposed changes and I'm guessing that many others are also holding back until then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, many folks are waiting on this until after the main RFC is decided. For me step one will be tryng to learn more because I'm not one of the small fraction of editors who is knowlegable on the scientific details being discussed. May I suggest that you folks who are knowlegable to discuss to figure out what exactly a proposal would be? North8000 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the fact that I don't really think an amendment to add more stringent sourcing requirements is particularly necessary, there are a few issues we need to tease out here:
  1. Would this requirement retroactively apply to existing articles, or just to new articles going forward?
  2. What two sources are sufficient? Do they both have to be secondary sources? Is the original description (reliably published, presumably) and an entry in a reputable database like FishBase or Plants of the World Online sufficient, or do we want two sources in addition to the initial description? Are entries in reputable databases acceptable for this purpose at all?
  3. How is such a requirement to be enforced? Would new page patrollers be expected to reject/draftify new species articles with less than two(/three, depending on how we answer point #2) sources? Would existing articles that do not meet this requirement be taken to AfD?
There's a fair bit to consider before even beginning to draft up an additional proposal, but I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a place to start is what we hope to achieve here.
  • Are we trying to allow an article on any species that is recognised as currently valid by some form of recognised "authority"? If so, how do we identify such authorities for recognition? If not, what reasonably practicable method do we propose to sort the articles we want from the ones we don't want?
  • Assuming that we can come to some working agreement on what counts as a secondary source in this context, how many do we actually need?
  • Are we trying to make it easier, or more difficult to create large numbers of minimally useful articles as stand-alone articles? It is the elephant in the room for some, or do we not consider that within the scope of these discussions. Do we prefer to have the information within a higher taxon article, with or without a redirect, and is it more important or useful to encourage creation of stand-alone article or have some context provided
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the lack of objectivity, I do think we are hoping to discourage the creation (bulk or otherwise) of articles that refer to entities not accepted by the taxonomic community as valid. That means that Wikipedia would not accept species described from self-published sources (as noted, of Hoser's >2300 boycotted names, only 2 appear in Wikipedia; other self-publishers are not generally being rejected, however), and should not consider evidence of validity based on untrustworthy aggregators like GBIF, ITIS, IPNI, EoL, ZooBank, or BioLib. That's very subjective, but it's fair; anyone who, like myself, literally works every day with taxonomic authority files, can provide hundreds to thousands of data points of names in these sources that are not valid despite claiming to be. There are very few very large and comprehensive sources that are actively and carefully human-curated to keep the cruft out, with IRMNG being the best one I am aware of. WoRMS and the PBDB are also generally very good, but have a higher proportion of errors and many, many more omissions. Then come various taxon-specific resources, intensively curated by authorities in their disciplines, like the Reptile Database, numerous SpeciesFile pages, and more. All of these are, without question, vastly superior as secondary sources to aggregators like GBIF, ITIS, IPNI, EoL, ZooBank, or BioLib. Can I reduce the criteria for a notable article to a simple set of purely objective parameters? Not really, though the best proverbial stab at it I can offer is (1) a primary reference that is not self-published, and (2) one secondary source that is NOT an aggregator. Dyanega (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega, what are the ICZN requirements to be a "valid name"? The proposed guideline states that taxonomic acceptance is proven by the existence of a valid name--that's it. If a name is available and there is no obvious, prima facie evidence that it is a junior synonym, then by my reading of the Code and the statement by Scherz As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid, it is considered valid by the ICZN until determined otherwise, even if self-published; in fact, even if the article is retracted. So if no one has published anything boycotting that name or describing species that could be synonymous, then it cannot be objectively or subjectively invalid/rejected; and if there is no comprehensive database distinguishing potentially valid from valid-through-independent-use names, how can anyone discern that something available is not a "valid name"? Especially if the same author (or even a different author) uses that name in different self-published papers/books, in which case surely it would be considered "valid" as the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment despite no reliable sources existing on it.
Earlier I provided some examples of species whose names were listed as "accepted" in the mollusk database despite being sourceable strictly to "journals" that by Wiki standards would absolutely be considered self-published (in-house publications with no info on editorial policy or even existence of editors, let alone peer review). The COI editor in that case has created hundreds of taxonomy articles on species he discovered... JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't change the wording right now, because I'd be open to changing the word "proven" to something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with species whose names were listed as "accepted" in the mollusk database despite being sourceable strictly to "journals" that by Wiki standards would absolutely be considered self-published? For starters, high quality species descriptions are frequently published in what are considered "bad sources" by Wikipedia standards, but even so, MolluscaBase is a reputable database run by the Flanders Marine Institute and staffed by mollusc experts. Purported new species don't just get added to MolluscaBase automatically with 0 human oversight - in the example you gave, we can see that the entry[25] was reviewed by two experts, Philippe Bouchet and Bastien Tran from the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ICZN has no requirements at all for validity (ignoring homonyms for the moment), only availability. Validity is a taxonomic decision, and entirely subjective, while availability is nomenclatural, and objective. That's what makes it possible to "adjudicate" ICZN-related issues using a fixed and accepted set of rules. There are no rules for what is or isn't a species, or what is or isn't a synonym, or what is or isn't fraudulent taxonomy. The taxonomic community makes those decisions. This is why I and others repeatedly point out that Wikipedia has higher standards than the ICZN (and others Codes, to be accurate): because the ICZN treats even Ray Hoser's publications as available works, when the entire herpetological community, and Wikipedia, rejects all of his publications. Self-publishing botanists, self-publishing ornithologists, self-publishing lepidopterists, are not treated differently by the nomenclatural Codes (lepidopterists in fact reject many rules in the ICZN), but Wikipedia has a policy which can be used to justifiably reject these names, just as the taxonomic community has the option to reject these names. As Ethmostigmus points out, a self-publishing malacologist does not get a "free pass" into MolluscaBase; even if their names are available, the experts at MolluscaBase are the ones who decide whether or not to treat them as valid. That's why MolluscaBase is a reliable source, while GBIF is not, and why the mere act of publishing does not make a name valid. There are also Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE which mirror how the taxonomic community makes decisions; Wikipedia keeps crackpots from overwhelming the site by making it clear that minority viewpoints can be mentioned, but if the consensus opinion is that a minority viewpoint is not accepted, then that viewpoint is not given equal weight in Wikipedia. So, to return to that example, the consensus opinion is that a name published by Ray Hoser is not to be taken seriously, and not given equal weight compared to names published by other herpetologists. It's admittedly difficult to tell what sources the taxonomic community considers reliable versus not, but it isn't impossible. Dyanega (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega, firstly, the proposed guideline already directly flouts our policy on primary sources (which explicitly includes the findings in scientific research articles) and BALASP/UNDUE, and our guidelines on notability (which require independence and secondary coverage), so why should editors assume it doesn't flout our policies on reliable sources? Especially when the ICZN and these "reliable" databases accept obviously self-published papers?
Secondly, statements in the proposal like because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication are completely at odds with the published guidance (and apparently the reality) of taxonomic acceptance: we are specifically asked to assess species validity using the rules in the nomenclatural code, with zero indication that anything beyond that will be necessary, but nowhere in the ICZN Code is there instruction on the vague and inconsistent practice of taxonomists generally ignoring self-published reports, nor is there anything about name validity being tied to listing on other taxonomic databases. Per the proposal, it would be acceptable to consider something as having a "valid name" based strictly on its use in one or two unreliable self-published reports, as that would satisfy the ICZN definition of validity (and would satisfy some databases!). We would then be encouraged to expand our article on this species using information only available in those self-published sources. Even if an editor did intend to apply RS policy, they would have no reason to believe that those sources weren't RS because this proposal asserts as absolute fact that it would be impossible for those sources to not be reputable academic publications.
It also does not matter what the general practice of the "taxonomic community" is if that practice neither exists as published guidance nor is formally or consistently enforced. We can't enshrine the unstated attitudes of some members of a niche group into our PAGs, especially when the guidance itself would be wholly implicit. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be ok under this proposal to have an article exclusively based on and sourceable to the minimal information in the database, because two curators considered the taxonomic claims in a self-published journal by a pharmacist and the owner of a shell-selling company (and the journal) and a followup personal communication from the pharmacist to constitute "taxonomic acceptance"? Noting that the database says We aim to provide comprehensive information strictly based on the most recent literature. Hence, MolluscaBase does not represent the individual editor’s personal opinion. We have zero indication that the scientific merit of a species description is assessed when deeming something a valid name; rather, the extent of editorial discretion is evaluating whether documentation of the name meets the very low standard of acceptable under the provisions of the Code and ... which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment. We do know that the content in the database is wholly primary, as we are assured none of it reflects the opinions of curators and certainly there is no secondary analysis to summarize. So at the very best, designation of a valid name by this database is still less stringent than a research paper not getting desk-rejected by a journal editor.
This is the standard for a purportedly scientific topic to achieve automatic, inherent notability (because let's be real, meeting NSPECIES is treated as irrebuttable by species project members), with merge and redirect being a remote best possible outcome? JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, who are you trying to convince here? Positions are entrenched, and at this point neither of you are going to convince the other of anything. Everyone needs to leave the poor horse alone. Cremastra (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cremastra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want the implications of this proposal to be made crystal-clear. If others disagree with my characterization then I want to know where my interpretation went wrong. And if supporters see no problem with this characterization then that needs to be recorded too. Certainly if people are going to berate me and demand evidence for my stating that assertions in the proposal like achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication are "blatantly incorrect", they should actually respond with why they reject my multiple examples of species with "valid names" sourced entirely to unreliable self-publications (here's another one, published in 2021 through 48HRBooks, by someone who was the subject of a 2020 peer-reviewed article that calls his work taxonomic vandalism in its title). JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out here that the WP:SATISFY principle suggests that other editors aren't under any obligation to explain to anyone what implications of this proposal they interpret differently. In fact, offering such "explanations" is seldom seen as a best practice onwiki, at least in my experience. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for more evidence that for Mollusca a single publication that merely meets name availability standards is automatically sufficient for a species to have a valid name, and this lasts until specifically proven otherwise:
12345 and definitely many many more listed as valid among the 211 other taxa in the database citing that 2021 48HRBooks book and the 227 taxa citing a 2020 48HRBooks book;
109 and 147 taxa respectively citing the "June 2017" (date is apparently uncertain) and "December 2018" (date is according to a personal communication) 48HRBooks books that a) were the sources of many of the 235 taxa shredded by Pall-Gergely et al in 2020, including many 12 currently listed as accepted (valid) (they were only mentioned as "no comment" in the 2020 paper) and added to the database in August 2017 alongside many 1 of the taxa that were explicitly called out as vandalism in 2020 and subsequently had their "accepted" status changed to "uncertain", and b) species whose statuses are uncertain only because different 48HRBooks by Thach are dueling over their possible synonymy 1;
this species that was added by curator Pall-Gergely in February 2022 sourced to a February 2022 article by Pall-Gergely.
That is a tiny selection of examples related to just one malacologist whose work was eventually noticed by other researchers; how many other single-document (let alone self-published) taxa are uncritically added to and listed as having valid names on this database alone? How many other databases employ similar standards for name validation? JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from species to genus "Strongly discouraged" according to Rcat.

Somewhat tangential, but related. See discussion at Template talk:R from species to genus#What consensus?, which has been edited recently (Revision as of 23:39, 29 July 2024 ) to categorically state Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be an article is strongly discouraged based on outcomes at RfD, which they have deemed to be consensus. This seems a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is not made clear how broad this consensus actually is. If anything, this is likely to encourage creation of species sub-stubs as redirects are now more likely to be deleted. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that avoiding such redirects is a widespread practice for extant species, and that the main practical reason for it is to avoid accidental WP:SELFLINKing. A typical genus article says "Genus is a family with 10 species" and then has a bullet list of the named species – all of which are linked. If you create the redirects, then it looks like those species each have articles, but when the reader clicks on them, they'll get redirected back to the same page, which is confusing and frustrating. So if we don't create those redirects, then nobody will accidentally self-link to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a way to highlight self links. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they link to a specific section, self-links don't appear as links on the target article. They become bold. Redirects to section-specific self-links are widespread in every topic, it's kind of annoying but really not a big deal and certainly not unique to species. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite right. See this test edit as an example. WT:MED is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. If you link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on that page, it'll turn up in bold. If you link to WT:MED (=the redirect), it looks like a normal link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe they should work like soft redirects. Anyway its getting a bit late for clear thinking. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a problem with section-specific linking in general. Every other redirected topic has to deal with this, why is it such a big deal for species? Just make the guidance on genus pages clearer that links should only be added if they go to separate pages. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big deal for species articles as there are huge number of existing genus articles which are just a list of linked species names. If the only content on the article is a circular blue link, that's just creating disappointment for readers. The redirect not being an issue for fossil-genera is likely because the default base developed page in those cases is the genus articles, and thus encountering a list of links is less likely. If the genus articles were not a list of links (and to clarify not all are, it's just a wide pattern), the species redirects would not cause such an issue. CMD (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are circular links are generally unhelpful. RfD discussions have found consensus to delete them. Cremastra (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused: how often does this happen outside of genera that contain only a single species? For monotypic genera, redirecting from the species to the genus seems perfectly reasonable, and not something to be "strongly discouraged". Surely that distinction can be drawn with this policy? Dyanega (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging species to genera is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Which articles should be created for fossil-only genera and by approximately everyone for monotypic genera (though I'm not sure that it's consistently species being redirected to the genus; it might be the other way around). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For monotypic genera, it makes total sense. But for others, it doesn't. See this RfD discussion which snowed. Cremastra (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the basic problem with circular links? There are two places the circle can be broke, by removing the redirect, and by removing the target link. Which serves the reader best? Some will probably claim that the red link in the list encourages people to create an article. Does it really? I have never seen statistically plausible evidence supporting the claim, but this may exist, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem a rather odd convention. Everywhere else on the project we avoid circular links by... not making circular links. Isn't it more important that readers clicking on Genus noarticlii hit a relevant page instead of a red link? – Joe (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One effect of creating the redirect is that it strongly discourages the creation of a proper article on the subject, because people don't notice that there is no article on the subject. Is that discouragement intended? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but I think it applies to any {{R with possibilities}}, not just species? – Joe (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many subtopics that could potentially be be expanded to stand-alone articles, but would first have to be proved notable, which can be a lot of work when the sources that would show notability are inaccessible or not known to the editor, yet are still encyclopedic subjects and are described in a section of an established article which both provides information useful to the reader and context for the subtopic, and in some cases the subtopic may be fairly well covered already, where a redirect to a section or anchor is plausibly adequate for the non-specialist. Some such sections may be several hundred words long, with subsections which could also plausibly become stand-alone articles some day. Redirects for these topics are very useful to the reader. This path of development is more likely in technology and engineering, and probably in biology, physiology and medicine too. Does this method of growing subsections and splitting them out when useful discourage or prevent articles being created as is claimed for species? I have not noticed this to be a problem. Taxonomy seems to be a special case because of its tree structure which encourages being represented by smaller more specific articles, which often start as stubs and linger there. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that species articles, on average, are shorter than the typical non-species article. In fact, a lot of them have only one or two sentences. One the other hand, more than 10% of Wikipedia's articles have only one or two sentences. But: Is it actually a problem if an article has two sentences of prose (plus whatever other elements aren't prose: image, infobox, refs, external links, lists, etc.), forever? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Due to Wikipedia's dominance of search engine results, such articles waste the time of readers looking for information on the topic. CMD (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an important question, for which we need an objective answer. Currently we seem to have a range of opinions, but no good data. One would think someone at WMF would look at the problem and try to come up with some unbiased advice, or an independent researcher could try to work out an answer. Chipmunkdavis, do you have any research or data to support your claim? I suspect there is truth in it, but have no idea how important it is. Do the search engines take redirects into account? Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thought about finding data on the matter, I wonder how it could be quantified. It has always seemed quite obvious to me as a reader, due to many instances over the years of searching for information for a species and going to Wikipedia to find "X is a fish" or similar. For example, I was recently looking up a few squid fished in Southeast Asia, and hit articles such as Uroteuthis singhalensis, which told me the squid in question is a squid of the genus in its scientific name, and that it has males and females. (It also told me the species is found in the Pacific Ocean, which is sort of true but sort of misleading; the species is also found in the Indian Ocean and covers very little of the Pacific. A better description might be in waters near Southeast Asia.) This isn't a unique issue for species of course, it could happen for any topic, however it has been a noticeably frequent occurrence for species articles in particular when I've had to look up species for quick factchecks. CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a data question. It's more of a values question. Do you value giving readers something, even if it's not much, or do you prefer giving them nothing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That framing completely misses the issue at hand, which is that there are other places that give information, but anything on Wikipedia will dominate the search results. Due to the dominance of Wikipedia, the article is taking reader time. When googling "Uroteuthis singhalensis", it brings up not only the partially correct species article as the top hit, but the genus article Uroteuthis as the fourth hit. To be fair, that's a more developed article, with some useful descriptive information and a mention of fisheries value. CMD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 500-word article (with an infobox, photo, and six refs) is longer than the median Wikipedia article, with more refs than the median article. That means it is probably not a good example of species articles that "start as stubs and linger there".
But let's imagine a two-sentence stub. If the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, do you still think that should be described as "taking" from the reader? Given what we know about average dwell time and scrolling, a very large portion of readers are looking for something that appears in the first paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be described as taking from the reader, per what I stated above. It is a real-life actual example of my time being taken. CMD (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have also missed the actual article I pointed to, which as this. Happily it is now longer. CMD (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, and that reader clicks on an article that contains the information that they're specifically looking for, with little or no additional information, then I think I would call that a pretty perfect match. You seem to be convinced that getting exactly the information you want is harming you. I don't think we are very likely to agree on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the information I want is harming me? What are you talking about? CMD (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you said.
I asked: "If the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, do you still think that should be described as "taking" from the reader?"
You said: "Yes, it should be described as taking from the reader".
A plain reading of this exchange indicates that you believe that when the reader gets exactly the information the reader wants, that is harming the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WAID, in response to your general query I gave a very specific and tangible example. If you want to discuss that example I would appreciate that, but retreating to other vague generalities and then claiming agreement with yourself is not helpful. CMD (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can work with that example.
  • Given: The reader has seen Uroteuthis singhalensis mentioned somewhere and wants to know what it is (i.e., is it, or is it not, a squid?)
  • Given: The reader searches for the term and clicks on the article, which completely answers the reader's question (namely, it is a squid).
  • Question for you to answer: "Given that the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in that two-sentence stub, do you still think that letting the reader read that article, and thus answer 100% of their actual question, should be described as "taking" from the reader?"
Your options, as far as I can see them, are:
  • "Yes, that harms the reader in ways which I will now enumerate:",
  • "No, I guess that sometimes it's not actually harmful, though I'm personally disappointed whenever I find an article that only offers me two sentences, a photo, a taxobox, and 16 external links", and
  • "Irrelevant, because I completely dispute the premise that any reader would ask such a minor and unimportant question, no matter how many times you tell me that the average Dwell time for most Wikipedia pages is only long enough to read a sentence or two at the most, and regardless of the fact that you've done this yourself multiple times, because you are obviously incapable of knowing your own mind when you look up an unfamiliar subject".
Feel free to pick one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to make up a made-up reader. There was an actual reader in that example, which you have for some reason forgotten. CMD (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: you didn't find the information you wanted. But can you imagine the existence of a reader who did find the information they wanted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would have found the same information on the other more useful google results, including our genus article, being equally or better served. CMD (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a poor example to use as rationale for mass-scale redirection, given that the Uroteuthis singhalensis article was clearly a good candidate for expansion (many thanks @Esculenta, nice work!). This may not be the case for all species articles, but in my experience working on species stubs, it is a very good rule of thumb to assume that most are expandable - it's just a matter of locating sources and putting in the hard work. Redirecting articles that could easily be expanded with existing sources seems pretty counterproductive to building the encyclopedia. Yes, a stub provides relatively little, but to redirect it without adding further information to the genus article gives readers even less, particularly with the loss of taxonbar identifiers. Redirecting instead of making improvements is putting the cart before the horse. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a call for mass-scale redirection, it is an example of the issues poor stubs cause. Others have suggested redirects also may impact google searches, although google changes its algorithm so that's hard to predict. We do not know whether WP:REDYES is better that redirecting. At any rate, in this particular case, the genus article did provide even more information, although that is uncommon. CMD (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the recent estimate was that about half of species articles contain 3 or fewer sentences, so this could easily be taken as the basis for mass redirection.
Your complaint above is about a hypothetical user who begins at Google. What about those of us who begin our searches at Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For another time, my "complaint" was not about a hypothetical user. A Wikipedia sear would presumably have found the genus article. CMD (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Your complaint is that you started at Google and didn't find the information you wanted.
I don't start at Google for information like that. I start by directly searching Wikipedia. I would have ended up at the target of a redirect (if an exact match existed) or at Special:Search.
I suppose the question comes down to: Why should we optimize everything for your preferred search style and not for mine? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did eventually find the information I wanted, eventually. The odd question is a non sequitur, if you had ended up at the genus article, that would have been more optimal for you. As for, in general, the broader question of how to handle searches, there have been a number of discussions on the matter, especially as generative AI has come more into use, but that gets quite off topic here. CMD (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the experience. It also takes editor time as sometimes it is difficult to find Off-Wikipedia sites. On the up side, it is nice to know people are probably reading your work. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it is generally preferable to avoid redirects to genus unless the species is dubious, or the genus article actually contains information about the redirected species. I think taking a species stub and redirecting it to a genus article that's little more than a species list is much, much worse than letting the species article languish in its stubbiness, and I think most readers seeking information about a specific species would prefer to find a stub than to be sent to a genus article that provides just as as little (or even less) information. In previous discussions I believe it was Plantdrew who raised the point that we risk losing the valuable identifiers in the taxonbar by redirecting species articles to genus - we can, of course, link the various species in a genus to the taxonbar of the genus article, and I'm of the opinion that this should be a requirement for these sorts of redirects. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add nothospecies

Add a section labelled "Notability (hybrid taxa)" below the "Notability (species)" section, with the following text:

Nothospecies and hybridogenic species, including kleptons, are species, and Notability (species) applies".

Discussion (nothospecies)

Most hybrids, even validly named, are of little concern to their relevant international body of taxonomists. This is not the case for many naturally occurring hybrids. Take The International Compositae Alliance for instance. A search for Cirsium in their Global Compositae Database yields a number of nothospecies alongside species. This is carried over into POWO, and consequently many Wikipedia articles of the form "List of Genus species" list nothospecies alongside species. Unlike subspecies, they cannot be easily assigned to a species, because their parentage is split across two or more species. Redirecting to a genus section or a dedicated genus hybrid section is possible, but as Category:Plant nothospecies shows, they have been treated the same as species up until now. After an article is created, at least four redirects are necessary for the four most common valid ways of writing the species name, one of which is simply Genus species, without the × symbol. Since that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists is specified, including nothospecies carries little risk of the stub bloat that might be feared otherwise. All so recognised plant nothospecies have at least one substantial description, and for most there are at least 5-10 sources that could add unique information.

Some of the longer articles include: Asplenium × boydstoniae, Asplenium × ebenoides, Asplenium × kentuckiense, Asplenium × trudellii, Asplenium × wherryi, Cornus × unalaschkensis, Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora, Eucalyptus × alpina, Eucalyptus × brachyphylla, Eucalyptus × lamprocalyx, Eucalyptus × stoataptera, Eucalyptus × balanites, Eucalyptus × balanopelex, Eucalyptus × chrysantha, Eucalyptus × kalangadooensis, Eucalyptus × missilis, Eucalyptus × phylacis, Grevillea × gaudichaudii, Karpatiosorbus houstoniae, Kniphofia × praecox, Lonicera × bella, Lysimachia × commixta, Lysimachia × producta, Myosotis × bollandica, Myosotis × cinerascens, Nuphar × saijoensis, Nuphar × spenneriana, Nymphaea × daubenyana, Nymphaea × thiona, Phalaenopsis × lotubela, Platanus × hispanica, Polygonatum × hybridum, Quercus × deamii, Richea × curtisiae, Sabal × brazoriensis, Salix × fragilis, Seringia × katatona, Spyridium × ramosissimum, Taxus × media, Tilia × europaea, Typha × glauca, Ulmus × arbuscula, Ulmus × diversifolia, Ulmus × intermedia, Vanilla × tahitensis, Veronica × lackschewitzii, Verticordia × eurardyensis, Yucca × schottii.

Ivan (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also submit Hypericum × inodorum as (I believe) the only nothospecies Good Article, and a demonstration that many of these articles can reach that status with sufficient effort. Fritzmann (message me) 21:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding stupid, would this also apply to naturally-occurring animal hybrid species (ex. Clymene dolphin, Amazon molly, edible frog, Pelophylax kl. grafi, Papilio appalachiensis) or just plants?
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "nothospecies" is generally restricted to botany and mycology, for which the most articles are at risk. But I can modify "nothospecies" to read "hybridogenic species" ([[hybrid speciation|hybridogenic species]]). Thank you. Ivan (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that WP:MAMMALS has ursid hybrids and equivalent. They've adopted the alternative strategy of collecting data on hybrids within a taxon within a single article.
Hybridogenic species and nothospecies are not equivalent concepts (and don't overlap much). Hybridogenic species are species of hybrid origin, either fertile (originating by polyploidy, or by stabilisation of a hybrid population) or clonal (typically apomictic). Triticum aestivuum and Galeopsis tetrahit, for example, are hybridogenic species, but no-one would consider them nothospecies. Nothospecies run the gamut from rare sterile hybrids to hybrid swarms (e.g. Silene x hampeana) to widespread clonal populations (e.g. Spartina x townsendii). An overlap occurs because different people draw the line in different places, so a taxon may be treated as a nothospecies by one author and as a hybridogenic species by another. (Note that apomictic whitebeams are treated different, and arguably inconsistently, to Spartina x townsendii.) Hybridogenic species are species, and are notable by the rule that all accepted species are notable.
I believe your proposal needs rewording. I'll think on it more later. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm not quite sure how to include the zoological concept, so I will reword it to reflect botany and mycology only, since nothospecies are my primary concern. Or rather, that the wording of the article with certain "species" allowed by "hybrids" not allowed without meeting WP:GNG would confuse editors unfamiliar with botanical nomenclature. Ivan (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that we need an explanatory section, rather than the simple addition of a word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up Ivan - this is something of a blindspot in the wording of the proposal that I hadn't fully considered until now. I see no reason that naturally occurring, named hybrids that are accepted by the relevant authorities should be treated any differently to non-hybridogenic species. Artificial hybrids are a bit more complicated, and I believe these should generally be required to meet GNG to warrant an independent article per the existing wording of the proposal, but I welcome further discussion on this topic from users with more knowledge than myself on the topic of artificial hybridisation. I agree that any amendments to the proposal will need to wait until the proposal passes (or fails, and goes back to the drawing board for reworking), but this is definitely something I think ought to be addressed after the close. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps this should be Notability (hybrid taxa), separate from Notability (species). In that case the first statement would be on the lines that "hybridogenic/ous species, including kleptons, are species, and Notability (species) applies". Lavateraguy (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. I will alter the proposal accordingly. Ivan (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Уведомления (NSPECIES)