Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Main page

Talk

Article template

Taxonomic resources

Taxoboxes

Participants

Article requests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Tree of Life and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:TOLWT:TOL WT:TREEWT:TREE WT:TREEOFLIFEWT:TREEOFLIFE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66Auto-archiving period: 45 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Tree of Life This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at The Signpost on 26 December 2011 and 27 December 2019.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I've discovered a collection of redirects that ought to not exist. The user, Galactikapedia, has since figured out that species pages should not redirect back into existing pages (ostensibly to remove redlinks) but their mark still remains. User Xplicit has begun the work of removing them, but understandably cannot continue doing so alone. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this is not an exhaustive list; many older redirects of theirs were not tagged by bots and are not represented on the list, such as the redirects on Euryleptidae. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for calling attention to this - just to clarify, are you wanting to see these redirects deleted outright, or expanded into articles? If your goal is to delete them, you can nominate all of them for deletion as a group at WP:RFD. While I would love to just expand all of the valid taxa into articles myself, I don't think it's a realistic goal given the large number of redirects and the amount of time it would take. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have encountered this user before and had their redirects successfully deleted at RfD in the past without controversy. Cremastra (u — c) 20:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Microcaldus and Fidelibacter pages, Microcaldota and Fidelibacterota's authorities can't be displayed because there is not enough parameters for speciesboxes. This needs to be fixed somehow. Jako96 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, monotypic taxa so far up the hierarchy. So there would need to be provision for |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=. Not a priority, but fixable if others think it worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little surprising, right? Let's wait for others. And it is worthwhile, there is no other way around. Jako96 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is worthwhile. This is probably not the only time it will happen (Picozoa comes to mind). — Snoteleks (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so there are monotypic class, order and family in Picozoa but they are not displayed because of this issue? Jako96 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the taxon is set to Picozoa and templates don' exist for other taxa. This could be changed by setting taxon to Picomonas and creating necessary templates.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that, actually. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jts, so do you think it's worthwhile? Jako96 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead do you support my proposal too? Jako96 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omg it's so funny. Even for this, we can't reach a consensus. Still, I have more problems with the automated taxobox system that I will try to get consensus in the future. We can't even solve this lmao. Jako96 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed automatic taxobox with a speciesbox in Picozoa page. Jako96 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthwhile to allow |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=. greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority is sufficient to cover parents from species up to phylum, and there are single species phyla. I don't think single species kingdoms are likely. Plantdrew (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead You have the permission and I think you should make the change already. I support it, Snoteleks supports it, Plantdrew supports it, and CiaPan supports it too but he proposed to change the name (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#How about reducing greatgreat?). Jako96 (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everybody! Not my area at all, but don't you think a |parentlvl5_authority= or |ancestor5_authority= woud be easier to write (and read!) than |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=? Probably some bot could do such substitution for any number of levels needed... CiaPan (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I support that. These "greatgreat" jokes are not funny anyway. Jako96 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is much more intuitive too. I remember when I first started using the taxobox templates and I was confused by the use of grandparent and greatgrandparent instead of parent1, parent2, etc. for the authorities. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles about extinct taxa seem to overwhelmingly use present tense in the intros, as in "X is an extinct species" etc., but this is often drive-by changed to "was", though any extinct taxon is of course still a taxon. But since this isn't written down anywhere, I thought it would make sense to get a consensus for this so we can write a guideline somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an extinct species in the present tense. Was an extinct species would imply that descriptor is not still current, no? As if they stopped being extinct, or a species? I see why people have an instinct to use past tense, and agree this should have a guideline, but it seems like a clear cut decision. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear cut to us, yes, but not to most "laypeople", that's why it's good to have a policy to point to when we revert them, or better yet (but less likely), people will see it and just don't do it to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this boils down to two distinct ways of thinking about extinct taxa: either as taxonomic entities or the actual organisms. When talking about the genus Allosaurus, it has to be used in the present tense. Constructions like "Allosaurus was an extinct genus of theropod dinosaur" make no sense, as the genus is currently classified as a theropod dinosaur. However, if the (drive-by)editor considers the organisms and not the taxonomic entities we've assigned them to, they are inclined to refer to Allosaurus in the past tense because the animal no longer exists.

I hope this makes sense. Generally I am of the same opinion as LittleLazyLass that referring to extinct taxa in the present tense works best, and this is a clear cut decision. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. X is an extinct species is correct as the recognised species is a concept that is currently accepted. The animals/plants themselves should be referred to in the past tense. The X were marine organisms, that were found in the Zian Sea. Any time travelling taxonomist passing by would have considered them an extant species at the time.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a larger problem about taxa articles: are we discussing the taxonomic entity or the organisms? This affects whether the article is written in the singular or the plural, and in practice writers usually switch back and forth when they feel like it:

The waxy crab is a species of crab ... waxy crabs are found off the coasts of Denmark and Sweden ... the waxy crab is a solitary animal ... a flurry of research in the 1990s into waxy crabs' behaviour has shown ... the waxy crab is considered a delicassy in Germany ... and so on. Cremastra (u — c) 15:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with The Morrison Man and Jts1882. In taxonomic entity contexts, use present tense. Most articles mention a taxonomic rank in the first sentence, so that's a taxonomic entity context. In organism contexts past tense is appropriate. Using present tense to describe the range of an extinct organism sounds pretty strange. Plantdrew (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but note I'm asking specifically about the first sentence in the intro (could have made that clearer), as these are very often drive-by changed to "was" in such articles. It has no bearing on the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That should be 'is'. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the List of examples of convergent evolution page, i've realized that the page would likely be better if it was re-sectioned; My idea was to base the sections around MRCAs but after some discussion it was brought up that basing the sections off of general anatomy and physiology might be an equally valid way of classification. Any other opinions? Anthropophoca (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of sectioning on the trait (or purpose) being converged upon feels like it would make much more sense for the topic. Covering similarities in the evolution of the eye for example, is hard to map to common ancestry. CMD (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, definitely a re-sectioning based on the traits themselves would be much more appropriate. The current sectioning does not allow for coevolution across larger taxa. We could do something like this, divided into the traditional kingdoms of life:

• In animals
  • Nervous system (which I can see is lacking)
  • Notochord and stomochord
  • Flight (wings, gliders)
  • Limbs (webbed feet, claws, etc.)
  • Facial structure (snouts, beaks)
  • Blood cells
  • Color vision
  • Nutrition (omnivory niches, filter feeding in whales)
  • Metabolic water
  • Habitat convergence (freshwater dolphins, etc.)
  • etc.
• In plants
  • Tree-type development (only briefly mentioned as trunk)
  • Nutrient transport, root systems, pollination types, fruits (all essential subsections that should be separate)
  • Leaves
  • Toxins
  • Annual life cycles
  • Carnivory (only mentioned briefly even though this is one of the most famous cases of convergence; would include pitcher traps and digestive enzymes)
  • Cactus-like modifications
  • Carbon concentration mechanisms (CAM, C4...)
  • Palms
  • etc.
• In other eukaryotes/organisms (some mentions could include prokaryotes)
  • Fungus-like development (would include slime molds and in general hyphae-forming organisms)
  • Amoeboid cells
  • Tests (as in testate amoebae)
  • Axopodia (as in heliozoa)
  • etc.

I do think the marsupial-placentarian convergences are enough to warrant their own subsection within animals. Also, there are many uncited and vague statements such as the gastrotrich-kinorhynch mention. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps it would be best to organize the subsections in alphabetical order. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also in plants - parasitism (Aneura mirabilis, Parasitaxus usta, multiple angiosperm taxa); also in red algae

Inquiline social parasites in Hymenoptera. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why i thought that sorting by MRCAs would be helpful. Perhaps a "two-layer" sorting would be best? Anthropophoca (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only add more taxon-based sections only if there's enough content for a given taxon. For example, there's almost nothing for true fungi, but there's a lot for tetrapods alone. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "taxon-based section" i do mean the MRCA thing; an example would be like

==Among vertebrates==

• Slit pupils have independently appeared in sharks, frogs, squamates, cats, and skimmers

==Among tetrapods==

• Webbed toes independently evolved in modern amphibians, crocodiles, many species of birds, water opposum, otters, and beavers
• Filamentous integument evolved independently in ornithodirans and mammals; these clades use different types of keratin to build their feathers and hairs, respectively.
  • The "hairs" on Trichobatrachus robustus are not keratinized and act as an accessory breathing organ

Obviously this is nowhere near a complete list of examples, but i hope my intent can be gleaned from it Anthropophoca (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it but I find it hard to imagine how to do a two-layer sectioning in a way that feels natural/intuitive. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So recently, I added a bunch of more phyla to the Life on Earth template. I also added some non-phylum taxa that was "important", because there was already some. For example, there was already taxa such as CRuMs or Apusomonadida. My question is, should we remove all non-phylum (or division) taxa? Or should we keep them? Jako96 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this template is the weakness of the sources for some of the entries, particularly the use of journal articles, rather than secondary sources. To take just one example, consider the article CRuMs. The article treats AlgaeBase's Kingdom Crumalia as a synonym. If we followed WP:SCHOLARSHIP in preferring secondary sources, the article would be at "Crumalia". In following journal articles, there's also the danger of ignoring WP:NOTNEWS. We need to be sure that taxa proposed on the basis of phylogenetic studies in one or more journal articles will be taken up more widely. Ideally, I think the template should contain only taxa that have demonstrated support in secondary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template should only contain largest taxa that is not a genus or infrageneric taxon, contains genera more than one and doesn't contain any real phyla (and doesn't belong to any real phyla), I did it like that. Jako96 (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also should we add MGE phyla to this template? Jako96 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remove TSAR from the automated taxobox system. TSAR isn't universally accepted. It's also not used in taxoboxes of pages like Eukaryote, Protist or Diaphoretickes for this reason. Jako96 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time in a year and the fourth overall, there is a move discussion going at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) that would effect the naming of Gamergate (ant), comments welcome.--Kevmin § 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming Embryophytes to Embryophyta. It's much more used. Jako96 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search shows that this is not the case, with 25.500 results for "Embryophytes" and 18.500 for "Embryophyta". The Morrison Man (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar favors Embryophyta. And also Google finds the word "embryophytes" too. Jako96 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we are gonna stick with Embryophytes, let's abandon Embryophyta and only use Embryophytes for consistency. Jako96 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your inflexibility over names doesn't make any sense. Nobody wants to entirely replace the common name with the scientific name or viceversa in the main article texts. Unless you want to talk specifically about taxonomy templates (in which case the Wikipedia consensus is already established), this discussion is pointless — Snoteleks (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I want to entirely replace common names with scientific names. I thought Embryophytes was a synonym. Jako96 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "Embryophytes" is the common or vernacular name, not a synonym. Remember when you deleted the 'corticates' synonym from the Diaphoretickes taxobox, this is (or should be) the same case. Have you seen anywhere that 'Embryophytes' has a different date and authority than 'Embryophyta'? If so, we should fix it; it might be a rare case of an editor mistaking the common name for a scientific one, which understandably would be confusing for you and anyone else. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see such a case. For example, technically Cyclostomi and Cyclostomata are not proposed by Duméril. But the names are commonly attributed to him. Or Patterson didn't propose Stramenopiles but Adl et al. publications state the authority as "Patterson 1989 emend. Adl et al. 2005". So I thought the synonym "Embryophytes" was attributed to Engler but not actually proposed by him. Jako96 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Regarding Stramenopiles, the 'emend' is the reason why. Patterson proposed the synapomorphy-based adjective 'stramenopile' and the Adl et al. team turned it into a formal taxon as 'Stramenopiles', which unequivocally corresponds to the original meaning, unlike Heterokonta and others (probably why it remained the scientific consensus while Heterokonta did not). I don't know anything about cyclostome taxonomy, so I apologize but I cannot help there (but the confusion may just be due to neglect from Wikipedia editors that may have wrongly assigned to Duméril the authority; again I have no idea). — Snoteleks (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Okay I see what you mean now. The taxobox at Embryophyte says Embryophytes instead of Embryophyta, even though according to the source material Engler wrote Embryophyta and not Embryophytes. I made a suggestion for a change at Template talk:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Jako96 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar searches are best for scientific information, vanilla Google is better for information like most used common names. The Wikipedia policy is for the most commonly used name in the English language, not the the most commonly used name by scientists.

It would be better if article titles used the taxon names except when the name is really widely known among the general public, but Wikipedia policy is clear, even if some projects ignore it.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For another page that could use some TLC; Appendage is another case of an early general-biological article (est. 2005) that grew somewhat aimlessly through two decades of editing. Anthropophoca (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing Cyclostomi to Cyclostomata. Google Scholar shows 10.500 results for Cyclostomata and 1.220 results for Cyclostomi. Jako96 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So today i learned (after an embarassingly long time) that we have two pages about rays that overlap heavily in scope: Myliobatiformes and Myliobatoidei . I hadn't found the latter prior because i navigate wiki through pages and taxonomic names, so of course Myliobatoidei (on the namespace "Stingray")^[a] remained off my radar.

The order page is just a family list and a cladogram, so i feel like it would quickly gain unanimous support for merging into the Stingray page, but i've not delved into Batoid systematics too deeply^[b] so i'm hesitant to just implement it then and there,^[c] which is why i decided to ask everyone on here on the matter. Should the two pages be merged?

Anthropophoca (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If zanobatids could be accepted as true stingrays, then maybe. If not, then no I think. Jako96 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they seem to have never developed a stinger, and they may not even be close to stingrays. Anthropophoca (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Harpacochampsa#Incorrect etymology that might benefit from additional eyeballs. It seems to be devolving into rehashing arguments stated previously, has some behavioral aspects to it that probably belong at User talk and not article talk, and has other aspects that while relevant to the article are not specific to it but could be relevant at any species article. (To the latter point, those aspects might be better debated here than there, but the conversation is already lengthy and perhaps not worth moving here at this point.) Not sure how to untangle this, perhaps splitting it into three discussions, but something needs to be done; maybe someone here will have a fresh approach. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is rooted in etymological discussion; one of the involved parties insists on not translating scientific names if their meanings have never been specified in the original descriptions.

Thank god for ETYFish. Anthropophoca (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a general preference for whether the lead (taxobox) image for a taxon should be a line drawing or a live/preserved photograph, if both options are of similar quality? This question arises frequently, for example at Discoplax longipes, where we have a detailed, high-quality, black and white line drawing that could be replaced with either this high-quality colour photograph of a preserved specimen or by this lower-quality photograph that has the plus of showing a live specimen in situ. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include all three in the article, but a lead image should still be picked. Do we have a general preference for whether the lead image should be an illustration, a preserved photograph, or a live photograph (when they are of comparable quality) or is it best to leave the status quo of deciding article by article? I feel some sort of general consensus would be useful, since many of these articles have very few watchers and the images can be endlessly swapped around to editor's aesthetic whims. I myself prefer in situ photographs for the lead, as the higher-detail preserved photographs and scientific drawings are better-suited, in my opinion, to the Description section, and live photographs are more representative of the entire article. Cremastra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd somewhat prefer a photo over an illustration (especially if the photo is in color and the illustration is black and white). However, I think you're exhibiting some unconscious bias with the organisms you are interested in asking whether an illustration or a photograph should be first (assuming multiple high quality images are even available). It is not that simple.

For highly sexually dimorphic organisms, does the male or female go first? I don't think there's an answer to that, unless it's "use an image with both sexes" (which means it's almost certainly is going to be an illustration rather than a photograph).

For large plants (trees), I'd prefer an illustration (or photo-montage) with details of leaves/flowers/fruits/habit over a photo of the entire plant where details can't be made out, but good illustrations are few. I guess I'd prefer a closeup photo capturing flowers and leaves over a photo of an entire plant. Plants cultivated for edible tubers, fruits or seeds would be better with an initial image of the edible part than an image of a flower.

People are more likely to encounter workers than queens of social insects. Sometimes larval forms will be more familiar than adults (I think that is the case with Pyrrharctia isabella for North Americans). Galls might be more informative than images of gall-makers. Microscopic plant pathogens might be better with images of infected plants than illustrations/microphotos of the cells.

I think there's been some discussion about life restoration illustrations vs. fossils (either photos or illustrated) for paleontological taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents regarding pathogens are that this should be the order of priority: microphotos of the cells > images of infected plants > illustrations of the cells. I understand prioritizing an actual photo of the pathogen's consequences over an illustration, but it should not be prioritized over the actual photo of the pathogen. It's the same as if we had a photo of a trypanosomiasis patient instead of Trypanosoma. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intersex (biology) § Requested move 3 July 2025. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we continue using invalid prokaryotic taxa with quotes? Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a prokaryote expert, but I just think quotes are ugly for any taxon. I don't know why Wikipedia should use them besides when sometimes referring to non-monophyletic taxa. Same with using Candidatus always in front of many of the names; it's not appealing to the average reader, I don't see the necessity to disclose it in every mention. Personally, it just makes me think: if the name is invalid, just make it valid already and shut up about invalidity! Still, more prokaryote-inclined editors should have the say here. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally stay away from editing prokaryotes because of this stuff, but I don't think we're very consistent in using quotes where LPSN does so, and we are definitely not flagging up all the Candidatus taxa. I don't really have any recommendations to make about using quotes or not, but I do think we should be using |classification_status= more in taxoboxes to flag Candidatus taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in classification_status=proposed (or similar), or classification_status=Candidatus? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

classification_status=Candidatus. Plantdrew (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need that. The taxoboxes already state they are candidates. See Vampirovibrionophyceae and Candidatus Thorarchaeota. Jako96 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their are hundreds of articles on Candidatus species in non-Candidatus genera that don't mention that they are Candidatus, and speciesboxes don't support showing Candidatus very well (I guess we could have two taxonomy templates for the genus; one for Candidatus species and another one for non). Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a problem I was gonna talk about in the future. It can be fixed. We don't need classification_status=Candidatus. Jako96 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a prokaryote-inclined editor, so I think I do have a say. I think we should probably just continue using quotes. Or maybe, just maybe, we should not use quotes only for taxa that we use. Jako96 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Postgaardia § Renaming to Symbiontida. Jako96 (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the ongoing etymology saga, I've made a start on an essay on the subject. I hope that we might be able to refine this to the point where it could become at least an informal guideline. It definitely needs some more work - in particular I would be grateful for any good examples for the last section (and I'm not sure this has quite the right heading). Comments, fixes, improvements etc. welcome. YFB ¿ 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very good, thank you for working on this. I have not participated in these debates but have read through a few of them and I find the guidance here clear and helpful. While discussing how this aligns with other broadly applicable P&G, you might add a reference to WP:DUE. Etymologies are interesting and are part of a comprehensive treatment of an organism, but the overall length and level of detail should usually be limited relative to coverage of other aspects. Where there is ambiguity or controversy, consideration should be given to the relative prominence of various (published) perspectives. I think your examples demonstrate this but it could be made more explicit. For comparison, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry § Etymology (part of MOS:CHEM) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals § History don't discuss the length of these sections but I read these as saying etymologies should not be given undue prominence and I would think a similar approach applies in biology articles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You briefly mention Neal Evenhuis and the genus Pieza, but this is an author who always gave an etymology that is deliberately misleading. The names Pieza pi, Pieza kake, Pieza rhea and Pieza deresistans are obvious plays on words, but he pretends they have legitimate etymologies, which he provides, as part of the joke. I don't know how you want to treat those examples, but the point is that WP editors need to distinguish between the translation of a name (its formal etymology, which is what most of your essay covers), versus the derivation of a name (the reason the name was given, which you don't presently discuss much), because these two things may not be the same, as in Evenhuis' numerous examples. Dyanega (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dyanega, I agree that we need that distinction. I hadn't actually seen Evenhuis' faux-derivations. My aim in mentioning his work was just to highlight that it's not always meaningful to look for a direct translation, even if one appears to be available. I don't think I have drawn the translation/derivation line clearly enough in the current draft.

Not saying much about derivations (yet) was intentional, as I was aiming to capture the aspects where there seemed to be least controversy first! What's your view on derivations? I think the position I've landed on is roughly that (absent evidence of mischief a la Evenhuis):

1. If the derivation is stated by the author including specific word elements, we should ideally quote it directly (especially if their linguistic choices are a bit dodgy)
2. If the rationale for the name is specified but without an explanation of the actual derivation, then IMO if there are reasonably obvious word elements for which a rationale-aligned translation is available, we should offer it, without stating directly that x is derived from y.
3. If the rationale isn't stated (pretty standard for pre-1950 names) but an obvious translation is available that corresponds to significant or differentiating features in the description/diagnosis, then we could reasonably safely offer that too
4. If there's no rationale given, no secondary sources to draw from, and no obvious / largely unambiguous translation available, then we should remain silent on etymology. YFB ¿ 00:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Myceteae, these are really helpful points. YFB ¿ 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The points made in the essay are very helpful moving forward. I've been frustrated time and time again working with eighteenth-century documents trying to find etymologies to no avail, but it feels strange having a section devoted to describing the first description without any mention of why the species was named as it is. Some editors are very fortunate in having resources like the Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names to rely on, which is often better than just having a direct dictionary translation of a Latin or Greek term. -- Reconrabbit 19:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating the proverbial horse to death, I want to expound more on the pitfalls of ANY use of external sources, no matter how sincere the attempt an editor may be making to provide a proper etymology. I can preface this by pointing out that as part of my work on the ICZN, I've screened over 300,000 genus-rank names, a task commonly requiring research into their etymology. There are a certain percentage of scientific names - small, but far more than most people would suspect - where the dictionary is not just unhelpful, but very clearly disconnected from the scientific name. I don't see any way to prevent editors from providing bad etymologies except by the rigid enforcement of WP:NOR and use of clear disclaimers in those rare cases where a name is so important that the article cannot survive without having a hypothetical etymology provided (e.g., Tyrannosaurus rex). That is, the dictionary sometimes gives a result that just by chance matches a genus name. One example is the wasp genus Liris Fabricius, 1804; the name is neither Latin nor Greek, but in the dictionary it appears as a latinized spelling variant of the name of a river in Italy. There is a genus Daridna Walker, 1858, a leafhopper from the Amazon; by coincidence, there was a town in what is now Turkey that was known to the Greeks as Daridna. Another example involves the suffixes "-andra/-andrus/-andrum", which are properly interpreted as latinized variants of the Greek genitive " ἀνδρός" (for "man"). However, in the dictionary, "Andrus" appears as the latinized name of an island. Another example is the genus Atta Fabricius, 1804 (and related genera with names based upon it). In addition to all of the other possible derivations listed in Wikipedia, the word "atta" appears in Latin dictionaries as a noun for "a salutation used for old men". The genus name Terranova Leiper & Atkinson, 1914, coincidentally matches (among other things) a word "terranova" in both Italian and Spanish referring to a dog breed, a fact that would be unknowable without exhaustive online dictionaries. In these and a small number of other cases, the dictionary contains an entry that is a match purely by coincidence, only detectable due to the efficiency of modern search engine algorithms. It is these and similar examples that suggest we shouldn't allow etymologies proposed by editors, and it seems like it would be very hard to properly incorporate this into the guidelines you're proposing - but I think the point is important. While rejecting a dictionary entry is very subjective, in cases of obvious conflict like these, it seems like a zealous editor using Wiktionary might easily, and boldly, suggest etymologies that should never be suggested. I don't know how to establish a policy that allows a suggested translation of Tyrannosaurus but precludes doing the same thing for names like Liris, Daridna, Atta, Terranova, etc. My antipathy towards allowing editors to supply etymologies is because I know better than just about anyone else how easy it is to get the wrong answer, and that's not what Wikipedia should be promoting. Dyanega (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed response @Dyanega and for providing these examples. I agree that we shouldn't allow etymologies in cases where there's nothing to work from and it's literally just a case of matching terms in a dictionary; as you say, there's significant risk of a false positive via this approach. In pursuit of a sensible place to draw the line between 'anything goes' and 'explaining Tyrannosaurus is banned' I've tried to cover some of the incremental steps in my numbered outline above. (1) is presumably uncontroversial (Author A says 'x' means y); I think (2) is also pretty much free of false-positive risk (Author B says they named it wx after yz; 'w' roughly translates as y and 'x' as z). The qualifications I've included in (3) are my attempt to permit translations that are supported in some way by what we know about the taxon - so for example:

• Author C doesn't specify why they named it X. capensis, but it's endemic to/was first collected from the Western Cape
• Author D doesn't specify why they named it Y. leucophylla, but it's the only species in the genus with white patches on the leaves
• Author O doesn't fully specify why they named it Tyrannosaurus rex, but it's a massive terrifying carnivorous reptile of "enormous proportions"

I may not have the wording of (3) tightened up sufficiently, but I hope you'd agree that "corresponds to significant or differentiating features in the description/diagnosis" (or something along those lines) would eliminate many of the false-positive examples you've highlighted? There's presumably nothing in the description of the Brazilian leafhopper to associate it with a former town in Turkey, or in the description of the nematode to link it to the Italian word for Newfoundland (dog)? YFB ¿ 21:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know T. rex is being used to illustrate a point—a good one, at that—but I think this is already covered in your essay where you discuss secondary sourcing. Perhaps including some of these examples of the pitfalls of using dictionaries and strengthening the guidance to gain consensus for borderline cases would help. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/CAM § Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2025. Jako96 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the order Sepiolida is now a suborder, Sepiolina...which is also the name of genus Sepiolina which is subordinate to this suborder. What do? Anthropophoca (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could move the genus page to Sepiolina (genus) or something. Sepiolina can be made a disambiguation page, or maybe redirected to Bobtail squid, idk. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthropophoca: And move Template:Taxonomy/Sepiolida to Template:Taxonomy/Sepiolina (suborder). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. Sepiolina can be a disambiguation page. This matches what is done with Anura and Appendicularia, where a genus shares a name with a higher taxon, and the higher taxon uses a common name as the title. I don't think we ever treat a genus as a primary topic when it shares a name with a higher taxon (Acanthocephala (disambiguation), Diplura (disambiguation) and Ranoidea treat the higher taxon as the primary topic, titled by scientific name). Plantdrew (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright @Trilletrollet @Plantdrew but what about the taxonomy template? Anthropophoca (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there are enough cases like this to have really established any consensus about how to handle them. Ranoidea is the only one of the examples I listed where the genus is included in the higher taxon with the same name. Superfamily Ranoidea uses an undisambiguated taxonomy template, and the taxonomy template for genus Ranoidea is disambiguated with (genus). So I guess you could go that route. Plantdrew (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'll try to move them; i was advised that moving Template:Taxonomy pages is possible, so i will try that Anthropophoca (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the template page for the order/suborder as it seemed like the simplest solution. A cursory checkup on the subordinate pages seems to show that the move worked out Anthropophoca (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suborder Sepiolina is monotypic with a single superfamily, Sepioloidea. The Sepiolida article could be moved there and modified to cover superfamily and suborder.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to improve the TemplateData of Cite WoRMS as can be seen in this sandbox. Is there a way to test the impact of this change anywhere? Anthropophoca (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request on the TemplateData talk page and was working on adding the TemplateData to the WoRMS template while you were working in the sandbox. TemplateData is put on the documentation page, not the template itself, so I'm not sure how it would work with the templates sandbox, but anyway, there is TemplateData for WoRMS now. Plantdrew (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a {{subst:DATE}} work better in the date parameter? Anthropophoca (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You could try it, but I think if it would work, high-use templates like {{Cite web}} would be using it. I don't use Visual Editor and am mainly interested in TemplateData for the monthly reports that show bad parameters. Plantdrew (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at templates such as ^{[clarification needed]} and ^{[citation needed]} shows that they have subst templates on their date autovalue. I'll emulate these but using {{date}} instead. Anthropophoca (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myllokunmingiidae § Requested move 12 July 2025. Jako96 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]