Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

Problematic editing on etymologies

Currently there is what I see to be a problematic issue happening across taxonomy articles all over the project. Wimpus (talk · contribs) is actively removing, without reference any etymology that they see as even remotely inaccurate or suspect, and refuses to follow WP:BRD when challenged. Its now to the point that even validly referenced etymologies are being removed. What are the options for finding a resolution to the situation?--Kevmin § 03:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed fairly quickly to avoid a lot of tedious work undoing what has already been done. I wonder if this is an issue that needs to be elevated to a WP:RfC? I think there are at least five editors who would be interested in a resolution. Gderrin (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
In case the etymology is unsourced and incorrect, it can be removed. Please provide diff-links to point to specific cases, in which you claim that the removal was not correct. Wimpus (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6] and many others. Gderrin (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Gderrin: You are also showing some of your OR-etymologies I have removed ([7], [8]), as you have used Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words for explaining full compounds, while the compounds are not mentioned by Brown. The Euclid-site ([9][10][11]) has etymological flaws in probably one-hundredth epithets (as I have amply demonstrated before). Actually, I checked the original paper for Eucalyptus gigantangion and the Euclid-site merely misread the source, something that I remedied by this edit. In this case, you have misread the Euclid-site, as it does not mention style as Latin word. In this case, the link to World Agroforestry Centre was dead, and that site can not be qualified as reliable source and actually the information on the site (when I eventually found the updated link) was different from what the Wiki-article told us. Wimpus (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Reliable source means "published", not "what Wimpus agrees with". Euclid, Robert Chinnock and others are reliable sources and should not have been deleted, at least not without discussion. Gderrin (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wimpus: There is no point removing non-contentious etymologies that aren't wrong; it is not difficult to locate reliable sources for such things, for example Taxonomic Etymology. Since removal appears to be against consensus, I'd suggest you just tag any items that you find doubtful and leave the rest in place. Alternatively you could place a list of items that need attention on a suitable subpage and link that page here for anyone who feels like working on it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
...The link you have provided is not a reliable source. The first two entries are already erroneous:
  • Acoelomate [Greek a-, without; + Greek coel, cavity] animals
  • “Angiosperms” [Greek angos, vessel; + Greek sperma, seed]
There is no Greek word coel, as the real Greek word is κοιλία (although κοῖλος seems to be more compatible with the orthography) and ἀγγεῖον seems to be used in “Angiosperms”, as it is AngIosperms. Why would you think this is still a reliable source? In case Greek or Latin is not your forte, it might be difficult to identify reliable sources for etymological information. And it might be difficult to use reliable sources properly. I have corrected over one-hundredth instances in which Gderrin, misread or misinterpreted the source he seems to use most often for etymological analyses (i.e. Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words). Even Kevmin, was defending some of Gderrin incorrect interpretations of Brown, and refused to discuss this matter, see here. Wimpus (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's be reasonable about this: coel is visibly the anglicised form, Greek not having the letter "c" or being written in Latin script for that matter, and its sense is correctly given. "angos" is plainly a typo. I am quite comfortable with taxonomic Latin and Greek, and your "you" comments could easily be read by other editors as a personal attack. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
But coel is not Greek. In that case, I can also label church as Greek, as that is the anglicized form of κυριακόν. So, why is the source you have mentioned still a reliable source? In the mentioned source, both karyo and karyon are used. So, it is highly inconsistent. I am not interested in discussing this specific source, but I do think that is paramount, in case editors are using sources, they have to be able to understand what is written in the source and in case a source is highly inconsistent, it is better not to use such a source. Wimpus (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly sources like Agassiz (cited below) are better, and I personally would always cite the actual Greek and provide a transliteration as well. However your attitude is extremely combative, which may well be why the discussion has been brought to this forum. I hope you will take Shyamal's excellent advice and fix things or find better citations where possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not easy to find a reliable source for certain compounds. Of course, I can provide OR-etymologies by explaining the separate parts of the compound (and use a source for those separate parts), but that would be actually OR. I do not know for sure, whether those parts are also the parts that the original describing author intended. There are numerous examples on Wikipedia in which a Wiki-editor have made an OR-etymology, without providing a source for the full compound. Wimpus (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it would certainly be more acceptable to mark roots with your reliable sources and use a bit of OR for synthesis than to delete material summarily. It is not unsurprising for biological users to make mistakes in the grammatical rules of Greek and Latin and there are now trends that suggest that sticklers for grammar have been the cause of taxonomic instability (see thread of publications) and that original errors be retained without emendation. Shyamal (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this needs repeating: There is no point removing non-contentious etymologies that aren't wrong; it is not difficult to locate reliable sources for such things. The Wikipedia requirement is verifiability (WP:VERIFY). When a reliable source for an etymology is given it is to verify why the authority named the organism the way he or she did, not to verify the correct use of Latin or Greek. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors (WP:VERIFYOR). When the naming was poorly based, it would be better if expertise was used to improve Wikipedia by ensuring that the exact phrasing was supported by the reference than removing it entirely.   Jts1882 | talk  10:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm assured by someone on the internet that my sources are wrong, in this case, for reasons that are based on sources that do not assert what I think they state. Moreover, they are au fait with Ancient Greek and apparently qualified to disagree with authorities I presume to trust. It is a prickly pickle, I just glean from classicists for the good bits. cygnis insignis 12:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wimpus (talk · contribs) has made the appropriate corrections in the case of flesh fly and I am sure they will edit more positively in future. It is the norm for editors and readers to point out errors or fix them where possible, finding citations should be easier when one is a specialist in Greek and it should just be a short matter to fix those that are missing sources or citing inappropriate ones. Shyamal (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, the etymology of the flesh fly has four main elements, all of which were correct; the suffix -alis was clearly wrong. I don't see any need to remove the correct material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap: In my edit summary I have stated: "Liddell & Scott: σάρξ, φαγεῖν, αἷμα. And -alis meaning extraordinary is very peculiar. Removed unsourced incorrect OR-etymology." The forms sarkos, phag and haemo- as presented in the etymology are at odds with Liddell and Scott. Etymology is not only about intended meaning, but also about identifying the form, orthography and (real) origin of a word. Gderrin has added numerous times to Wikipedia that flora is the Latin word for "flower", with reference to Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words, while this source translates Flora as the godess of flowers (while providing Latin flos for "flower"). So, we have to be picky. So, could you elaborate on your statement: "Well, the etymology of the flesh fly has four main elements, all of which were correct." I could correct this in this instance, but I do not know whether these etymological analyses of the compounds are actually intended by the original authors. So, this is actually OR. Wimpus (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wimpus: hello again. Spelling: "Goddess". Regards, cygnis insignis 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
That is your opinion! Oh, lapsus calami ... It is not merely a matter of opinion, as you could easily show, that an English dictionary writes goddess and not godess. However, in this discussion, some editors seem to be slightly more indifferent whether we write goddess, godess, godesse, goadess or something else. Wimpus (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Users are largely spared my opinions, cousin, when I can focus on editing. Such an odd construction, goddess, the second meaning refers to M2, the third in McQuarie says much the same thing: "woman who is adored". cygnis insignis 12:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A source I used to use (and the one I was trying to locate) is Agassiz, Louis; Corti, Elio. "Nomenclator Zoologicus".. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A possible confounding issue that Botanical Latin is not Classical Latin, and might use a variety of Greek loanwords. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
But there is no such thing as botanical Greek. So, if Bob Chinnock explains that the epithet strongylophylla, as coined by Ferdinand von Müller, derives from Greek phylla, it is easily disproven by checking a Greek dictionary like Liddell and Scott that tells us that the word for leaf in ancient Greek is actually (phyllon φύλλον). Here we have a non-primary source, i.e. Chinnock, that tells us what the Greek word for leaf would be, that is clearly at odds, with another source, i.e. Liddell and Scott, that can be regarded as a more reliable source when dealing with issues like form, orthography and meaning of Greek words.
But in case we are talking about botanical Latin, authors can not change ad libitum the existing stock of Botanical Latin words for a describing their sources for their own epithet, when providing an etymology. In this case, the epithet alatisepala as coined by Chinnock is derived according to Chinnock from Latin sepala, meaning "sepal". This is easily disproven, as Stearn's Botanical Latin tells us that the proper singular form is sepalum (as well as by our own Wikipedia-lemma sepal). In the latter case, we can not remove or fully replace Chinnock's etymology as he is actually the describing author, but in case Chinnock would be a non-primary source (as in the case of strongylophylla) and he is giving questionable etymologies (that are at odds with other sources), it becomes troublesome to present these false etymologies. Wimpus (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wimpus: The given etymology of strongylophylla as "round-leaved" was useful and correct in the significant points and made it easy to understand the derivation. Another editor could refine the explanation in terms of the exact way it was derived from the original Greek words (as you did), but that is much less important.
In fact a latinized adjective must have been made from the two Greek words (since if the genus gender were different it would be strongylophyllus or strongylophyllum). Authors of species can do that freely; they don't have to choose from a predefined list. But it should not be necessary to include that information in the article (and it may be difficult to find an explicit reference). An indication of the stems of the relevant classical terms should be enough and the exact base form of the Greek word for leaf, for instance, is not necessarily needed. It does not matter if the reference made an error in the ending such as "sepala" instead of "sepalum" when it should be the singular; anyway the derivation is clear and useful.
In any case I think if the WP text is incorrect in detail or insufficiently well referenced, it is appropriate to improve it but not to delete it. In my opinion you have significantly harmed Wikipedia when you have deleted etymological explanations which are essentially correct. Strobilomyces (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Your definition of etymology is too narrow, as etymology also includes the form of the word. Chinnock seems not an highly reliable source for identifying the correct orthography and form.
He identifies poda as the Latin word for foot (Latin: pes, Greek: πούς), malae- as Greek for soft (Greek: μαλακός), microphylla as Greek (Greek: μικρόφυλλος for both feminine and masculine), chamae- as Greek (Greek: χαμαί), -andrum as Greek (Greek: ἀνήρ and in compounds also as -ανδρος/ον), parvi for small (Latin: parvus/a/um), visca as single word (Latin: viscum is the simplex), -carpum as Greek (Greek: καρπός and in compounds also as -καρπος/ον), oppositi as single word (Latin: oppositus/a/um), fasciata for a bundle (Latin: fascis), subfloccos as Latin (should be: subfloccosus/a/um), cordifolium as heart-shaped leaves (should be an adjective, not a plural noun), spongiocarpa as 'spongy fruit' (should be an adjective, not a singular noun), to mention a few. So, the actual problem is, that some sources give highly questionable etymologies. One could call some of Chinnock's etymologies incomplete, but as he clearly states that phylla means leaf, sepala is sepal, fasciata is a bundle, malae- is Greek, we can not deny that this is actually not true. And Chinnock actually translates sepala with the plural sepals for another epithet. The sepala-thingy can not be seen as incomplete, but inconsistent. As he is creating in some instances a parallel Greek language, we are actually disseminating false information. And here I have mentioned Chinnock, as Gderrin was mentioning Chinnock, but there are similar cases. And this is further muddied by editors misinterpreting sources, making the situation even worse. In numerous cases, editors are creating their own etymologies, without providing a source for the full compound. And some of these OR-etymologies are evidently incorrect or highly speculative. It seems, that not all editors are fully aware of this situation. Wimpus (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to criticise Chinnock I think that you need to quote primary sources. malae- is an obvious typo, whether in APNI or an earlier source, microphylla is the Latinised from of microphyllos, oppositi- is equivalent to alati- (a Bot. Lat. combining form) which you let pass elsewhere. The monograph isn't readily available online, but the JABG paper doesn't mention any Latin or Greek roots at all. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this google books the monography you mean?   Jts1882 | talk 
Yes. Somehow I got the mistaken impression that Google Books didn't have the text. (Possibly incorrectly applied the rule of thumb that Google Books doesn't have the text for modern works that aren't available elsewhere. Oops.) This does have references to Latin and Greek. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppositi is written without a hyphen, while alati- is written with a hyphen. It could mean, that Chinnock is inconsistent, or that he actually identifies oppositi as a single word. We could further speculate whether he is identifying it as genitive singular or a nominative plural. Using these three options (1. word-forming element, 2. genitive singular, 3. nominative plural) would be actually OR, as we do not know what Chinnock intended. As you can see in the provided link on p. 325: "Latin alati- winged, sepala, sepal", you can see that he is not translating sepala with sepalled. Interestingly, you can also find in the same book on p. 534: "Latin cordati-, heart-shaped, sepala, sepals." So, which one is the typo, on p. 325 or on p. 534? Or do we speculate that both etymologies are correct, but are in a different stage of the etymological analysis? Wimpus (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I have tried repeatedly to explain these points to Wimpus, including explaining that it's not wrong to say that words like strongylophylla are derived from phylla, because a derivation has multiple steps, and the component phylla is involved in one of them. But Wimpus shows no signs of being willing to engage constructively and collaboratively. (See e.g. User talk:Peter coxhead#Stem.) Wimpus knows the truth and everyone else is wrong (including the authors of the ICNafp!).
Wimpus has been warned for edit-warring, and I fear that ultimately admin action will be needed. They are definitely harming Wikipedia by removing useful information rather than making simple corrections (e.g. saying that the derivation is from components of Ancient Greek origin instead of from actual Ancient Greek words, when the latter is perhaps incorrect if interpreted strictly.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I've checked the primary source for Eremophila alatisepala. Chinnock does not appear to have done what you say that he did - the text is "The specific epithet is derived from the very prominent wings formed by the margins and bases of the calyx segments and the upper pedicel which are diagnostic for this species", with no Latin mentioned, nor grammatical number. From my knowledge of Botanical Latin I would analyse this a Bot. Lat. alati combining form << alatus (winged) and Bot. Lat. sepala adj. f. (sepalled); a conceivable alternative interpretation would be winged sepals as a noun in apposition - sepala being the plural of sepalum - but nouns in apposition are relatively rarely used. Deleting etymologies which are essentially correct because of some imprecision is not IMO an appropriate action. Deleting them because the use the forms used in a word, rather than the root form, is not an appropriate action either. I wouldn't object to a consistent practice of using roots - alatisepala "with winged sepals" from Lat. alatus (winged) and Bot. Lat. sepalum (sepal) - but you left the combining form in place. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, but Gderrin suggested in his edit, that this etymology was supported by his sources (including Chinnock, 1979). As you can see in the edit summary, I explicitely asked for what Chinnock was using, sepalum or sepala. Wimpus (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
As you claim that Chinnock is not mentioning Latin forms in his 1979 paper, you can not state that sepala is Latin meaning sepalled, as it is not mentioned by Chinnock (in 1979). This is actually OR. And I actually doubt whether a reliable source would identify sepallus/a/um as an single word. There are however compounds in Latin that ends on -sepallus/a/um (written with a hyphen when presented as last part of a compound). Maybe the source from 2007 would have mentioned that Latin sepala is sepalled in English, but that was not actually not mentioned by Gderrin. We have to rely on sources, not on what we think what the form might be and we have to be carefull with Hineininterpretieren of Chinnock's text to something that is fully internally consistent. Wimpus (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What was wrong with the etymology using the Chinnock monograph as the source?   Jts1882 | talk  16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Chinnock indicates that sepala would mean sepal (singular) (p. 325: "Latin alati- winged, sepala, sepal") , while Stearn' Botanical Latin indicates that sepalum is the singular. Chinnock is contradicting himself in the same monograph, as he derives cordatisepala from sepala, meaning sepals (plural) (p. 534: "Latin cordati-, heart-shaped, sepala, sepals."). I am not against using this source (I am actually in favor), as Chinnock is the describing author, but we can not state, without any reservation that sepala means sepal. I have added therefore a reference to Stearn.
In an earlier version, Gderrin did not used Chinnock to provide the etymology, but constructed an OR-etymology based on Wiktionary. The same etymology was later resourced with a reference to Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words. Brown does not mention the full compound alatisepala, but provides separately an entry for alatus and sepalum. Later, I removed this OR-etymology, as I doubted whether Chinnock was also using sepalum. As, it turned out, Chinnock is actually using sepala instead. So, it seems that I have removed the OR-etymology of Gderrin and not the etymology of Chinnock in this specific case.
I do however object to use in each single case, incorrect etymological descriptions of Chinnock, when Chinnock is a secondary source and he is guessing, what 19th-centuary authors like Ferdinand von Müller might have intended or used as word origins. In case a secondary source is highly consistent, we could easily use such a source, but given the lapsus I have mentioned of Chinnock, we have to be carefull. Wimpus (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This is indeed a highly problematic subject. When taxa are named, the author often does not explain the etymology or is deeply mistaken about the Greek or Latin, even to the extent of confusing both languages. Subsequent sources try to explain the names but then often make horrendous mistakes themselves.
If we want to follow the rules of Wikipedia as closely as possible, we would often be forced to abstain from any etymology to avoid either OR or POV or an unreliable source. We could call this the "purist" stance. The effects of this stance are highly regrettable. The etymology is essential information but we would be forbidden to provide it, even when there is no reasonable doubt about the meaning of the name.
Is Wimpus such a severe purist? No, he is not. He is a lover of Greek and Latin. He wants to provide the correct derivations. But when doing so, his edits are often removed because he cannot provide a source linking the general dictionaries with the particular names. So, to remove known falsehoods, he has no other option but to delete the etymology.
Is there a solution to this problem? Well, we could apply WP:Ignore all rules. When rules lead to absurd consequences, we are obliged to change their application in such a way that their effects are no longer absurd. To do this properly, you need an accessory set of rules. Perhaps these rules would lead to a more practical situation:
  1. When a naming author is mistaken about the Greek or Latin, it is not a forbidden OR to provide the real Greek or Latin words or derivations also, when these can be sourced via a dictionary or grammar.
  2. When a subsequent source explaining the etymology is mistaken about the Greek or Latin, it is to be considered an unreliable source as regards the etymology per se but may still be referenced to prove such a historical etymology exists.
  3. When a subsequent source is mistaken about the Greek or Latin, it is not a forbidden OR to provide the real Greek or Latin words or derivations also, when these can be sourced via a dictionary or grammar.
  4. When an author does not provide any etymology and no other source provides an explanation, it is OR to offer an interpretation even when sourced via a dictionary.
  5. What in any particular case constitutes the correct Greek or Latin is to be decided by the consensus among users.
Such accessory rules would result in providing the reader with the most complete information, of superior reliability.--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Part of the problem seems to lie in different understandings of what is meant by "etymology" in the context of scientific names. Such names are usually built from existing components in "Biological Latin" (Neolatin), not by going back to the original Greek or Latin words. In a taxon article, what our readers should be told, in order of importance, is:
  1. First and foremost, the meaning of the word in Biological Latin.
  2. The components of the word and their meanings in Biological Latin, since these may be useful in understanding other scientific names. The meaning regularly differs to some degree from the meaning of the original word in the source language. As a trivial example, the component "ornith[o]" is used to refer to all birds, whereas in some dialects of Ancient Greek ὄρνις, ornis (genitive ὄρνιθος, ornithos) seems to have had a more limited use. Other words, like the botanical use of sepalum or calyx, either don't exist in the classical language or have significantly different meanings.
  3. The language of origin of the components of the word, since the way they are combined differs (at least in Botanical Latin) depending on whether this is Greek or Latin.
  4. The lexeme (not word) in the original language from which the component is derived. Since we cannot assume that our readers can decline Greek or Latin, where the stem used to form the component is not obvious from the nominative singular of the lexeme (which is normally used as the headword [lemma]), it's helpful to give the genitive singular where this reveals the stem (as in the case of ὄρνις where ὄρνιθος shows the "th"). One problem with (4) is how far to go back. Thus words ending in -doros may be derived from the Ancient Greek component -δωρος (added, e.g., to the name of a god to mean "gift of", as in Apollodoros), but this itself is (sourceably) derived from the noun δῶρον, doron, meaning 'gift'. It wouldn't be wrong to give either as the Ancient Greek origin (with a reference, of course).
The core problem with Wimpus's edits is that they have regularly removed 1–3 because, on a purist interpretation, 4 – the least important – is not correct. It's often a purist interpretation, because, for example, "ornitho-" is in some real sense derived from the word ὄρνιθος, the genitive singular of the lexeme represented by the nominative singular ὄρνις, because a standard way of revealing the stem used in compounding is to look at the genitive (and this is explicitly stated in the ICNafp). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MWAK for the new input. @Peter coxhead, I do not know whether I have removed on large scale the etymology as provided by the describing author. In case I have done this, it was wrong, but the examples as provided by Gderrin do not point to this direction. So, could you provide diff-links in case I removed etymologies of describing authors?
In a multiple cases, I have removed the OR-etymology of Gderrin. That is removal of 4 actually. It seems that you and MWAK might differ on whether 4 is accepted. In some cases, the derivation might be obvious. But when 4 is accepted, it also depends on the source and the editor whether the OR-etymology is actually reliable. As I have mentioned before, I had to correct over one-hundredth etymologies of Gderrin, as he was misinterpreting his prime source Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words. In case you want to use such a source as Brown, you have to know the difference between a nominative case and a genitive case, the difference between a word and a word-forming element and recognize what a participium perfecti or participium praesentis is. In case, you present flora as the word for flower (tens of times), identify the first person singular as participium praesentis or adjective ("derived from the Latin word niteo meaning "shining" or "bright" "), identify the participium perfecti as infinitive (" confusus) is a Latin word meaning "pour together" or "mingle","; "derived from the Latin word despectus meaning "to look down upon"."), derive participia praesentis from a longer word ("(pallens) is derived from the Latin word pallidus ") you are actually harming Wikipedia. The last few years, Gderrin used Brown, but earlier he used a document on the internet, that was riddled with errors and did not had any author mentioned and before that he used Wiktionary. In this specific case, it can be disastrous when someone with too little knowledge about Latin and Greek grammar is performing his own etymologies.
In other cases, I have actually removed sources, that contained numerous errors. I think that Peter coxhead is too creative into justifying erroneous etymologies. He suggested that the etymological explanation of the Euclid-site: "Eucalyptus brevistylis: Latin brevis, short and stylis, style.", in which the form stylis (Botanical Latin stylus is the nominative singular) seems like an error, stylis can be reinterpreted as ablative plural. But in that case, we can also reinterpret Gderrin's flora as word-forming element (or as last part of a compound), Chinnock's oppositi as genitive singular, phylla as nominative plural et cetera. We do not know whether this is intended or not. It would be an Hineininterpretierung to indicate that it was intended as genitive singular or as ablative plural. As I see numerous of such irregularities on the Euclid-site (both phloios and phloia are identified as Greek for bark), I think it is better that we do not use such sites. But in case, some editors are using mental gymnastics to fully justify the flawed etymologies, such false etymologies are still being disseminated by Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wimpus: you are still not accepting that scientific names are derived from and in "Biological Latin". We know for sure what brevistylis means in Botanical Latin regardless of the precise words that it is derived from – it means "with short styles", "short-styled". It is utterly ridiculous to say that we do not know what is intended by the element -phylla in a plant name or from what it is derived. It is irrelevant to the meaning whether the source gave the nominative singular of the lexeme or not. They are not "flawed etymologies" in the context of explaining the origin and meaning of botanical names.
I believe that the consensus here is against your removal (as opposed to sensible amendment) of explanations of the meaning of the scientific names of organisms, and if you persist, then the only possible next step is to ask for administrator intervention. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion about etymology is seriously flawed. And your advice to NessieVL with respect to the etymology of Ornithodoros seems to underline this and would seriously harm Wikipedia, as you were not clear that she should use a source, that would explain the whole compound. Your remark "so the etymology is almost certainly correct, albeit condensed." seems to underline that you are quite indifferent to ἀκρίβεια. That someone is allready mistranslitterating a Greek word, is a possible telltale that the rest of the etymology might be also questionable. Maybe not, but it is a clear sign not to jump to conclusions too soon. As there are actually other sources that tells us, that Ornithodoros might be derived from ὄρνις and δορός, it seems that a superficial etymological analysis with "something with doro-", can lead to false etymologies. You seem to make a plea to reduce etymology to something that only approaches the Greek or Latin word and whether the Greek word is written correctly seems to be of no importance. As the example of Ornithodoros shows, can this ultimately results in utterly absurd etymologies, in which incorrect meanings are ascribed. And as we have discussed this before, etymologies considering stylus can not be imprecise, as the etymology must make clear, whether botanical Latin stylus (derived from stilus) is intended, or the Greek word στῦλος as equivalent of columna. Wimpus (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
And you seem to ignore my remarks about the massive etymological misinterpretations of Gderrin. These guestimations are evidently more harmfull to Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is allowed to provide the intended meaning. E.g. we may simply translate Ornithosuchus with "bird crocodile". However, we should avoid simplistic translations of the compound elements. Stating "from the Greek ornitho, 'bird', and suchus, 'crocodile'" would be highly deceptive as it suggests to the reader that there are Classical Greek nouns ornitho and suchus. In such cases we should allow ourselves to provide the correct word ornis, genitive ornithos and even to explain complex etymologies like "Neolatin suchus from the Greek Souchos, the Egyptian Crocodile God", even when we cannot find a source directly connecting these words with Ornithosuchus.--MWAK (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@MWAK: yes, strictly speaking it's wrong to say from the Greek ornitho, 'bird' (although it's commonly found in biology texts, where it's assumed that readers know what is meant even though it's not fully spelt out). The simple solution is to write "from the Greek-derived ornitho-, 'bird'" – with, as ever, a source given for this (something I don't always explicitly write, since I assume everyone accepts it as a requirement – Wimpus, please note). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: "Stating "from the Greek ornitho, 'bird', and suchus, 'crocodile'" would be highly deceptive as it suggests to the reader that there are Classical Greek nouns ornitho and suchus." That is the core problem. We are providing "words" that are actually not "words" attested in ancient Greek or classical Latin. And given the sloppy etymologies I have encountered in various publications, I am not sure, whether some describing authors actually know the difference between parts of compounds, word-forming elements, stems, and full words as attested in ancient Greek and classical Latin. When writing about species, we have to be very precise regarding the orthography (therefore I corrected Gunniopsis tenufolia to Gunniopsis tenuifolia), but in case we are writing about etymology, an approximation of something that resembles Latin or Greek seems to be sufficient. Wimpus (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I would then use the phrase "Greek-derived affix", otherwise you still suggest the existence of a noun ornitho. Also, the whole should in this case be linked to the List of commonly used taxonomic affixes.--MWAK (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wimpus: yes, to our readers it would be somewhat misleading (definitely not highly deceptive), and I have never disagreed with changing such wording in a way that preserves the purpose of the text, i.e. telling readers what the scientific name means and identifying commonly used components in scientific names. Clarify, sure, but don't remove sourced information that is correct as to meaning.
And you were of course quite right to correct tenufolia to tenuifolia, since it's a correction which is mandated by the ICNafp. Interestingly, you left in the article The specific epithet (tenuifolia) is from Latin tenuifolius, meaning "slender-leaved". This was, in my words above, "somewhat misleading". The epithet is from the Botanical Latin tenuifolius; there's no source I'm aware of that says the tenuifolius is an adjective in Classical Latin. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The label Latin can also encompass botanical Latin, Neolatin, medieval Latin, ecclesiastical Latin, late Latin. The label Greek is more restrictive, as it can mean ancient Greek or modern Greek, but there is not such thing as botanical Greek. Wimpus (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In case a secondary source is telling us, that ornithosuchus is derived from the Greek words ornitho, meaning "bird" and suchus meaning "crocodile", the only thing we could say is that the secondary source tells us that ornithosuchus is derived from the Greek words for "bird" and "crocodile". Nothing more.
It is of greater importance to create an encyclopedia that is reliable and internally consistent, than to create an encyclopedia, in which the eagerness of editors to explain something is more important, than the reliability of the information. Of course, it would benefit the reader that the meaning of an epithet is explained, but when it is accompanied with deceptive information (in which words are presented as being ancient Greek, while no such word existed), than we would provide our readers a tremendous disservice.
As a solution, we could use some secondary sources selectively, and only use the information that is correct and leave out the deceptive information. But that requires that an editor can make a reasonable judgement. Otherwise, I am actually baffled, by the eagerness to use sources, that are highly inconsistent, create a parallel ancient Greek language, and apparently do not know the difference between Latin and Greek. Would you use a source, that is constantly mutilating names of species and is writing Tyrannosaur Rex, Tyran saur rex, Tyrannosaur rexos? But, you do not seem to mind using sources, that seem to mutilate the existing stock of Greek and Latin words. And while the ICNafp does not have a clear regulation for providing etymology, that does not mean, that we can present to our readers a plethora of non-existing words as being Greek or Latin words. Wimpus (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Conservation Status

I've made a start on a Lua module to handle the conservation status in taxoboxes. Ultimately it can replace {{taxobox/species}} which is very difficult to navigate. I've added handling of a couple of regional systems using the module but all but a handful of taxoboxes will still use the existing template code (including all the IUCN statuses).

To find out what was used, I've analyzed the use of |status system= in taxoboxes, which is summarised in the table below.

Summary of conservation system usage
Conservation status system Taxobox Speciesbox Subspeciesbox Total
IUCN 3.1 8204 36303 310 44826
IUCN 2.3 3669 5211 40 8928
IUCN unspecified 2 1 0 3
IUCN (all) 11875 41515 350 53757 (5 automatic taxobox)
TNC (none use NatureServe parameter value) 806 1271 2106
CITES 4 138 2 162 (18 automatic taxobox)
ESA (USA) 42 115 52 213
DECF (Western Australia, Australia) 27 669 0 629
QLDNCA (Queensland, Australia) 3 46 0 49
NZTCS (New Zealand) 35 96 2 134 (1 automatic taxobox)
COSEWIC (Canada) 1 2 1 4
EPBC (Australia) 127 434 594
Newly handled regional systems (by module)
CNCFlora (Brazil) 1 1
TPWCA (Northern Territory, Australia) 2 7 9
Totals (including empty) 18604 49379 550 68860


This post is mainly to notify people that I am making a few changes as a warning in case something wierd happens to the conservation status in the taxoboxes. I don't expect there to be anything, but just in case.

In addition, I noticed that there are a number of regional anglosphere conservation systems that are handled but not documented. Are there any others that people would like added? There is a large non-English speaking world out there, which is currently being ignored.   Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to bring up a couple things I've been thinking about. I'm not sure that conservation status should've been included in taxoboxes in the first place, but as long as it is, I can't object to adding supoort for other systems. I do want to see some caution with regional systems; they probably should only be applied to endemic species (unless the assessment looks at the status of the species globally). COSEWIC does not take a global view, and while the documentation says that it should only be used for Canadian endemics, it had been included on non-endemics.
Currently, conservation status is mixing together two different sets of systems. IUCN and NatureServe assessments are made by biologists and have no legal standing. The other systems involve some legal protections, and are made by governments (with the input of biologists). Given that taxoboxes support display two status systems, it might be nice if one is for "pure" assessments and the other is for "legal" assessments. It's probably not worth the effort to shift all the legal assessments to |status_system2=, but when two assessments are present, I've been making some effort to put IUCN/NatureServe under |status_system=, and legal assessments under the second parameter. Plantdrew (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I am 86.83.56.115, found my old account half a year ago, just guessed my password a few days ago... Brought this up at the Plant Project page. How about Red List of South African Plants Online [12] for starters. India & Colombia have something going on as well, though I'm not too familiar with either -will check them out more thoroughly and get back. I wanted to use CNCFlora even when a species is not endemic, but when the majority of the distribution is within Brazil, idem with other local systems. This because I find the IUCN assessments for plants very old (almost all from 1998) and almost always very badly done, with usually no justifications given, obsolete taxonomy, restricted distributions reflecting under-collection, no stable/universal assessment criteria, etc... Also I hate how they obfuscate the dates the assessments were done, the politics involved in using the most splitter taxonomy possible and the lying in their yearly press releases. When an assessment is finally updated, and it turns out that what was said to be critically endangered wasn't, they go for d.d. instead of admitting they were wrong or downgrading the species -that would screw with their press releases. Okay, will calm down... Never thought of it, but as Plantdrew suggests, taking it out of the taxobox would not be objectionable to me. I would prefer to not have government legal statuses, as politics and science don't always mix -in this country where I live, until very recently, plant species were primarily afforded legal status based on how pretty they are. Leo Breman (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
About legal systems... Isn't CITES the only system which is truly global? Especially regarding European species, there could easily be 30 different legal interpretations of the status of a particular species. Migratory species could get even more dicey. Or what about species which might noxious or invasive in one continent and endangered in some marginal areas of their native distribution?
About other systems I've looked around (I mostly do plants) and am rather disappointed outside of Brazil and South Africa. In Europe pretty much each country maintains a Red List... But there are also EU regulations. Confusing stuff. The best place I know to find info is the Tela Botanica site, which has entries for both "statuts de protection" and "liste rouge", including the over-seas territories and most ex-colonies, and helpfully includes the specific laws - see this for example [13]. The INPN [14] also presents this info. Here are the protected plants of Guadeloupe et Martinique [15], for example, accessable from Tela Botanica. Russia has the useful Plantarum website [16] which gives access to Red Lists for much of the former USSR -I like this system. China's useful new taxonomic database [17] doesn't appear to include conservation statuses. India has this [18], which has been down most of 2019, so that is a bit useless. Malaysia has a few very nice Red List publications, at least regarding plants, but I gather these will supersede the old 1998 assessments at the IUCN at the end of 2019 (many species will no longer be endangered, woo-hoo, although actually nothing has happened to the populations). China and Kenya are working on a joint biodiversity portal for Kenyan flora, but I don't know much about this yet (idiot Google gives me complaints about Chinese industrial plants in Africa when I try to search this). Argentina's Flora del Conosur [19] doesn't record conservation. Colombia has this [20], with local assessments, but it seems pretty new and not yet worked out much... but with the second most endemics in the world it might be useful in the future. Mexico's CONABIO is a government-run system, and where assessments are made, these are directly submitted to CITES, or so I gather. Costa Rica had INBio, which recently ran out of funding, but they have a new system up here [21] -which has individual assessments for species, but I haven't really checked them out yet for quality. Looks like the whole 2020 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation goal isn't getting achieved.Leo Breman (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Consistency of Scientific names, especially in English.

Dear WIKI colleagues, One area for improvement in WIKIPEDIA is in the consistent application of strict conventions in scientific nomenclature. On the one hand national languages OTHER THAN in ENGLISH are not consistent. For example, in Spanish proper names are not capitalized at all. On the other hand, names in Latin are absolutely strict, as well as are the complementary English names. In both there is no flexibility at all, and we specialists (e.g birders and scientists) can get quite confused dealing with complex subject matter in phylogeny when the lay-person offers up species with no clear names.

Speaking of the lay-person, it cannot be over-emphasized just how important proper names are. Today the entire areas of phylogeny, taxonomy and classifications are in complete upheaval, due to the synergistic effects of digital and chemical tecnology developments. All flora and fauna are under re-evaluation since these developments came into play about 20 years ago.

So, an example: The english name of Geotrygon frenata (And here the editor cannot allow me to apply the obligatory bold-face or italics for the Latin) is the White-fronted Quail-Dove. Notice that the hyphenated adjective has only the first word capitalized, while both words of the noun (A category) are capitalized. Please know that this is not some weirdo being picky. This is the convention. English species names are just that: specific, just like the Latin. One cannot change the way they are written because of personal preference, as is very frequently the case here on WIKIPEDIA.

Honestly, because I spend thousands of hours working with species of birds, trees, orchids, etc, I spend many of those here searching information and become quite confused in many cases because of this problem.

Please help us ameliorate this in some fashion. There must be algorithms that would address the problem.

Thank you, Douglas Knapp, biologist and conservationist.

  • @Douglas Knapp: I am probably not best placed to respond to this. But in summary, the issue of capitalization of English common names of organisms in Wikipedia has some time ago been decided in favour of a style that is consistent across the encyclopedia, while avoiding making special exceptions for subject areas except where critical. The upshot of this is a consensus not to apply capitalization to common names except for proper name components. This is an ongoing debate, but repeated iterations have seen somewhat consistent outcomes over the years. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Capitalization for some more background (also the material in footnote h). I would also like to note that capitalization is by no means a universal convention; publications across the life sciences show quite a scattershot approach in this respect. - Correspondingly, I have reverted your capitalization changes in various Becard articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae's points above are excellent. Like every other publication, Wikipedia has its own style and we follow the instructions in our Manual of Style at MOS:LIFE. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms is now a proposed part of the Manual of Style, so it is not something we can refer to authoritatively. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page - Douglas Knapp, please keep the discussion here.)

[...] Once again, WIKI recognizes the need for conventions with scientific names and handles them well. However, there is sort of a collective gap in management of common names. English common names are thrown together with all of the other modern languages. Therein lies the mistake. With birds (And maybe plants) there is very consistently applied convention.

So, one cannot say that "WIKI has their own style" in this context. Whatever you might think that is, it cannot override scientific convention. An example for clarification: Fulvous-bellied Whistling-Duck. The second word in the category is capitalized; in the adjective it is not. Universal convention. Also: Rose-throated Becard. You incorrectly write it as Rose-throated becard.

"SchreiberBike" and "Elmidae" are mistaken. I appreciate your work on bringing consistency to WIKI language, but scientific conventions are sacred!

This broad policy decision needs to be taken at some higher adminstrative level, but I don't yet understand my access...

Douglas Knapp

FYI: My history includes the publishing of several bird guides, one birdsound CD, association with several other field-guide authors, and collaboration with the most noted ornithologists in the Neo-tropics. (Hate to toot my own horn here, but feel the need since I am not getting the desired response!)

Douglas Knapp (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Douglas Knapp: Again, there are people here who are better equipped than me to discuss this issue, but I'd like to underline that this is a general encyclopedia that models its conventions on general usage. When it comes to a topic that is in such broad and perpetual use as common names for organisms, the usage in narrow specialist publications is likely to be outstripped by differences even within the same field but with a wider ambit. I'll quote a note from the WP Manual of Style here: While some narrow-topic journals (e.g. most in ornithology, many in herpetology, some in especially British botany), prefer the capitalization, most reliable academic and scientific publications, including leading biology, ecology, and general science journals (even when publishing ornithological papers) do not permit this capitalization. The same holds true for the vast majority of general-audience publications, such as newspapers, dictionaries, other encyclopedias, UK- and US-English writing and style guides, etc. - Where there is no risk of introducing confusion, Wikipedia will choose to go with the most common usage. And I can't really buy into the notion that "rose-throated becard" instead of "Rose-throated Becard" is going to produce any substantial confusion whatsoever. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Knapp likely refers to this book Birds of the World: Recommended English Names. See the part on how contentious capitalisations are (ref. 20, which apparently quotes Wikipedia, haha). Personally I think bollocks. A name of a bird is not a proper noun in English, so no capitals when used in the middle of a sentence. If ornithologists start demanding a special orthography, why can't musicians demand the same for genres music or instruments, etc... Keep that up, and eventually English will resemble German! Plus isn't there a difference between British and American English grammar regarding hyphenation. Also why should vernacular names be standardised? If silly Americans want to call aubergines eggplants or thrushes robins that is their prerogative, they aren't wrong to do so. Isn't diversity in language a good thing? And why should normal speech conform to the newest taxonomy? That is what the binomial system is for. And why should the writers of that particular book get to decide? Who elected them arbitrates of how people in for example Trinidad may speak English? Also I gather there are other lists out there besides that one... My 2 cents.Leo Breman (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the Wikipedia article on Birds of the World: Recommended English Names I see the following statement: hyphens are used only to connect two names that are themselves bird species or families, e.g., "Eagle-Owl", "Wren-Babbler", or when the combined name would be difficult to read, e.g., "Silky-flycatcher". Is the latter correct?   Jts1882 | talk  06:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You're asking me, Jts? I think the authors would like us to write "Silky-flycatcher" in this case not because of the hyphenation rule you mention above, but in order to impose a phylogenetic nomenclatural structure on the vernacular English language, as (if I recall correctly) silky flycatchers are phylogenetically relatively unrelated to the flycatchers... Sigh. See below. Do I ping like this? @Douglas Knapp:

(copied from my talk page)

Dear Mr. Bremen,

This situation with bird taxonomy, classification and nomenclature has reached the absurd. I hear "bollocks" and all sorts of other insulting and superior comments from LAYPERSONS IN MY AREA!

I am not voicing an opinion. Latin and English standards have been in place in ornithology for 200 years! WIKI overrides them quite incorrectly; amazing stuff to hear someone say I have no right to claim confusion because scientific conventions have been overriden and disrespected. Yes! I lose quite a bit of time wandering around because I have been misguided by bad language.

Bacteriologist cannot tell us how to use language in ornithology. Astronomists cannot tell us how to use language in ornithology. WIKI opinion has no say whatsoever in how we describe species! No right whatsoever to dictate OUR STANDARDS!

Almost all comments that have come in under the names "elmidae", "jts1882", and "Leo Bremmen" are uneducated. You may or may not be scientists but you are clearly not ornithologists. In fact, almost all references made by you three use EXACTLY the conventions I describe.

This is not opinion. This is existing convention sacred to our work since the time of Linneus. English names change quite precisely to corresponding changes in the Latin. If WIKI would just use English the same way it uses Latin there would be no problem. So, why not just do that? OTHER COMMON LANGUAGE DOES NOT OPERATE LIKE LATIN AND ENGLISH!

DK, a published ornithologist

P.S. Please remember I am still brand new to this talk format and cannot figure out how to respond directly to discussions. Douglas Knapp (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Douglas Knapp,

Ha! Please, I am sorry if you feel insulted, but it is MY opinion, being mainly a plant guy with an interest in linguistics and vernacular, that imposing phylogenetic structure on common tongue is BOLLOCKS! Imposing alternative orthographic rules on vernacular for certain disciplines is even worse: arrogant and stupid. The problem with nomenclature ambiguity in natural language was solved some 300 years ago by a guy named Linnaeus -so just use Latin if you are confused, and there is no problem. You may not like MY opinion, which I in no way would assume to be normative, but YOU will have to accept that your opinion is not universal. To paraphrase yourself, ornithologists and twitchers cannot tell us how to use language in English. "Existing convention sacred to our work since the time of Linneus"... Oh yeah? I am quite familiar with Linnaeus and am not aware he had any recommendations on how English should be used. Anyway, my opinion on the subject is moot, consensus on the use of the English language in this dictionary seems reached.

Also your statement: "English standards have been in place in ornithology for 200 years". You are mistaken, the book I mentioned above states that it is the first to attempt to standardise English vernacular bird names, and it was published in 2006, 13 years ago.

Please think about what you saying friend, if I got together with a bunch of agronomists and wrote a book which demanded that henceforth all vegetables be written in bold and in all-caps, would YOU be wrong in writing:

"The Rose-throated Becard ate an eggplant in the Sun."

...when according to us you should be writing: "The Rose-throated Becard ate an AUBERGINE in the sun."

What if those pesky astronomers come along and demand that all heavenly bodies be written in yet another alternative orthography?

"The Rose-throated Becard ate an AUBERGINE in the sun."

Come on! Kids would need a couple of bible-sized manuals in order to write a sentence!

If I understand your points: You demand that the English language be used instead of Latin binomials for exactly the same reason we have Latin binomials, 1. standardized across all varieties of vernacular English, 2. subject to phylogenetic nomenclature and 3. with orthographic rules in the manner of Latin binomials.

Thus Shakespeare desperately needs correcting into the proper ornithological conventions... This is going to really screw up poetry... that is, if a few American ornithologists had the right to dictate these things, and poets would care!

I really hope you do not take this as insulting, I am trying to explain my position in a few ways. Regards, Leo. Leo Breman (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Douglas Knapp:, almost everybody watching this talk page is aware of the capitalization convention for birds promoted by organizations such as the IOC and AOU. This capitalization issue has been discussed many many times on Wikipedia. More people aren't commenting because we're either sick of this discussion, or recognize that Wikipedia has taken a stance against capitalization. That stance was established in a discussion at WP:BIRDCON. There is an incomplete catalog of some of the hundreds of discussion regarding capitalization of common names of organisms at User:SMcCandlish/Organism names on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So I won't copy & paste more stuff from Douglas Knapp on my talk page (and my ridiculously loquacious answer) here then -but the other way round. Do note however, Plantdrew, some of us haven't been around so long as the rest of you.Leo Breman (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

International Species Information System

I want to find info on how many/if species are kept/bred. ISIS, now rebranded as Species360, used to have a searchable database, didn't it? Is that still extant? The Species360 website looks more like a software marketing page, can't find anything. I like this: Ctenosaura bakeri. I was working on Bufo melanochlorus, and vaguely seem to remember owning a few back in the day and that they were reasonably cheap and common... was hoping ISIS would at least give some indication of the international pet trade/if they were once exported to Europe (perhaps misidentified?). I was also working on Ara ambiguus and want some idea of the captive population. There are pictures of the bird at dozens of zoos around the world on Wikimedia Commons alone, so it must be reasonably common and popular (and photogenic) as cage bird? Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

October drive for spooky plants and animals taxa?

Hey all, Halloween is one of my favorite holidays and I'm wondering if anyone wants to get in the spooky spirit with me. We could have a de-stubathon or GA drive or something relating to spooky taxa? Ideas

feel free to add species to the above list and chime in with ideas of what a good October event could be. Enwebb (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a cool idea, not sure how much I'll be able to participate, but additional palaeontological subjects that come to mind could be Daemonosaurus, Diabloceratops, ghost lineage, Zuul (dinosaur named after a demon from the film Ghostbusters), Sauroniops (dinosaur named after Sauron), etc... Of course, there's also a genus called Satan, containing the Widemouth blindcat. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Here are some witch related titles.   Jts1882 | talk  14:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There's also Longan witches broom-associated virus --Nessie (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You bring up zombies and don't mention the many redlinks in Ophiocordyceps and Cordyceps? Enough with your speciesism and your animals and plants only! --Nessie (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deepest apologies, NessieVL. I have struck my species-ist phrasing and replaced with a more inclusive "taxa" :) Enwebb (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted.  :) --Nessie (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It would be fun to load up on special occasion DYKs if we get enough 5x expansions or a GA or two. Pinging Cwmhiraeth the DYK superstar. Enwebb (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to join in. At DYK, they usually have a special set of hooks for Halloween, but to qualify for that you will need to abide by the DYK criteria for newness and length, or newly promoted GAs, and nominate the article within seven days of creation/expansion promotion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
For any interested, I have set up a table of candidate species in a TOL Contest subpage, and started a discussion on the talk page about scoring structure. Enwebb (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

official spooky species contest!

I have spent officially way too much of my life finding the spooky critters of Wikipedia. Allow me to report that there are MANY. Please sign up for my light-hearted contest here to improve these taxa (also who wants to collab on Halloween darter?) Enwebb (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll be happy to collabotate on Halloween darter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I started work on the Haloween darter. Do you want to expand it more? I haven't yet discovered how it got its name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It's named for it's orange and black coloration. See (PDF) A new species of Percina (Perciformes: Percidae) from the Apalachicola River drainage, southeastern United States. Plantdrew (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I arbitrarily chose the dates of the contest to be the last week of Sept and all of Oct (Sept 24-Oct 31) so I will start working on this soon :) Enwebb (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I jumped the gun. If it were to be a DYK for Haloween, I would have to nominate it within seven days of starting the expansion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
...Or once we successfully pass our GAN! Enwebb (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The first day of the contest is today, so there is still time to sign up! For those already signed up, you can start improving articles on the table and claiming points! Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about MOS:TIES

This came up today on Talk:Megabat, with another user asking why the article was written in AmE when the family that is the subject of the article does not occur in the US (I am in the US, though, and this is the only English variant I have experience writing in). What constitutes "strong ties" to a geographic area? In this case, Pteropodidae is a widespread family that would encompass several English dialects (Pakistani English, Indian English, Australian English, Nigerian English, Philippine English, South African English...), so if it needs to be rewritten, who would decide which English variation is the "right one"?

Basically is it fine that I write about taxonomic groups that aren't found in the US with AmE? I would think so per MOS:RETAIN, and wanted to check and see if this discussion has been had before. Enwebb (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would think that Megabat has no strong national ties, as it is connected to many areas and nations. It's not about Indian megabats or megabats of the Philippines. That being said, I don't really care what dialect is used in any article. --Nessie (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought the rules were the article stays in whatever form that it was originally written in (at least in substantial form). There is no home ground for a topic. If an article on a US species (or for that matter a US president) is first written in British English then that is the convention for the article. Similar a British species could be written in American English if that is what the editors who created to article used. In most cases the form of English will be determined by local interest in a topic, but that is nothing to do with any wikipedia conventions.   Jts1882 | talk  19:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English does say, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." I would think that most articles about biological taxa do not have strong ties to a particular nation. - Donald Albury 19:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Outside of species that are national symbols (e.g. bald eagle), "national ties" should not be applied to taxa, and even in that case it feels like a distinct extra flourish. We had one editor trying to change Ostrich to BE because y'know, all these British colonies, and what does an ostrich have to do with the US... that way lies silliness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The only indication of an English variant I can find before Enwebb started making substantial edits in 2019 is a link to straw-coloured fruit bat, which seems to be mostly a matter of linking to an article by it's title than any attempt to set an ENGVAR. Straw-coloured fruit bat was created by Polbot, so presumably that was primary vernacular name listed by IUCN in 2007. MSW and the present IUCN call it "African straw-colored fruit bat". There's nothing wrong with Enwebb's writing megabat in American English. Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in--I had suspected that we didn't include organisms with MOS:TIES but it's good to know this position appears to be broadly held. I invited the other editor to start an RfC if they felt strongly about changing the ENGVAR, but they do not seem interested. Enwebb (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
That's correct, I am not fussed to do an RfC. I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling to see if anyone there wants to weigh in. This article is scheduled to appear as TFA so I thought it likely that it might come up then. Better to have a proper discussion first. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This was asked at WT:MOSSPELLING as "If I wrote an article about a bug endemic to Mexico, the US and Canada, could I write it in Commonwealth English?". Basically, no. That is, yes, you can write it in non-North American English (or even in Greek for that matter). But it would need to be re-done in US or Canadian English, and it would be disruptive to edit-war against someone doing that. TIES has nothing to do with particular topics/categories, only with strong geographical ties that also coincide with prevalence of a particular dialect of English. If the species doesn't naturally occur in any majority-English-speaking country, then MOS:RETAIN applies (whatever English variant was used in the first non-stub version should be kept, unless there's a convincing reason to change it). But if you want to write about the Scottish wildcat in, say, Canadian English, you're going to get your spelling changed, and rightly so. If you think the opposite view is "broadly held", you're mistaken. It doesn't matter if you're writing about British hills, or British cars, or British pornstars, or British spiders, using British English. If there's a strong national tie, then TIES applies, no lie. Trying to think of something else to add that ends in that sound. Heh.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 11:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment at Felidae

Requesting a wider discussion at Talk:Felidae#Classification table; recently List of felids was created (by me), and in response a large classification table was added to Felidae. Would like a wider discussion about whether the table is a good fit for that article or if a smaller section with a link to the list is better. --

Housekeeping; add signed response so this thread will be archived. Plantdrew (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Pakistani biota up for deletion

WikiProject Pakistani biota, a taskforce of WikiProject Pakistan, is up for deletion as having been created by a sock. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. --Nessie (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Intersectional distribution categories

We have a lot of distribution categories that seem to me to randomly intersect location with taxonomic classification. As just one example, look at Allococalodes cornutus. It's endemic to New Guinea, which is part of Oceania; it's a spider, which is an arthropod, part of the fauna. All you can predict in advance is that any combination of "Endemic" + "Spiders/Arthropods/Fauna" + "of New Guinea/of Oceania" might be the name of a category (for plants there could also be "of Papuasia"). The article has:

I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, so maybe this is just a moan. But I do think it's unhelpful to new editors, and also makes the categories of doubtful usefulness. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Standardization would be nice. I think having atleast the locations being down to countries, and the taxa mirroring the ToL WikiProjects. I don't see the endemics getting as granular as the general cats, though. That can be a case-by-case basis so we don't have ten categories of endemic taxa of Timor Leste with only one member. --Nessie (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Categories down to countries for non-endemic fauna for anything other than countries that are part of multiple continents and countries that are islands have been repeatedly been deleted. It's one of the things that have left the intersectional categorization structure such a hodgepodge mess. AddWittyNameHere 19:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The hard part about countries is that it doesn't work well for large continents, especially Europe, western Asia and South America. The ranges of many taxa will cross so many borders to make it pointless to group that way.--Kevmin § 19:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Oh, absolutely. I don't really disagree with the decision itself, but those categories existing, then not existing and being replaced by continent-level categories, then piecemeal getting recreated at various levels of intersection, getting deleted and replaced again, and again, and sometimes again, certainly have not done the categorization tree, categorization of articles or consistency of either any good. AddWittyNameHere 19:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That categorization of the spider looks fairly logical (and consistent with how we categorize events, buildings etc) even if it does mean that in some cases the list of categories is as long as the article text. There are much worse examples, often due to editors (many now blocked) trying to replicate off-wiki databases of distribution in wp's category system (my detailed notes). DexDor (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
18 geographic categories in that example? How about 25 intersectional temporal categories at Elasmosauridae? (sorry, I couldn't help myself, but don't want to put this discussion off track.)Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: yes, it's bad, but in both these cases upmerging is possible because the first part of the category is the same. Where there are random-ish combinations of the two parts, as in my example, it's hard to see what to do. "Trees of ..." and "Bunchgrasses of ..." mixed with "Flora of ..." are muddled plant categories you've doubtless come across. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@DexDor: it's not the number of categories that I object to (although I agree your example is awful), but the unpredictability and inconsistency of the categorization tree, as per AddWittyNameHere's comment above. How is an editor to know that a spider article might have to be categorized as "Spiders of X" or "Arthropods of X" or as "Fauna of X" depending randomly on what X is? Ideally, it would be made much harder to create new categories without prior consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's one option, though I'm not sure I'd personally favour that one. Yes, when it comes to intersectional taxonomic categories, that'd be helpful--but in many other areas, particularly on the maintenance side of things, it'd be more hindrance than help.
A better way to keep track of relevant new category creations would be good, though. In my experience, at least on the zoological side of things, half of the matter is "clueless but well-intentioned new editor creates unwanted categories, unaware there's a wide consensus that kind of category is unhelpful or otherwise unwanted" and the other half of the matter is "persistent block-evader with a focus on over-categorizing everything is back yet again". Issues resulting from either of those would be significantly reduced if they were spotted before they've gotten around to creating several dozen partially-populated categories as tends to currently be the case. (At least then we could drop a note with explanation & links to the relevant discussions and decisions if it's a newbie, or to drop them off at SPI if it's obviously our "old friend" again.)
That said, while I doubt it'll ever happen, I wouldn't exactly be opposed to limiting the ability to create categories to extended-confirmed users. Categories have a fair bit of potential for disruption, while the number of new users with the necessary familiarity with both wiki how-to and all the relevant guidelines and policies and a demonstrable need for category creation in amounts likely to overwhelm Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories is incredibly small. AddWittyNameHere 22:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing unpredictability/inconsistency/randomness, but the way categorization normally works in wp. For example, Twin Sails Bridge is a bascule bridge in Poole, but we don't have a category specifically for bascule bridges in Poole so the article is in several categories (e.g. Category:Bridges in Dorset).  As long as species are categorized at several geographical levels (e.g. continent and country) then a species article may belong in several ToL+geography categories.  Imo we should reduce the amount of geographical categorization of species articles as their cost probably outweighs their benefits (especially as these categories are often very incomplete and the relationship between species X and region Y is often not a simple yes/no so is better explained in an article than a category) or even remove such categorization entirely; the ToL-only category being sufficient categorization. DexDor (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@DexDor: well, I would say that this is a similar example of intersectional categories being confused and confusing. Consider Category:Bridges in Dorset and Category:Buildings and structures in Poole. The relationship between these two is quite contrary to the ideal for categories, which is a hierarchy. "Bridges" are a subcategory of "Buildings and structures", but "Dorset" is a supercategory for "Poole". To find "Bridges in Poole" you could use PetScan to find the intersection of these two categories: [22], but you might just as well find the intersection of Category:Bridges and Category:Poole: [23]. I simply don't see the value of "X of Y" or "X in Y" categories where there is no clear rationale for chosing the combination of X and Y, and where X and Y are at different levels in their respective hierarchies, and are basically chosen to make the intersectional category large enough, rather than for their intrinsic value.
In my view, it is slightly worse in the case of taxon by biogeographical area categories, because both the taxa and the biogeographical area have very clearly defined hierarchies, which are not respected by intersectional categories like those I initially complained about. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The way content categories are generally structured in enwp keeps the number of articles in each category to (at most) a few hundred articles; if (an editor thinks) there are too many articles in a category (e.g. see Category:Overpopulated categories) subcategories are created and these are often intersectional (e.g. American Artists). An alternative scheme would be to have larger categories (e.g. Artists) and to use a tool such as Petscan to create lists of articles at an intersection of categories (e.g. to get a list of spiders endemic to Africa the user would intersect Category:Spiders with Category:Biota_endemic_to_Africa). Using intersection like that has the advantage that you can narrow the list down further (e.g. spiders endemic to Africa discovered this century). That idea has been discussed previously, but as yet wp/mw doesn't have such "on the fly" intersection built in. I should also add that WikiData also does intersection with the advantage that you may find topics for which another language wp has an article but enwp doesn't - if only it could be made more user-friendly.
In much of wp the intersection categories work pretty well - e.g. a reader on that article about a bridge can choose to navigate to a category for bridges in Dorset and that category probably lists all the articles about bridges in Dorset in enwp. In contrast, bio-geo categories (e.g. Spiders of Latvia) are (for various reasons) often less than 10% complete so are almost useless. DexDor (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is thoroughly unreliable for anything taxonomic. It trawls other wikis, mostly much less well maintained than ours, and ends up with multiple so-called "instance of taxon" items that are synonyms of each other or otherwise obsolete. I do agree that the best answer is for the Mediawiki software to handle intersecting categories properly.
I also agree that most distribution categories are of little use. But encouraging editors to use them more requires there to be a clear, coherent, easily used set of categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_46&oldid=935339668"