Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior discussion

[edit]

Please add links to prior discussions and pages you've notified here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability guideline – original draft [1], advance notice [2], discussion leading to the draft [3]
  • WikiProject Tree of Life – advance notice [4]
  • WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES – advance notice [5]
  • WikiProject Palaeontology – advance notice [6]
  • Village pumps – June 2024 discussion
  • Wikiproject Paleontology - (fossil species guideline) [7]
    • Wikiproject Paleontology Discord server (offsite but public, join link can be found on the project page)
  • Wikiproject Dinosaurs - (fossil species guideline) [8]

FAQ

[edit]
Isn't this just spelling out what WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES has said for years?
That's the goal.
Does this change the number of notable species, compared to the existing rules?
It's not intended to. It might make it easier for non-specialist editors to recognize which should be presumed notable and which are non-notable, though.
What if there are no sources or only sources I don't think are reliable?
It is literally impossible to have a species accepted by taxonomists unless there are academic publications about the species. In some cases there are additional documentation requirements beyond published reliable sources. Information about the relevant academic sources are included in each entry in all reputable species databases. If you need help finding the academic sources, ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
How many species qualify under this?
Maybe around two million, half of which are insects. That's the same as the current system. We already have articles on about about one out of six of these species, including most of the accepted vertebrates (i.e., birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals).
Aren't there nonillions of bacteria and viruses in the world?
That's individual organisms. Your body probably has more than 30 trillion microbes, but there are probably less than 1,000 different species in your body. At the moment, there are only about 15,000 recognized viruses and 25,000 recognized prokaryotes.[9][10] Estimates of how many non-recognized species there are in the world vary significantly, but non-recognized species are not presumed notable under either the current or the proposed system.
Could a non-recognized species be notable?
Yes, that happens rarely. For example, the virus that causes COVID-19 was temporarily notable according to the WP:GNG before it was officially recognized by taxonomists.
Does this apply to fossil species?
No. The discussion about fossil species concluded with a decision to address fossil species separately, at a later date. If you are interested in joining a future discussion about fossils, please put this page on your watchlist, or sign up for notifications at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Does this exempt species from the usual rules about mass creation or change the rules about mass creation?
No.
Won't people just spam in millions of WP:UGLY little articles?
They haven't during the last 20+ years, and this draft has the same rules that we've been using for the last 20+ years, so it seems unlikely to change the rate of article creation.
Does this prohibit merging articles?
No. Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages (aka NOPAGE and PAGEDECIDE) applies to all subjects, as does the Wikipedia:Consensus policy.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal does not read like SPECIESOUTCOMES. SPECIESOUTCOMES addresses plants and animals. This proposal lumps them into eukaryotes, including single celled species, which is a huge difference. It then gets into prokaryotes and viruses, which are very different. Prokaryote species have fuzzy boundaries, with cross-species genetic sharing in the ecosystem, and viruses aren’t even life. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIESOUTCOMES doesn't directly mention plants and animals. It has links to correct name (botany) and valid name (zoology). Correct name (botany) redirects to correct name which has a section about use of the term in prokaryote taxonomy. All eukaryotes are governed by either the zoological code, or the botanical code (which was renamed from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to clarify its scope). There are a few groups of eukaryotes with both plant-like and animal-like qualities that have had species named following both the zoological code and the botanical code; see ambiregnal protist. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that FAQ was overly brief and thus imprecise. The goal is make the existing practice official. Species outcomes is only intended to observe and describe the results of existing practice; it's not wording for an SNG.North8000 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if there are no sources or only sources I don't think are reliable?
It is literally impossible to have a species accepted by taxonomists unless there are academic publications about the species. In some cases there are additional documentation requirements beyond published reliable sources. Information about the relevant academic sources are included in each entry in all reputable species databases. If you need help finding the academic sources, ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
This is not true and needs to be amended. ICZN (all animal species) accepts nomenclature from unreliable, unscientific sources and does not prescribe or mention "taxonomic acceptance", explicitly leaving it up to individual researchers whether they decide to honor priority for synonyms. It is not clear which taxon-specific databases do state that a species is "valid" or how such a consensus is achieved. This is a major issue that needs to be resolved, otherwise there is no guidance for animal species notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and interpretation section

[edit]

Any objection to removing the "Background and interpretation" section? I would be in favor of removing it because it doesn't really say much of substance. The guideline doesn't change whether it's included or not included, which suggests to me that the section is not needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it seems out of place, like something that should be attached to an RfC rather than the guideline itself. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in and think it's a good idea but it was a Bold edit and if someone objects please remove it per "R" in BRD. ; I have no objection and would not be even slightly miffed. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was/is:

  1. As Joe mentioned, another possibility is to include it in the RFC. There is debate above about whether or not this would make the RFC wording biased. This would resolve that.
  2. "Notability" decisions incorporate other factors than just notability guidline criteria. (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) Even though prima facie this is not a notability criteria, it does provide a relevant consideration in "notability" decisions when utilizing this SNG, and one which aligns with what I think is the intent of the majority of the folks working on this. We don't want this to trigger big changes, including new mass or "assembly line" creation.
  3. There IS a danger that this guideline could unintentionally change the status quo rather than codify it. The status quo is that most new species articles violate (or are edge cases) regarding the current wp:notability guidelines. So being in this "twilight zone" probably makes creators more cautious......maybe adding more sources and material to fall less-short of GNG. And avoiding mass or production line or completionist type creation. This provides a bit more safety on that. And maybe a bit of extra assurance for folks who might otherwise oppose this SNG due to the above concerns.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin reverted the revert, so some talk page discussion is needed I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the addition appropriate, as the discussion has touched several times on the premise that any editor not directly involved in this part of the process may very well think this is fully novel and doesn't have the 2 decades(ish) of history and precedent behind it as a "cultural behavior of wikipedians".--Kevmin § 00:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I don't think that belongs in the proposal itself. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to go into detail about the history of the proposal in the Support section. C F A 💬 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to omit this. It is true, and it's what I expect to happen. (Actually, regardless of whether this proposal is adopted, rejected, adjusted, etc., I expect that the community will continue doing the same things as they have been – my goal here is to write down what the community is doing, for greater clarity and transparency, without trying to change what the community is doing.) However, it's not necessarily helpful in applying this proposed guideline, especially to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's history in this particular area. It's a bit like saying "Drive down the street until you get to where the yellow house used to be". If you don't know where the yellow house used to be, or if you have two editors with different beliefs about where the yellow house used to be, then those instructions aren't helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As described above, I think that it's a good idea but will not be unhappy or upset if it is removed. Let's just weigh in and decide one way or the other and then move on:North8000 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest Keeping per above rationale North8000 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one seems to be interested in a straw poll, so here's what I'm going to do:
    • I'm going to move that section to the talk page.
    • I'm going to archive most of the talk page, keeping the list of prior discussions and notifications (please expand, and please notify pages that seem relevant to you), the FAQ I wrote, and the ==Background and interpretation== section.
    • I'm going to start the RFC with the simplest/shortest question above. I'm expecting a fairly large number of responses, so instead of the Most popular formatting option, I'll add ===Discussion=== and ===Survey=== subsections.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Should this section be archived? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, but I wanted to give the people in this discussion at least a chance to see it beforehand. Anyone who feels like it's been long enough should feel free to archive it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and interpretation

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia:Notability (species)

The intention during the inception of this guideline is to align with existing practice and not cause any major changes regarding creation or deletion of articles. It should be interpreted in that context.

—moved here by WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to adopt this guideline

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that this proposal reflects current practice, which per WP:PAG makes this a guideline: Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. As such, this guideline page is adopted. However, this comes with a few caveats:
  • This guideline does not supersede WP:PAGEDECIDE, which establishes that notability never guarantees a standalone article.
  • This guideline does not establish an exception to WP:MASSCREATE.
  • While there was a strong numerical consensus for adoption, a large portion of that support was on the basis of this reflecting current practice, without a strong endorsement of that practice. As such, this close should not be taken to preclude consideration in the near future of major changes to this guideline. There was a lot of productive discussion about that in some of the the subthreads, and I'm hopeful that there will be further discussion going forward.
  • Editors wishing to further discuss the broader question of how primary sourcing interacts with WP:NOR may wish to see Wikipedia talk:No original research § New articles based on primary sources.
Thank you to all who participated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 08:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall Wikipedia:Notability (species) be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to: Discussion Survey Notifications

Discussion (NSPECIES)

[edit]

My intention in drafting this has been to match the long-standing practice of the community as closely as possible. I would like to thank the other editors who have spent the last month helping me collect all of the information in one place and who have patiently explained things that I didn't know. The proposal is stronger for their involvement; any errors remain mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, I've put a place for discussion first per this discussion at WT:RFC. We need to find ways to encourage questions and discussions instead of pushing editors straight into voting. For example, this would be an appropriate place for you to link to User:BilledMammal/NSPECIES and explain why you think that merging up to the genera level could be better than the community's current practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue with this proposal is that it violates both WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. According to a subject-matter expert The situation of a species being described and thereafter having nothing published about it in secondary sources probably is true for at least 90% of all described species.
This means that for 90%+ of species no secondary sources will exist, and thus PRIMARY forbids us from having an article. Further, for most of those 90%+ of species there will be insufficient information for us to present merely a summary of the topic, rather than all knowledge on the topic, and thus NOTEVERYTHING forbids us from having an article.
As written, this guideline violates two of our most important policies, WP:OR and WP:NOT, and we cannot pass a guideline that is so contradictory to established consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • BilledMammal, this is a question for you: I think everyone was well aware you were going to oppose this proposal. But what do you want instead, if this fails? Should a section be added to WP:AADD, like after the WP:SCHOOLRFC (now WP:OUTCOMESBASED in AADD), stating that editors should not cite WP:NSPECIES (the section in WP:OUTCOMES) in deletion discussions? I think you can see the fallacy here. Citing NSPECIES (a common outcome), especially if the community rejects a proposal to formalize it, is a circular argument and unhelpful. But I am sure editors will continue to do it if this proposal fails. Do you think it should be removed altogether from WP:OUTCOMES? If so, should editors be able to take species articles to AfD and delete them if they fail GNG? If the proposal fails but nothing else happens, we are just going back to the default-to-keep status quo which is no different than if this passed. I hope you choose to clarify your oppose vote. C F A 💬 04:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if this were to fail, he'd like to propose a different approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, and I will expand on that if this doesn’t pass in consultation with the relevant Wikiprojects.
    However, I have a question of my own for you and CFA; if this does pass, how do you propose we handle articles that pass this guideline but violate WP:PRIMARY, particularly considering that when a guideline and a policy conflict we are required to defer to the policy? BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what does this have to do with notability? Article content (including the exclusive use of primary sources) is independent of notability. Nothing in this guideline says that you can't upmerge a series of species articles to genus in the event that only primary sources can be found (though I would suggest you be exceedingly thorough in your search for sources both online and offline before attempting such a merge) - you may face community opposition independently of this guideline, but the goal of this guideline is to codify existing practice that species articles are not deleted, not to say that you cannot pursue reasonable alternatives to deletion when appropriate. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If policy says that we can’t have articles on 90%+ of the topics that this guideline says is notable, then clearly there is an issue with the guideline. Worse, it is certain to result in the guideline being misused, with editors citing it in deletion discussions even when the issue is WP:PRIMARY rather than WP:N.
    Keeping in mind that WP:PRIMARY is about the content of the article, I would suggest a resolution to this conflict - add a line to this guideline saying that stand-alone species articles cannot be created unless a non-primary source is included.
    Would this be acceptable to you, CFA, and WhatamIdoing? BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the creation of new stubs with only primary sources (or none at all) an issue at the moment? SNGs don't override core policies so this seems like a matter to be discussed with new page patrollers. I'm not familiar with their standard practice for dealing with such articles but I don't anticipate their response will change with the adoption of this guideline. Are SNGs required to delve into matters of article creation and quality standards? This guideline is just codifying the general consensus that all accepted species are notable and should not be deleted, not that they are required to have a standalone article or that new page patrollers/AfC reviewers must approve them regardless of their quality. I just don't think this is something that needs to be specified here.
    Continuing further off topic from notability: I must also note that @Dyanega's comment you quoted regarding 90% of all described species also says The expectation of secondary sources is nonsensical when viewed against the massive literature where species are described. If a species can't be "notable" until and unless there are facts about it that are discussed in non-primary sources, then practically the only species that will be notable are birds, honeybees, butterflies, sharks, flowers, trees, some mammals, and a few dinosaurs. Frankly, it should be entirely possible, and entirely acceptable, to compose a species article in Wikipedia using a single primary source and nothing else [...] deleting an article, or refusing to allow its creation, because all that exists is one paper in which its identity and everything else known about it has been established, does a serious disservice to both the scientific community AND the lay community - a sentiment I, and I imagine several others here, wholeheartedly agree with. Wikipedia policy (particularly WP:OR stating that articles should not be based solely on primary sources, despite the fact that primary sources are not necessarily worse than secondary sources) was not developed with topics like this in mind, and it needs to evolve to suit the needs of readers. It is out of step with the scientific community in this regard, to the detriment of our goal of building the encyclopedia. We know that excellent taxon articles can be written solely based on the paper that described the taxon, and readers are not benefitted by deleting such articles. Would an article with secondary sources be better? Most likely, but deleting articles based only on reliable primary sources before they have a chance to be improved is not in anyone's best interest. Just my two cents - probably best to move this discussion about primary sources and policy elsewhere. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In a situation where an article passed an SNG but was all primary sources, an NPP would probably add a primary sources maintenance tag, then mark it as reviewed. NPPs mainly look for CSDs and check notability. When problems with other things are found, a maintenance tag can optionally be added to help signal others that it needs cleanup, but it is not NPP's core mission to fix problems with OR, NPOV, etc. if the article itself passes notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation!
    So, we can establish that at the moment, barring significant issues, articles with only primary sources will be marked as reviewed and tagged in such a way that other users may address their issues. We know that taxon articles like this are already astronomically unlikely to be deleted regardless, so the best course of action currently is to either improve the article or upmerge per WP:PAGEDECIDE as a last resort. This current system would remain unchanged under this proposed guideline. @BilledMammal, am I correct in saying that you oppose this current system and want to see no articles of this nature created at all, regardless of potential for improvement/upmerging? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be creating articles that violate a core policy, and we can't create a guideline that suggests it is appropriate to create two million articles when 1.8+ million of those articles would violate a core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, I'm sympathetic to this, but you'll probably have better luck drafting a broader proposal about upmerging or clarifying use of primary sources. Right now, this proposed SNG is already common practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: I was in the process of drafting such a guideline, when this guideline was drafted to block my efforts.
    If it doesn’t pass I’ll continue my efforts, but if it does I’m not sure it would be appropriate to continue my work? BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, from a functional perspective would it not be easier to make adjustments if there was a concrete policy rather than an unwritten consensus? Curbon7 (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the intent was to prevent my proposal being considered, I’m not sure that would be appropriate in line with our behavioural guidelines like WP:IDHT?
    However, if you don’t believe this would establish a consensus against upmerging, I would happily write an amendment and open a discussion on editing this guideline, after sufficient discussion with the relevant Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is trying to block your proposal. We are proposing this guideline because it's what we think is best, not because we're out to get you. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, you are welcome to continue developing your proposal and put it up for consideration when you feel it is ready. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, I don't think that you have accurately summarized the policy, which says "As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence."
    In answer to your underlying question, I assume that "what to do with a notable species subject, when we have only [what some editors call] primary sources" will be the same as "what to do with a notable medical subject, when we have only [what MEDRS calls] primary sources". This comes up all the time around experimental pharmaceutical products, which often can't even produce any truly independent medical sources either (because the pharmaceutical company controls who gets access to the compound, and therefore who can test it). The answer appears to be that we create the article anyway, with the WP:BESTSOURCES that we have. We don't even usually bother to taag it with {{primary}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify why that means I didn't accurately summarize it?
    As for the rest, if you think there is an issue with a core policy then you should seek to change the policy. Introducing a guideline that conflicts with the core policy is not a viable solution, and will not stop species articles being correctly taken to AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you take the most reductive reading of WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY, this seems like an obvious WP:IAR situation. The encyclopedia would be improved by making more information about species widely accessible to the lay public, even if the only source provided is the "primary" (but still entirely reliable) paper that described it. To delete an otherwise decent article on a species just for that reason would not only fail to improve the encyclopedia, it would actively make it worse. You saying that these articles should be correctly taken to AfD, not dealt with through improvement or even alternatives such as merging as you had previously suggested, is concerning to me. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is interpreting Do not base an entire article on primary sources as meaning we are not allowed to base entire articles on primary sources reductive?
    And you can't WP:IAR the same rule for 1.8+ million articles. That's the point where you either need to change or follow the rule. BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I counted, we didn't have 1.8+ million articles on species. It's less than 5% of Wikipedia's articles.
    This guideline wouldn't be the first time that the community has set up a notability guideline that doesn't require supposedly mandatory elements. See also Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which has eight different ways of justifying an article on an academic, and only one of them (the first) is requires the fulfillment of that criteria to be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The only mention of secondary sources is in the nutshell, where it says academics don't get that kind of coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) doesn't even mention secondary sources.
    Fun fact: Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that actually requires the policies and guidelines to be logical and consistent. I think it's highly desirable, and I've pushed hard for it, for many years, but wikis are consensus-driven projects, and if the community wants to say X in one page and not-X in another, and it thinks it can make it work – well, we can't actually stop them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to you, this would endorse the creation of 2+ million articles. According to the SME, 90%+ of those - 1.8+ million - won't have secondary sourcing. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adopting this doesn't change what's notable. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES already "endorses" the same. (Actually, more, since SPECIESOUTCOMES doesn't exclude fossil species, and this proposal currently does.)
    I don't think the SME's offhand guess is correct, but it's going to vary significantly by field, and even more dramatically according to the definition of secondary source that an editor chooses to apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a hyperbolic slippery slope argument, and I am not particularly convinced that subject matter expert you're quoting would agree with you, given the full context of that quote. The insistence on policy above all else, including all possible benefits to readers, is bordering wikilawyering at this point. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, what would you consider to be a secondary source? High quality taxonomic databases that list valid species and their synonyms? A press release from an institution employing a scientist who described a new species? A news item derived entirely from a press release? A news item with additional reporting beyond what's in a press release (e.g. interviewing unaffiliated scientists about the impact of a discovery in their field).
    The status quo with species articles has a major underlying understanding that taxonomic databases are secondary sources.
    Most new species don't get press releases, but almost every new species that comes to the attention of the general public has a press release, and reporting doesn't typically go beyond the press release. Peltocephalus maturin is a very large fossil turtle with a pop culture namesake; the sources are the primary description, a press release, and something that doesn't mention the subject of the article. Sphaerotheca varshaabhu is a frog discovered in densely populated area; the sources are the primary description and newpaper rehashing a press release. Plantdrew (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the things you listed are valid for determining notability. Secondary sources are those that collect and analyze information from primary sources or other secondary sources. Press releases and original reporting rarely do this. Notability also requires WP:SIGCOV, and databases are often used as the archetypal example of sources that do not provide SIGCOV. A secondary source on a species with SIGCOV would most commonly be an academic book or journal article describing aspects of the species or its discovery (which is distinct from a novel study, of which the findings are also primary). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that "we are required to defer to the policy" is rather different from "As a temporary measure, editors may assume", don't you? BTW, I wrote that section, so it'll generally be safe to interpret the word may in it in accordance with the definitions given in RFC 2119. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It's clear that policies take precedence over guidelines (and core policies take precedence over policies).
    As this would be a dispute between a core policy and a guideline, it is obvious which one we should defer to. BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's more common to say that legal policies take precedence over all other policies (copyvios get deleted, no matter how notable, verifiable, and neutral they are), and from there to say that whatever policy I think will help me win is the one that "objectively" is more important. Alternatively, if what I think will win is a guideline, then the guideline is "more relevant", and if what I want is one of the many unwritten rules, then it's the immemorial custom of the sea, I mean, the long-standing practice of The Community™.
    But this particular one is a bit simpler than that: I wrote that sentence. I am telling you what that sentence means. So long as we are talking about a sentence that I wrote, if you think that you know more than I do, then I invite you to check your assumptions and try again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but having written the sentence gives you no special authority regarding its meaning.
    Further, you didn't write the specific line under discussion, you merely moved it from a different section of the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, having written a sentence does make me have special authority over what I intended that sentence to communicate.
    Check the diff again; you have misread it. BTW, if you are not intimately familiar with RFC 2119, then I gently suggest reading that before replying again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of WP:OR with relation to primary sources may not be monolithic in the community; see Anomie's comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#we may need to fix wp:or. May be something worth having a wider discussion about. Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As currently worded, WP:OR is very clear that we cannot base articles solely on primary sources; Do not base an entire article on primary sources.
It’s possible that this will change, but until it does we can’t create guidelines that violate it - and I think the discussion you linked is about a related but different issue and won’t result in changes to the quoted aspect. BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community can create any guidelines it wants, as they always have.
The line you quote from WP:OR was added in 2009. The context on the talk page (the line itself was not discussed) indicates that editors were concerned about WP:NOTPLOT problems. Relevantly, the definition of a primary source said "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments". It seems to me that "published notes" is not the same thing as "a peer-reviewed scientific journal article" or "a reference book". Consequently, I don't think the intention was to ban Wikipedia articles based on journal articles and reference works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None deleted? What about redirected? What about smerges? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only time someone's tried to merge more than a couple in recent memory ended up with him being dragged to ANI and all the edits (500+) getting mass reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
....which looks very much like what has happened in the GEOLAND and NSPORTS spaces as a result of their "presumed notability" standards. People can say until their blue in the face that "of course this does nothing to stop merging", but the reality is if even one other editor disagrees with the merge, then a "presumed notability" standard is a no-further-discussion-needed reason for them to be unmerged, regardless of whatever previous consensus there was about merging. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the lesson from that incident might be to have a friendly chat about merging articles before making 500+ edits. I don't believe that Wikipedia:Merging operates on a standard of "if even one other editor disagrees", but I'm curious whether you think this proposal would actually change anything.
Without this proposal, he boldly made 500+ edits and got reverted. With this proposal, the result would presumably be the same. It's not like we can double-extra-super-revert the edits just because the previous reverts were done under WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and consensus, and any hypothetical future bold edits would be done under an SNG and consensus.
Or are you thinking that under the old system, he got dragged to ANI and reverted by consensus, and if we continue under the old system (i.e., instead of adopting this proposal), then the result will magically be different the next time someone boldly merges up dozens of articles? The saying about "doing the same thing again but expecting different results" comes to mind, and I'm failing to find a reason to believe that it doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stub statistics

[edit]

In the survey section, editors have made comments like Only a small minority of species articles have just one sentence. To determine if this is correct, I have reviewed every article using Template:Speciesbox to determine how common it is for species articles to be sub-stubs.

I found that:

Contrary to common belief there has been considerable levels of problematic article creations under the NSPECIES common outcome, and we have to expect that this will be increased should this proposal pass, particularly given that the drafters of the proposal see no rule against individual editors churning out between 24 to 49 boilerplate articles per day, or 8,760 to 17,885 a year.

This is not an idle concern; there are 22 editors who have created more than 1000 articles with three or less sentences. This mass creation continues to this day, with editors like JoJan having created 1,394 species articles in the past year, with content often being copied from works whose copyright has expired.

Further, many of these will be impossible to expand to even a stub level without violating WP:OR - this last aspect is an important distinction, as any article can be expanded if we ignore our rules on original research. BilledMammal (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for running that analysis. A "substub", although the concept was deprecated by community consensus in 2005, is traditionally defined as an article containing no more than a typical dictionary definition, so 7% of existing species might qualify as substubs, and 93% don't.
Is there any chance you could run the same thing, only checking for refs or URLs? There's also been a story going around that there are almost no sources cited in these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
49%, not 7%. Dictionary definitions typically range from one to three sentences, which is why I provided numbers for articles containing up to three sentences.
It takes most of a day to run, but I can - can you clarify what you are looking for in regards to references? (Maybe take it to my talk page, to avoid clogging this discussion?) BilledMammal (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definitions are typically less than one sentence, and therefore 7%.
I believe that the median Wikipedia article has about four sentences and two refs. You've proven that half of existing species articles are median length or longer. I'm now curious what percentage have the median number of sources or more. One potential complication is that a lot of them name WP:General references, so the article might name (e.g.,) four sources but not use four pairs of ref tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not uncommon for dictionary definitions to be up to three sentences long. Regardless, we're arguing over semantics - the point is there are massive numbers of inappropriately brief species stubs, and this proposed guideline is going to make that situation worse.

I believe that the median Wikipedia article has about four sentences and two refs.

I would be surprised if it was true - and even more surprised if it remained true when we excluded mass-created boilerplate articles. Can you link these figures?

I'm now curious what percentage have the median number of sources or more.

I'll try to get that for you by the end of the weekend. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm recalling those numbers from a preprint that I saw a year or two ago, and I don't think it's been published yet. A quick trip through Special:Random indicates that there are a lot of short stubs, though, so it's probably at least approximately correct.
Looking in a dictionary (ISBN 978-039567610), it is very uncommon for dictionary definitions to have three sentences. In fact, this dictionary does not appear to have any complete sentences at all in its definitions. I read every entry on a randomly selected page ("registered nurse" to "rehear"), and none of the definitions were a single sentence. There were many words with multiple definitions, but the definitions themselves were almost always a single phrase, and no definition had more than two phrases. The only complete sentences on the page were found in an explanation of the synonyms for regret. For example, here's one of the entries:
re•gret•tab•ly (rĭ-grĕt'ə-blē) adv. 1. To an extent deserving of regret: regrettably brief. 2. As a matter of regret.
For this one word, we have two definitions, with one phrase per definition. One of the definitions has an example of how to use the word, but there are no complete sentences anywhere. I wonder if you were thinking of the number of definitions per word, rather than the length of each individual definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the median Wikipedia article has about four sentences and two refs.

I reviewed 10,000 randomly selected articles, excluding disambiguation pages and lists.
Of these 10,000, only 16% had three or less sentences, and the median number of sentences was 13. In comparison, the median number of sentences for species articles was 4. BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, then we're making progress.
How does your algorithm count Dogtown, St. Louis, which has punctuation errors, or Balkan Rhapsodies: 78 Measures of War, which has multi-sentence quotations? I think I'd count the latter as 6 sentences, and someone else might count it as 11, but it's recorded as 13. I count 12 in Campbell v. Clinton and IEEE 802.11 (legacy mode), but your script says 13 for them. 1640 in paleontology is reported as 1 sentence, but it contains 5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on User talk:BilledMammal/Average articles, as this is off topic for this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say impossible to expand...without violating WP:OR, do you actually mean "impossible to expand...without relying on WP:PRIMARY sources"? I assume that you don't mean "impossible to expand without editors making up stuff based on their own beliefs and experiences".
@Anomie, this probably relates to our discussion at the Village pump about whether PSTS ought to be part of NOR vs. its own independent content policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean impossible to expand without violating any aspect of WP:OR. That would include, but is not limited to, WP:PRIMARY - many non-notable topics have raw data published that editors could write an article using, but shouldn't as to do so would be original research. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using raw data is not original research. Misusing any source – even a gold-plated peer-reviewed secondary scholarly source – can result in original research, but it's possible to correctly use raw data without violating any part of any policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how raw data is OR. If it's published, then it is a primary source. Cremastra (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The raw data isn't OR - but using it to write an entire article, without reference to secondary or tertiary sources, is. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra, I think the idea here is that WP:PRIMARY, which for unimportant historical happens to be located in Wikipedia:No original research, says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources", so if you "violate" this, then you've also "violated" the whole of NOR. IMO PSTS ought to be its own policy, instead of being crammed into the middle of NOR.
(At the time that sentence was added, the discussion on the talk page was about WP:NOTPLOT problems, and only sources like original, hand-written field notebooks were considered primary sources. Books and journal articles describing new species were considered secondary sources by most editors at that time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aa is my new favourite genus. Cremastra (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been mine for a while now; the genus name apparently was rendered by the author to always appear first in alphabetical listings BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This mass creation continues to this day, with editors like JoJan having created 1,394 species articles in the past year, with content often being copied from works whose copyright has expired. Do you have any specific problems with JoJan's articles? Is there incorrect information in them? Are they poorly written? Also, using public domain material is fine on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first article from him that I looked at is Alinda elegantissima. It has 1 inline reference which doesn't even work. It fails WP:V as a one sentence stub and is poorly written.
>Also, using public domain material is fine on Wikipedia
It's allowed but it is lazy and material old enough to be public domain is potentially outdated. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that the inline reference which doesn't even work does work - you just need to click the button in the top right corner to switch the website from showing marine-only species to all species in the database. I don't know why WoRMS has their website that way, I think it's a terrible system, but that source is not broken. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That is standard for WoRMS. And incorporating public domain text is one of the foundations of Wikipedia – WP:EB1911 explains how Starting in 2006, much of the still-useful text in the 1911 Encyclopaedia was adapted and absorbed into Wikipedia. Special focus was given to topics that had no equivalent in Wikipedia at the time. Cremastra (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ping JoJan now, as three different editors have mentioned him by name. It is not nice to talk about people behind their backs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Indeed, it's not nice to talk about people in this manner. This looks like being named and shamed. I've been contributing to wikipedia for the last 20 years and during this time I've created thousands of articles about snails and even expanded many more already existing stubs previously made by a bot. I agree, some articles I created were stubs. But that's because I couldn't add any more information because of copyright or lack of an internet link. But most new articles had the most information I could add from public domain text and they contained the necessary data. Often I had to translate the description from Latin or French into English (and these were probably for the first time on the internet). I've uploaded thousands of photos of snails to the Commons (and they took in many cases a lot of searching on the internet). So, don't call me lazy. JoJan (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very first species article I found

[edit]

So I clicked "random" three times and found Alvania turtaudierei on my third click. This article has two sentences in it and a single source (the WORMS database). The link is broken but this is fixable by de-selecting "extant" in the search box and search again. This takes you to a Taxon detail page at which I find that this was described in Cainozoic Research. What is Cainozoic Research? It's a freely-distributed journal issued by WKTG twice yearly. Who are WKTG? They are a group open to amateurs and professionals of all fields. I'm sure these are great people, but on reading this I already start to have doubts.

A link to an apparently non-functioning search-box is provided on Cainozoic Research page, but since I can't get it work. Searching online I find the relevant paper is available on ResearchGate from this link. Downloading the paper I see that the relevant section is essentially just that of p. 271-272, with a photo of the fossilised shell of Alvania turtaudierei and a description of the shape of the shell in words. This is clearly a primary source, written by the person describing their discovery.

Checking the article creator, I see that on the same day they created this article (1 February 2024) they created 32 practically identical articles at a rate of one every ~3 minutes, apparently by slotting words from the WORMS database in to a template. Checking other dates that appears to be a typical rate of creation. Again, I'm sure they're a nice person, but this rate of creation using templates is text-book WP:MEATBOT mass-creation of a type that has turned out to be deeply problematic in other fields (see particularly the Carlossuarez46 Iranian "village" and Lugnuts athlete cases, both enabled by "presumed notability" SNGs). Particularly, when simply inputting data in to a template at highspeed, systematic errors are easily introduced, and the resulting article is very low quality. Given that we've been assured that mass creation is not a problem in the WP:SPECIES space, I am concerned that it appears to be ongoing and not picked up on by other community members. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's particularly disappointing is that this user was given autopatrolled, and adminship.
Granting of autopatrolled to users who are liable to create meatbot articles is definitely problematic. But that's still a problem with bad users, not bad policy. Cremastra (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creating guidelines that endorse such creations, that make it harder to rectify the issue, is bad policy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the policy say: go ahead! Create articles in an irresponsible manner!
This is not an SNG that "endorses" such creations. Cremastra (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the policy say: go ahead! Create articles in an irresponsible manner!

Where it lowers the standard for article creation - such creations wouldn’t be possible without SNG’s. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Got away" with what? Freely donating articles to an online encyclopaedia? I'm beginning to think that the most disruptive thing either Carlos or Lugnuts did was radicalising a group of editors into thinking that writing short articles is some esoteric sort of vandalism. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Just for the edification of prosperity, the damaging thing they did was to create mountains of extremely-low quality articles about things that either didn't exist or weren't as they described, which then escaped on to the wider internet. In C46's case this led to the locations of non-existent "villages" being found on Google Maps all over Central Asia and the western US, often in open desert (e.g., the imaginary village of Dalaram). The man-hours spent on cleaning up their mess (and the clean-up isn't even half done) massively exceeds any good they ever did on here. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: What is your basis for assuming the village is imaginary? It is recorded in the census cited. Cremastra (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra - Well, let's start with the fact that nothing is at the location - the only location available in any source - which is clearly in the middle of the open desert, dozens of miles from any settlement.
Then let's move on to the nature of the Iranian census: it counts people at localities (abadi), which do not have to be permanent settlements. For nomads these can be simple counting-places, not villages. Even in more populous places, these can be shops, pumps, petrol stations, bridges, bus stops, factories, farms (etc., etc.) and needn't be villages. We deleted more than 10,000 of these articles based on them clearly stating that no-one lived there, but for the ones that state that they have a population it is very difficult to go through them individually and ascertain whether C46 got it right or not. In this case it very much looks like he got it wrong, which is why I'm saying "imaginary" here. FOARP (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that when people tried to do anything about Lugnuts/C46, they instantly pointed to the "presumed notability" SNG as a no-further-discussion-needed justification for what they were doing. C46 literally said we had to prove his contributions wrong, rather than him prove them right. Lugnuts did more or less the same thing, more than once - the burden was on other people to prove his articles wrong rather than first establish that they were right. And why is this? It's because, for the mass-creator, a "presumed notable" SNG really is just a burden-shift on to other editors to check their work because they no longer have to. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is always that way around, because of WP:5P3. If somebody decides they can't be bothered with all this notability stuff (it's just a guideline, after all) and starts creating articles on whatever they fancy, there's nothing stopping them. It will probably get them into trouble, eventually – but only after others have checked and identified problems with their articles. We can't make people follow our rules, only react to their edits. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "eventually" part happens way quicker in field that require GNG. In SNG territory they can get a decade-deep in to writing bad articles and still not be caught. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users who create large numbers of similar stubs are the primary reason autopatrolled exists. If the community sees a problem with these creations, they need to be dealt with systematically, not one-by-one – as happened with Carlos and Lugnuts, for example. As NPP reviews each article individually, usually in the order they come in, it's poorly suited to spotting or addressing problematic large scale creations, and as such dumping them in the NPP queue does nothing but gum up the works.
We should of course remember that the vast majority of large scale stub creation efforts are not problematic. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDK - I once did a review of the top-ten article creators and found that most of them had been blocked/retired under a cloud. In fact the only one still going was Sir Nicolao. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I knew nothing about Alvania turtaudierei before, now I know what it is, where its fossils are found, and two reliable sources to start looking for more information (distributing scientific journals openly and free of charge is a good thing, by the way). What's the problem? – Joe (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't with the articles themselves, but with semi-rapid creation of them, which as FOARP points out does make errors more likely. But I don't see this as evidence against the proposal, just evidence that users should be careful Cremastra (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe - There aren't two reliable sources here. The WORMS database listing is based entirely on the Cainozoic Research article, so in reality this is a single source. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WoRMS listing shows that the editors of WoRMS accept the species and do not regard it as a synonym. WoRMS is actually a collection of several databases that are independently edited by experts; the subdatabase here is MolluscaBase. The MolluscaBase editors do not include any of the authors of the Cainozoic Research article, so this is an independent secondary opinion. As far as I can tell, MolluscaBase doesn't disagree with any of the taxonomic conclusions of the Cainozoic Research article.
However, MolluscaBase does have cases where they accept some species described in a single paper and treat others as synonyms. Alvania pluricosticillata was described in 2021, and is treated as a synonym by MolluscaBase. MolluscaBase accepts 4 of the 6 species described in the 2021 paper, and treats the other two as synonyms (the source for synonymizing A. pluricosticillata is this paper). Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the editors of WoRMS have not published commentary on that species in their own words then how is this any different from the editors and reviewers of a journal accepting the findings of a research article enough to publish it? In fact the editorial board seems less academically reliable than any journal since it includes amateurs (self-described "citizen scientists" and "private researchers") with no academic background in a relevant field. Why should we consider the implicit communal acceptance of a name through inclusion in that database (and is there any evidence that their discretion in treating something as a synonym is anything more than "this was published later"? do they filter their entries such that only species that have been the subject of multiple publications are listed, or do they list everything as it is claimed in the primary paper until proven otherwise?)--as evaluated by someone who is as likely to have a PhD in paleontology as they are to have no more qualifications than an commercial certificate in HR and an enthusiasm for malacology--equivalent in evidence of scientific consensus to the multiple significant secondary sources by experts needed to demonstrate importance and NPOV for every other science subject? JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so very, very, eager to discredit this source? WoRMS clearly says "The content of WoRMS is controlled by taxonomic and thematic experts, not by database managers." and also notes that "We can’t promise to make no errors, but we do promise to follow up and give feedback on any communications pointing out errors. Feedback is very welcome!" Cremastra (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Not to attempt to disregard the point you're making, it is still perfectly valid, but I just want to point out that Alvania turtaudierei is a fossil species that is (currently, pending consensus from WP:PALEO) excluded from the presumption of notability under this guideline. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain why that distinction is made? The sourcing is identical to one that would pass this guide for an extant species. FOARP (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAQ above and this discussion - I don't really dabble in paleobio so I won't weigh in on the topic personally. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple summary: Some of the editors would like the community to consider changing the long-standing approach to fossil species. We agreed to have that conversation later, assuming the more widely agreed-upon basic proposal is adopted. The possible outcomes from a fossil-specific conversation are no change (i.e., encourages merging), matching the rules for extant species, and no consensus (in which case, it won't be mentioned on this page, or perhaps there would be a ==See also== to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Which articles should be created). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (NSPECIES)

[edit]
  • Support this formalization of WP:NSPECIES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this has been the de facto consensus for years. Species with a valid/correct name are never deleted at AfD (usually citing WP:NSPECIES), so this is the next logical step to avoid circular arguments. For a species to have a valid/correct name, there has to have been at least a significant description in a reputable, peer-reviewed academic publication. Makes sense to me. C F A 💬 23:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the understanding that this codifies NSPECIES and that "presumed notable" in the context of this guideline implies an irrebuttable presumption, in contrast to the GNG's rebuttable presumption. The better way to achieve this would be to change all instances of "presumed notable" to "are notable". voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that adding an example of a notable species would be helpful for editors who don't know much about taxonomy. My understanding is that in a species article, a link to particular database showing the species's name status is sufficient to meet (the current version of) NSPECIES. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glancing through the prior discussions in the archive for this talk page, I see these species listed as examples: Ginkgo biloba (plant), Persoonia terminalis (plant), and SARS-CoV-2 (virus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As others have mentioned, this is already defacto practice pulling from WP:OUTCOMES, As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016.. The guideline could be fleshed out in the future to explain more to less technical audiences about the reasoning behind this, but this is a solid threshold to start the guideline at. In short, having an entirely different walk of life is a big deal, and that's solidified in the real world when scientists confirm it has been formally described and given a full (and correct) species name. This would also help avoid WP:NOTBURO issues at AfD with nominations of existing species. KoA (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, we already we have hundreds of thousands of species sub-stubs such as Phobaeticus hypharpax, Sorhagenia cracens, and Asteromyia euthamiae. Most can never be expanded, per a subject-matter expert who said The situation of a species being described and thereafter having nothing published about it in secondary sources probably is true for at least 90% of all described species.
    Per the drafter, this guideline would endorse the creation of millions more, and editors supporting this should ask themselves if they really want a third of the articles on Wikipedia to be species sub-stubs. These species do warrant coverage on Wikipedia, but there is no reason they have to be covered in a standalone article, and our readers would be better served if they weren't.
    Second, it would violate both WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The former tells us Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them, and 90%+ of the articles that would be created under this guideline would violate that. The latter tells us that an article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, and for the 90%+ of described species which lack coverage in secondary sources it is not possible to present a summary of accepted knowledge, as there is insufficient accepted knowledge to do so.
    Finally, any new SNG should be careful to discourage mass creation, to avoid the disruption caused by NSPORTS and similar guidelines, but this proposed guideline would encourage mass creation. Simply by existing it will lessen the requirements that must be met for mass creation to be permitted, and according the drafter it would be appropriate for individual editors to churn out between 24 and 49 boilerplate articles "per day" - in other words, between 8,760 and 17,885 articles per year. For context, this would exceed the rate Lugnuts created articles at. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing each point in order:
    1. Why aren't editors served by having individual articles? Every species sub stub I've seen has an infobox that presents the info in a logical manner along with citations to one or two reliable sources. They're concise and tell the interested reader everything they need to know about the species. Presumably the alternative would be lots of list articles with even less information on each species or unwieldy and lengthy tables. As a reader, I prefer the page. There are worse things in the world than a third of WIkipedia being relatively complete and concise sub stubs.
    2. I think you are misapplying NOTEVERYTHING. As the introduction to the list of NOTs, it's merely stating that we should not jam articles with cruft (i.e., the things listed in the following sub sections). It isn't saying that you can't have an article that summarizes what is stated about a topic in all available independent reliable sources. By that logic, nobody could create an article about a subject that only has five significant, reliable sources written about it, no matter how detailed those sources are.
    3. 24-49 boilerplate articles per day (which is a range where someone might run afoul of the bot policy according to MASSCREATE) is only an issue if you have a problem with these articles. As noted, I don't think there's a problem with species sub stubs, so I don't see a problem with someone manually creating 24-49 species articles per day if that's how they would like to spend their time improving the encyclopedia.
    voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. When the articles are only sub-stubs, they aren't served because they are given very little information. They would be given more information by an article that covered both the species and the genus - and for such sub-stubs, its very possible to have a list or table article with just as much information as the sub-stub, and indeed the alternative proposal which encourages the creation of such list and table articles would have explicitly supporting creating species articles when there is too much information available to include in the table or list.
    2. You misunderstand. The issue isn't using every source, it's using everything from a source - presenting the totality, rather than a summary. Further, because these are primary sources, as I mentioned this also violates WP:PRIMARY.
    3. A huge part of the backlash to NSPORTS was the mass creation of such sub-stubs. Even if you don't see a problem with such articles, you should seek to avoid their mass creation to avoid the same backlash occurring here. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, mass-creation is never a good idea, and this policy doesn't in any way endorse it. Cremastra (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB that I never said it was "appropriate" for an editor to "churn out" that many articles 365 days per year, nor do I say that any editor has actually done that for a year (or even for a few months). I have only said that the existing rules in the Wikipedia:Bot policy, which were implemented because an editor (who is still an admin) was occasionally dropping a couple hundred articles at once on the new article feed, do not apply to editors who create articles at a rate of one or two an hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I disagree with your characterization of lots of list articles with even less information on each species or unwieldy and lengthy tables. Most genera pages already have a plain list of all species in the article (up to a few dozen) or in a spinoff article (if more). The information in a typical sub-stub (including the taxonbox) usually just consists of the species name, the name of the person who discovered it, the year discovered, maybe conservation status, maybe habitat, maybe 1-3 sentences extra. All of that can be included in a reasonably small table (in comparison to existing lists), with nothing left out, if you include an "additional notes" column (and obviously, if a specific cell in that column becomes too unwieldy, a separate article would be warranted). Mach61 20:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues that you raise here are not likely to change (for better or for worse) under this proposed guideline. Stubs will be made regardless, and even then, stubs are not harmful. Improving stubs is my main passion on Wikipedia - it is often very easy to transform a one sentence stub into a informative and relatively comprehensive article. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and the current state of an article being poor does not mean that the subject is not notable. An article being a stub right now is not especially helpful, but it is even less helpful to dismiss the subject of an article because of its current state. Simply having a speciesbox and taxon identifiers can be useful to readers! That said, for a taxon to be presumed notable under this guideline it must have "a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication" and be "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" - this is to say, a taxon presumed notable under this guideline will have at least enough information published about it to build a Start class article. The issue of taxon stubs on Wikipedia is not an issue of notability, but an issue of manpower to improve these stubs.
    Furthermore, this guideline does not overrule WP:PAGEDECIDE - you may encounter opposition from users, but this policy does not prohibit merging, and I can think of several scenarios in which I would personally support upmerging (one that comes to mind is certain species complexes, the members of which are likely individually notable under this guideline, but are better presented in a single article due to their similarity). This guideline only states that (accepted) species are presumed notable, not that they must have individual articles or that they cannot be merged. That said, it is evident from previous discussion that there is community opposition to general upmerging, and this will be the case regardless of whether or not this proposal is accepted.
    Ultimately, this guideline remains a reflection of existing practice, and its adoption seems unlikely to have any impact on the issues you've raised. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In re you may encounter opposition from users: Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal from 2022, it appears that he already did encounter opposition from other editors. After 200+ comments amounting to about 0.9 tomats of text, I think the main result is that he boldly made more than 500 merge-related edits to species articles over the space of about 36 hours that all got rolled back, and a few people suggested that it might be a good idea to have an RFC about whether to formalize WP:NSPECIES as an WP:SNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just expanded two of the substubs mentioned by Billedmammal above, supposedly as examples of substubs that can never be expanded. I welcome the purportedly inevitable tide of millions of species articles predicted to swamp the encyclopaedia by formalising this guideline. Esculenta (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of them is still a sub-stub, and the other you expanded by closely paraphrasing a sole primary source, exacerbating the WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:PRIMARY issues and potentially introducing WP:COPYVIO issues. This is the issue with allowing the creation of standalone articles without any secondary coverage.
    Please also note that I said most, not all could never be expanded.
    Plus, if I hadn't mentioned them, would you have worked on them? They hadn't been expanded in six years, so I doubt it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither is a sub-stub; if you can't use the accepted terminology correctly, the communication problem is on your end. The other article is properly paraphrased from the original source, as it should be; WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't really apply here, as one expects to find a description of a species in the Wikipedia article about the species. You gave these three examples of species articles, and then followed with the comment "Most can never be expanded...", so you can't flip flop and claim "I didn't say that", because we know what you implied. You whined about these articles, giving them as examples of unexpandable articles, and they were noticed by other editors and expanded. So Wikipedia works. You say most could never be expanded; I say you're just plain wrong. Esculenta (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Please be civil. Saying an editor whined and similar does not contribute to a productive editing environment.
    And again, I did not say these were unexpandable. I had no idea if these specific examples were or weren't, and I fully expected that an editor like you would try to expand them. However, it is very relevant to note that you weren't able to do so without violating two or three Wikipedia policies, including core policies, and I consider that very strong evidence for why this proposal cannot pass. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems very pedantic and unproductive. Esculenta's point is very clear - it is possible for an editor to find sources and improve taxon stubs with relatively little effort, and your assertion that most can never be expanded is speculation, not fact. Esculenta is showing that they are willing to actually address substubs in a way that benefits Wikipedia - by putting in the effort and improving them, not dismissing them as non-notable or unfixable simply because of the current state of their article.
    Plus, if I hadn't mentioned them, would you have worked on them? Not sure what you're trying to say here. You provided examples of substubs, and someone proved that they could be improved with five minutes worth of effort. Taking this question in good faith: I personally find substubs to improve by through maintenance categories, or by searching manually for taxa I'm interested in working on and picking the most neglected articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal, @Ethmostigmus and Esculenta - The logic of "this is a stub that can't be improved" has already been proven wrong once. [list] had thousands of stubs that BilledMammal thought could supposedly never be improved. Yet I've been able to improve many of these with limited materials.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just expanded two of the substubs mentioned by Billedmammal above. Diffs for convenience: 1, 2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. I have reservations about anything that amounts to "don't bother with sources or general notability, just make the article". But in terms of P&G following practice, this is more clear cut than most notability issues. Some of my concern would be alleviated if it were acknowledged in the text that this does not invalidate WP:PAGEDECIDE. That might actually be worth considering for all SNGs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the idea that this guideline does not invalidate WP:PAGEDECIDE was self evident, but I agree that this could be made more explicit. I would definitely support adding it to the See also section alongside WP:MASSCREATE (and, outside the scope of this proposal, doing the same for other SNGs/making changes to PAGEDECIDE to explicitly address SNGs) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think adding PAGEDECIDE as a reminder in "See also" is a good idea. Cremastra (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No SNG invalidates PAGEDECIDE; to do so would invalidate the use of editors' judgement and the WP:Consensus policy. We could, if it seemed useful, add that as a ==See also==, but I am reluctant to make any changes, even one so small as this, during this RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a consistent point of confusion so I do think putting it under the See also section of the guideline is warranted. I think it's also worth adding to the FAQ section above. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done [12] WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not a new SNG in practice, but a codification of the existing consensus. I do not think this would negate WP:NOPAGE, which is listed just a few sections below WP:SNG at Wikipedia:Notability. Curbon7 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the mass creation point is not a concern. Any mass creation request for thousands and thousands of stubs will likely be declined, and any out-of-process mass creation will be dealt with swiftly and strongly. Curbon7 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Any mass creation request for thousands and thousands of stubs will likely be declined, and any out-of-process mass creation will be dealt with swiftly and strongly." - Unfortunately the reality is 180 degrees the opposite. No-one stepped in to stop Dr. Blofeld, or Carlossuarez46, or Lugnuts, until they were tens of thousands of articles deep in their mass-creations, and getting them to stop was a massive drama-thon. Everything was justified by simply pointing at guides exactly like the one being proposed here. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has not been the experience with species. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the very first species article I came across by clicking on "random" a few times, and -yup- it was a text-book mass-created article. I discussed it above. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is short-sighted to oppose this proposal. As mentioned, this is just the current unwritten consensus written down; wouldn't those concerned with notability and such want the current consensus to be clear and written so they can then try to gain consensus to adjust it? Curbon7 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given that this guideline codifies existing practice and changes very little (bar providing explicit guidance on non-accepted taxa, hybrids, subspecies, etc). The issue of species notability has already largely been settled via community consensus (per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) and it's just a matter of putting it to paper. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this formalises what I always hoped was true, that properly accepted species were notable, while doubtful names were not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should bring our PAGs into alignment with actual practice whenever possible. I first added species to the "De facto but unwritten SNGs" section of my SNG notes back in 2021, and nothing has changed since then. Species are almost always kept at AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Policies and guidelines are meant to be descriptive of practice, and this proposal meets that standard. I have read and considered BilledMammal's comments in opposition but I am unconvinced by them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have my concerns about sub-stubs, and restrictions on them, but my first goal is getting some kind of reasonable actual guideline that represents existing de facto consensus. Cremastra (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CFA. I find Voorts' rebuttal to the upmerging opposition rationale persuasive. Sdkb talk 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A guideline which is intended to codify existing practice. For many reasons it's bad when current practice violates the rules, and so this will solve that problem. I have a few concerns which will/would be assuaged by considering "intended to codify existing practice" to be a key element of this RFC. Current practice is that since these technically are breaking the rules, new articles tend to be cautions and include extra sourcing, content and images. We don't want to trigger a lot of assembly-line or completionist type article creations, nor some type of deletion-fest of established articles. I would encourage other respondents to say the same thing and if this passes perhaps that could be included in the close. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously an advocate (in general) for up-merges but I have reversed myself because: 1. I would get very confusing as where to find the material 2. When non-experts edit, it likely to have misplaced items. 3. As long as there is at least some material (which I think should be the norm)(and it's a highly encyclopedic area like species) what not have it be an article, which is the way that Wikipedia is organized. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reinforcing what is already a reality, if this is successful and becomes an SNG it can then be tweaked and evolved like any other SNG. IMO nobody is going to be saying that approval locks in every detail of the initial SNG. Despite of lot of careful work on this by many people prior to the RFC, I think that all would acknowledge it would be a miracle to have the initial version be complete and perfect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying, I don't think that there is a danger of serious mass creation.....the community and guidlines will simply not allow it. IMO there is a risk of increasing a lesser version of that...assembly line/ completionist / article-count chaser type work because the status quo is these aren't officially allowed and so folks are more likely to put more content/sourcing into new articles, hence my advocating adding "intended to reflect existing practice " including in the close. But IMO this potential issue is small compared to the benefits, and we can also work on it to evolve it after it becomes an SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as intended to codify existing practice, per Dyanega's statement, North8000's Background and interpretation, & #Background and interpretation section.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, this has already been a de facto SNG for at least 8 years. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per long standing application in the wild of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and per the numerous comments by Dyanega, North8000, CFA, Voorts, an Esculenta. I find nothing compelling about the hyper-what-ifing and over-dissection of other policies made by BilledMammal in their commentary. --Kevmin § 16:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for NSPECIES' current state. I accept that actual deletion of species pages is off the table, but up-merging and redirecting, while uncommon now, is an underexplored solution, and may have a chance of actually being adopted. I base this off an experience I had with a page on a species of ladybug (can't remember the name RN), where every singe mention of it I could find cited the same 19th century German book. I ultimately decided to WP:BLAR to the genera page. Perhaps we should set the bar for auto-notability at genus. Mach61 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to have created any redirects to anything that looks like a binomial name, and nothing in Category:Coccinellidae genera has a redirect created by you. Very few binomial names redirect to ladybug genera, and most of those few were created by Dyanega before you created your account.
    That 19th-century book was probably the 'authority' for the species. A specific document, often a monograph that compares and contrasts related species (and thus is definitely WP:SECONDARY in Wikipedia's terms) is often designated as the official source of the species name, and will always be cited in any scholarly effort to collect and systematize species. If the authority was actually German, then it might have been Georg Wolfgang Franz Panzer, but if you just meant a German-sounding name, then Ludwig Redtenbacher is also possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your concerns RE upmerging and redirecting in some cases, but this seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NOPAGE is still a guideline and this guideline can always be amended to give some guidance on when BLARing/upmerging are appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts and Mach61: Would it address your concerns about upmerging and redirecting if the guideline was updated to say that stand-alone species articles should not be created unless a reliable secondary source was included? BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your discussion above with Ethmostigmus, that would appear to eviscerate the goal of this SNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would endorse the creation of hundreds of thousands of species articles, and it would endorse the coverage of millions more in higher-level articles.
    I don't think that is eviscerating the goal of this SNG, and it would have the added benefit of ensuring that this SNG complies with core policies. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, the community has only required the citation of a source for articles about BLPs. All other subject areas operate under WP:NEXIST rules, which state that notability is never to be judged on the basis of whether a source has already been "included". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And sports figures, living and dead. In that guideline, it was added to prevent the creation of articles that would be very likely to violate policy - it’s unclear why such a clarification would be unhelpful here, unless you support the creation of policy-violating articles. BilledMammal (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like wikilaywering to me. Many SNGs do not require secondary sources. Most local village articles, for example, only cite government census data. They are still notable. There isn't even a requirement for academic BLPs to have secondary coverage as long as they meet WP:NACADEMIC. And the "primary" sources in this case are the highest-quality possible because they have been peer-reviewed before being published in a reputable academic publication. C F A 💬 14:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are still notable" - they are, in fact, not notable. The assumption is they don't have to be notable under any reasonable meaning of the term. That's how we ended up with tens of thousands of Iranian "village" articles that turned out to be about petrol stations, oil pumps, farms, factories etc. That's what got us Monkey Box, Florida. Once you ditch the requirtement that anyone needs to actually get information from more than one source, all sorts of mass-produced nonsense can occur. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. NSPORTS says that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources, but does not appear to say that this source must be a secondary (e.g., analytical) one. For example, an autobiography provides SIGCOV but wouldn't count towards notability at all. However, an autobiography would appear to meet the citation requirement in NSPORTS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very confused by this. I understand how an autobiography would appear to meet the referencing requirements in NSPORTS, but how would it ever "provide SIGCOV" since it is not independent of the subject? Cremastra (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because SIGCOV is about how much information is in the source, not whether the source is primary, secondary, independent, self-published, biased, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal - WP:NOTPAPER - If it's justified for hundreds of thousands of new articles to be made, it is not a problem. There are no space or article limit concerns. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing stopping you merging species articles now and there'll be nothing stopping you after this is adopted. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the question of whether to have one or many articles on related subjects is independent of notability. I don't think this option has been 'underexplored' in that it comes up in every discussion not just of species' notability, but any topic prone to large numbers of stubs (places, sportspeople, etc.) and has done for years. It just seems that the people that actually write our coverage of these topics don't think that it's a good idea. – Joe (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've watched the hard work of creating this and though it will not please all, it is good and it is an improvement on the previous consensus at WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't spend a lot of time on articles about species, but I have created or expanded a few, and I think the proposed guidance is resonable. - Donald Albury 12:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems reasonable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this seems altogether helpful. There doesn't appear to be much positive in the opposing argument: thin and - as has already been said - smells of wikilawyering. Ingratis (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You mean this isn't an official guideline already??? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per 115.188 and everything that voorts says above. Also: for most editors, it's hard to create a species page from scratch. If these pages aren't created, then Wikipedia is going to miss out on the contributions of editors who had something to add to a species page, but who were scared away by the prospect of having to figure out all the rest of it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dank: regarding it's hard to create a species page from scratch, the alternative proposal to up merge these would have included support for automatically creating the page from scratch at the click of a link, so that editors who want to expand the content would be no worse off than they are now. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of thing always still has some minimum level of complication: users have to know the functionality exists and feel confident enough to use it. It's hard to do better than having the page already exist, which also makes it more discoverable. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems to cover everything needed. Properly recognized and named species by the relevant authority are notable, per our purpose as an encyclopedia, but temporarily named species or just described species without any further recognition yet (or any of the subspecies and other such things mentioned in the proposal) are not automatically notable and must meet the WP:GNG to qualify for notability. So major subspecies that have a lot of scientific and even news coverage, such as many of the mammal subspecies, would meet the GNG and thus be notable separate from this proposal. That seems like how things should be. SilverserenC 03:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems entirely reasonable to me. When issues of promotionalism or neutrality are involved, which is not an issue in cases like this, we should require references to multiple reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the topic, to prevent misuse of the encyclopedia for the wrong reasons. An article about a lesser known species based on only a single article in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal ought to be enough to establish species notability, in my view. I see such articles as great contributions to the encyclopedia with excellent possibilities for expansion in the future, as other researchers look into these specifics. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC) (moved from VPP – Teratix ₵ 10:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose just because it's de-facto practice doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem. There are more eukaryotic species than there are en.wp articles. If you want to create a bunch of taxa infoboxes Wikispecies is that way. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle, this proposal only covers species with accepted names, of which there are about 2 million (half of which are insects). There are currently 6.8 million articles on the English, of which about 300K are about species. If every single one were created (extremely unlikely, since it's taken us 20+ years to get 300K), then it could represent 25% of the articles (assuming no new articles are created about athletes, actors, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That again is still too many. You already have a de-facto consensus about it. Making it official just removes any real chance of the consensus changing without going through a tiresome process to change the policy.
    Right now if I feel an article on a species should be deleted. If this is policy I'll have no grounds to oppose a shitty stub no matter how horrible in quality it may be and how impossible improvement may currently be. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no matter how horrible in quality it may be Deletion is not for deleting poorly-written articles (except for WP:TNT cases). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article has no potential for improvement to anything beyond a sentence because there are no reliable secondary sources it should be deleted. Furthermore Wikipedia articles should not based solely on primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... that sounds fair, if it were true, but my experience in these discussions is that the facts don't align with that. To investigate a little further, can you name a couple of examples of articles about valid species that meet the conditions you name? Specifically, can you find an article or two that:
    1. would be accepted under this proposal,
    2. you believe has "no potential for improvement to anything beyond a sentence", and
    3. contains only one sentence (because if currently contains 2+ sentences, then it obviously has potential for improving beyond a single sentence)?
    Another editor named three WP:UGLY stubs above, asserting that "Most can never be expanded", and all three of them have since been expanded and cite multiple reliable sources. One's now over 500 words long. I've seen this happen in multiple discussions: assertions of alleged unexpandability turn out to be false.
    If you don't happen to have an example in mind, I suggest clicking on Special:RandomInCategory/Articles with 'species' microformats for a while. That seems to give random articles about species. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the time to find examples. Even if none currently exist that meet that criteria allowing for articles that meet the criteria (or lack of) be kept based on a SNG is not a good thing for the project.
    If those articles were expanded there likely exists enough coverage to qualify as GNG anyhow. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what we're trying to tell you is that if it meets the criteria of this proposal, it will always be able to expand the article beyond a single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now if I feel an article on a species should be deleted ... then... what? Cremastra (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I can propose deletion without it being shutdown due to some silly notability carve out it has been given. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that's different from what would have happened last year? Or the year before? Or five years before? The last time a (valid) species article was deleted at AFD was in 2016. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. And "silly" is an unnecessary add-on; no need to heat up the discussion. Cremastra (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have to actually argue and make a strong case as to why this single sentence stub on this fly that is only found in the hills of Mongolia should have it's own article. With a policy in place they can just write Keep WP:NSPECIES and that will be the end of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they can do that now too and have been doing so for the past decade. This guideline doesn't change that. And editors will still be able to merge species up to the genus level if they believe that is the best option. C F A 💬 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spulerina lochmaea looks like a typical species AFD from earlier this year. It's basically six variations on "keep per NSPECIES". That appears to be all editors have to do right now. I don't see this proposal changing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, taking S. lochmea as a stand-in for Traumnovelle's Mongolian fly (it is a South African moth), I'll try to expand that article to something passably non-sub-stubby. The original description is available and detailed, so at the very least we should have a decent physical description section (if I can parse and summarise the technical language). Cremastra (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring that it violates the idea of Wikipedia articles not being based solely/largely on primary sources: if a good article exists it won't be voted for deletion anyhow. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-policy based comments are supposed to be ignored. Just because it doesn't happen and that many discussions are treated as votes doesn't mean we should change anything. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More precisely, arguments that directly contradict relevant policies are usually discounted, but we also accept arguments from common sense, editors' judgment about what serves Wikipedia best, and established practice. Note, too, that one of the policies is that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", so it's perfectly 'legal' for editors to say that they believe, e.g., that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to create another notability-related exception to WP:PRIMARY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hardly describe one sentence articles sourced to DBs/primary sources as improvements to Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Each editor is entitled to their own opinion on points like that, but I'm curious why you think that it's relevant to mention the number of sentences. Only a small minority of species articles have just one sentence, and all of those few (as far as we've been able to identify) could be expanded. It is a general principle of notability that the present size of an article does not tell us anything about whether the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article, and this proposal says nothing about the contents of the resulting articles. So why mention "one sentence articles" at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that perspective, but here's mine: while a substub with few references does little to improve to the encyclopedia, deleting it does even less to improve the encyclopedia. Setting aside this whole primary/secondary sources discussion, any crappy substub species with a scientific description can be expanded to at least Start class - while it is not much of a contribution in its current state, a substub of this nature always has the potential to be an improvement to the encyclopedia. from my personal work, Dendrobium atroviolaceum was a one sentence substub before I started working on it, as was Pilularia minuta. These aren't GA quality or anything now, but I think they help explain why we should keep WP:ARTN in mind and not judge the potential of an article by its current state. I hope this helps you understand my perspective. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons BilledMammal provided in detail. In particular, I'm not swayed by either: A) "A substub provides a useful taxobox", since all the information in that taxobox will also be available in the taxobox on the genus or the species entry in a list/table at the genus article, so there is no reason to not upmerge to the genus in such a case. And B) "I was able to expand two of these substubs", since in the case that a species article can be expanded beyond the substub stage, then it should have a stand-alone article. That is, it is no longer a good upmerge candidate, and it no longer being one has zero implications of any kind for substubs that remain good upmerge candidates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC) (moved from VPP – Teratix ₵ 10:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Regarding your point B: The point of this guideline is that any species this SNG would consider notable, an accepted species with a scientific description, has an existing source with which at least a basic article can be built on (in the form of that original description). That is to say, any substub this guideline would consider notable can be expanded in such a way, and likely does not need upmerging. And I must emphasise that this proposal does not override WP:PAGEDECIDE or put any new restrictions on upmerging. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be ignoring previously detailed policy objections to this idea, namely that we are prohibited from creating entire articles out of a primary source or even multiple primary sources, and the original describer's species description, as the only available source (other than listings in tertiary sources that reguritate that one), is by definition a primary source. This proposal would put an in-practice (if not in-the-letter-of-the-law) restriction on upmerging, because any article that can survive a notability criterion will not be forcibly merged (or deleted) at WP:AFD, and any "hash it out on the article talk page" merge proposal will be stiffly resisted by everyone in support of this species notability criterion, simply because it's a species and without any regard to the rationales in favor of merging (we know that because they are already stiffly resisting, right here and now, all the rationales in favor of merging).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to not upmerge to the genus in such a case – one reason that I find compelling is that the vast majority of our coverage of biological taxonomy (hundreds of thousands of articles written by thousands of editors) is organised at the species level and nobody has stepped forward to upmerge them on a systematic level. The idea is often floated in policy discussions such as this, but the editors that actually work on species articles evidently don't think it's a good one. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFIXEDYET / WP:NOEFFORT: That a bunch of work needs to be done is not a reason to shirk it much less to make it harder to do. Also WP:BEENHERE and WP:NOT#PAPER: That a poor decision was made a long time ago about what to do, information-architecturally, with this content does not mean we are stuck with that decision forever. And WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN: editors from a topical wikiproject or otherwise with more editorial devotion to a subject do get to, for "their" subject, veto, undermine, or prevent the formation of broader community decisions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us are, in fact, working on improving species stubs. Mass-upmerging is a large amount of work for no actual benefit besides "less stubs", and removing stubs makes it harder (and thus less likely) for editors like myself to actually build the encyclopedia. Regardless, mass-upmerging does not appear to be a popular idea and seems unlikely to gain enough support to be implemented. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ethmostigmus: The proposed methods of upmerging will ensure that it requires no effort to recreate the current sub-stubs such that editors who do wish to use them as the basis for creating a genuine article are not impeded.
    Even better, these efforts will not be limited to sub-stubs that currently exist, meaning that if you wanted to create an article on Phobaeticus annamallayanus when this comment was written, this was a red link, and was only intended as an example of how upmerging could make it easier to create articles, rather than harder 21:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC) you would be more supported in doing so than you are today. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I absolutely appreciate and endorse your plan to make redlink taxon article creation easier, it is does not fully address my issue with upmerging, which is that I find it more likely for a crappy article to be made better than for a new article to be made at all, even if the process is made easier. I primarily choose topics to work on by finding stubs in categories like Category:Stub-Class plant articles, Category:Orchid stubs, Category:Cite IUCN maint, etc, and I imagine I'm not the only one - that's what those categories are for, after all! I think awareness/uptake will also be something of an issue (how will users know that this is an option?), but we're getting a bit off topic for this thread. If you develop this idea further please keep me in the loop! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a tool can be created independently of the outcome of this request for comments discussion, so it's not really a differentiator for either viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it shouldn’t be, as without policy controls it will be easy to abuse for mass creation.
    Further, the main point of bringing it up is to counter the argument that having standalone articles makes expansion easier.
    And just to clarify; although there are tools that I would build to better support the creation of species and genus articles, the specific aspect under discussion here involves the use of native features so that even IP’s can take advantage of it and wouldn’t be disadvantaged by upmerging. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal I took the liberty of writing a short article on Phobaeticus annamallayanus. It's short, but I don't think it qualifies as a "sub-stub". A physical description can also be added. Cremastra (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your new article is about 300 characters (maybe three sentences?) short of a Wikipedia:Did you know nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument relies on the assumption that the one-article-per-species structure is a mistake or a problem that needs to be fixed, but that has far from demonstrated as a consensus position. Arguments from WP:CONLEVEL are easily flipped on their head: a local consensus of the (extreme) minority of editors that hang out at the village pump cannot and should not override a broad consensus of editors expressed through years of accepted editing practices and a clear pattern in AfD outcomes. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe: I stepped up and upmerged hundreds of species sub-stubs. For this, I was taken to ANI. Given that there are editors willing to do the work I don't find that reason at all compelling, and given that the reason it hasn't happened is because of opposition from editors who prefer coverage at the species level - even when such coverage violates policies like WP:PRIMARY - I think the reason is circular. BilledMammal (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like further evidence that the upmerging approach does not have broad consensus behind it. It's no more circular than any other policy or guideline: we're here to describe the practices of editors who write content, not prescribe it. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish, the point I've found more interesting is that I've never yet seen a species article (for an accepted species) that couldn't be expanded past the substub stage. Someone's already expanded two of the three, and if you look at the third, you'll find a print-only book that (from what I can see in Google Books' snippet mode) contains not only enough information to go past the substub stage, but a comparison between some similar species, which means it's a secondary source. WP:NOTFIXEDYET cuts both ways: if it's possible to expand them past the substub stage – and so far, the community is batting 1000 here – then the fact that nobody's already expanded them is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Full text PDF of that book is available here. GBIF only has a record for a single specimen (the holotype), but there is a CC0 image of the specimen. It's possible that there are other specimens in museums that haven't been databased, but it's also possible that there are no other specimens.
    If we were writing a guideline that presumed some (accepted) species deserved articles and some didn't and which set out to define which were which, I'd probably start with species known from a single specimen being undeserving of articles. On the other side of things, I'd start with all hominids (fossil and living) being deserving of articles.
    Homo longi falls right in the middle of that; it's a hominid with only one specimen. And I don't see how we can have an article for it if primary sources can't be used. I've brought it up before in one of these discussions with an editor who maintains that we can't use primary sources for species articles, who assured me that it was fine. I'm just not seeing that. The sources for the H. longi are 3 primary sources (all articles published in the same issue of a journal), two news stories (do those count as secondary?) from the time when the primary sources were published in 2021, one article from 2023 with a note on the nomenclature (SIGCOV? I think not), and 7 sources published before it was described (they provide context, but obviously don't mention the subject of the article). If species articles can't be based on primary sources, H. longi shouldn't have an article, let alone be rated as a Good Article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link to that PDF; I've used it to expand Sorhagenia cracens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of an inverse of WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't demonstrate anything. Your ability to expand some substubs takes them out of the substub range, and makes them no longer good upmerge candidates. Those that are not expandable (or for which no one's doing the allegedly possible work to expand them) remain good upmerged candidates, unless and until they are expanded and are not longer good upmerge candidates. So we're right back to where we started on this. All "presumed notable" broad classes are a very iffy idea, and I'm not inclined to support creation of another, especially since it would entail creation of a very, very large number of articles, on subject that often are dubious and get reclassified and renamed in short order (but at a rate that WP editors generally cannot keep track of). It's much more practical to update a list of [claimed] species than to go through bunch of RM and/or merge discussions for a bunch of articles (that aren't likely to have more content in them than what would be found about the same organisms at the genus page). PS: Before someone says "Well, I might want to include more information, like describer names, date of first published description, and location of the collection of the type sample", but still not enough for a proper stand-alone article, the answer is "Slightly expand the species list/table scopes at the genus article to includes such details."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just the thing, though, isn't it? You hypothesize the existence of two groups of substubs:
    • "Those that are not expandable" and
    • those "for which no one's doing the allegedly possible work to expand them"
    and the evidence indicates that the first group doesn't actually exist (e.g., every attempt to give an example has been proven wrong, over and over, for years now), and trying to delete, or prevent the creation of, the second group would be a WP:NOEFFORT violation.
    I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist myself, but I think the reason ought to sound a lot more like "I just personally prefer merging up to larger subjects" instead of "Let's pretend that only one sentence worth of information exists for some of them even though that's been repeatedly disproven, or that notability depends on the amount of effort already expended". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many species articles would be much more useful if they were redirected/merged to lists. Codifying this SNG will only lead to more opposition against such merges. If all you have is a paper describing the species (and often there are a lot of species in one paper) and an authority accepting it, then you don't have the multiple independent sources required for articles in general. In many cases these articles aren't even based on this one source, but on databases or worse (crowdsourced "this photo is this species" sites and the like). If you write decent articles you won't need this SNG at all. Fram (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a codification of the long-standing existing practice already documented at WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. The doom-mongering about stubs is particularly unconvincing given that we have applied this de facto standard for years and the result has only been that Wikipedia has become a useful and well-regarded reference work for taxonomy and biodiversity.[13][14][15][16][17][18] – Joe (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link you give above (https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2010.4242.1) is really nice to see. While the biodiversity community has been developing a plethora of databases, some with overlapping goals and duplicated content, Wikipedia has been slowly growing to the point where it now has over 100,000 pages on biological taxa. My goal in this essay is to explore the idea that, largely independent of the efforts of biodiversity informatics and well-funded international efforts, Wikipedia has emerged as potentially the best platform for fulfilling E O Wilson’s vision [for an “encyclopaedia of life” comprising “an electronic page for each species of organism on Earth”]. A clear example of Wikipedia doing some good in the world. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the curmudgeonly Darrel Frost has good things to say when announcing he'd added Wikipedia links to all the taxon pages in Amphibian Species of World: Wikipedia currently addresses the various taxonomic controversies in a responsible manner and the amount of effort that the accounts represent is astonishing in its enormity. 20 years ago you could not have convinced me that a large number of anonymous people would be willing to put so much effort into constructing something so useful. (link).  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but premature.
    Support in principle per the several “intention” points made above, and it is a needed and good idea, but the guideline is not currently well enough written if adopted as-is.
    It needs a nutshell.
    It needs to not begin self-referencing (sentence 1) and with general background statements (sentence 2). The first paragraph is wordy, generalising and factoids, and it a great draft that is not ready for submission for marking.
    The three substantial sections would be better presented as a table. I would like to see more Wikipedia-historical evidence, such as examples of cases decided in well participated AfDs. “All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists” needs sourcing, to mainspace content or reliable sources. I expect that such lists exist. I want a definition of the set of taxonomists and where to find them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe, I took the "self-referential" first sentence from Wikipedia:Notability (academics).
    I am not aware of any actual rule requiring a nutshell template, and I would personally discourage them on shorter guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) do not have nutshell templates, and even major policies (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:CheckUser...) do not use that template.
    I appreciate your request for a set of taxonomists, mostly because someone else thought that the proposal was needlessly long because I named them in the microbes sections. However, I wonder whether you understood "All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists" as intended. I mean that Wikipedia accepts articles on "all the ones that are accepted, and none of the ones that are not [yet] accepted"; I do not make a factual assertion along the lines of "all of the species in the world have been accepted by taxonomists". Most [alleged] species aren't accepted. I'm not sure what sort of statement you want reliable sources to support. Reliable sources don't exist for statements about Wikipedia's choices, and any source that claims taxonomists have accepted every species in the world is unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point about the start of NPROF. However, NPROF has a nutshell. I’ve become used to nutshells. They tell me, without me needing any insight or patience, what the page is about.
    I do think the guideline is too short, and fails to give simple guidance. I feel it errs on the side of expecting too much knowledge from the reader. Notability sub guidelines aren’t just for new article writers, but for AfC NPR and AfD volunteers. Help them not confuse taxonomists with those who preserve dead animals and those who study tax and the economy.
    These were my first impressions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not experienced in writing policy, so I will defer to more experienced editors on the actual construction of the guideline, but I think you raise some good points here.
    Regarding historical evidence: A Background and interpretation section was proposed by North8000 (see discussion above), but it was removed because some users felt it out of place in the guideline itself. If other users believe this would be useful, I can see this section being returned to the guideline and expanded to give historical context (eg. last successful species AfD, unsuccessful AfDs since, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, etc).
    Regarding taxonomists and where to find them (great movie idea): I do think providing extra guidance on how users should assess the validity of a name is a solid idea. Put very simply: for plants, algae, and fungi, we defer to the guidance of the ICNafp (names listed at IPNI/MycoBank/Index Fungorum), for animals we follow the ICZN (names listed at ZooBank), and for prokaryotes we follow the ICNP (names listed at LPSN), and for viruses we follow the ICTV (names listed on the ICTV website). Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ethmostigmus - Providing additional guidance in the form of these links is an excellent idea. I doubt that the average editor would be able to quickly grok "accepted names" when, for example, looking to this page for guidance in an AfD; checking against an existing, accepted list would be much more straightforward. I would encourage you to either WP:BOLDLY add these links to the policy page, or add a new section below discussing the change, so that this doesn't get buried. Pagliaccious (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although my proposed addition didn't stay in, I support this proposal. Perfection is the enemy of progress. My proposal is based on acknowledgement that wp:notability decisions are based on additional considerations besides wp:notability (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) guidlines. In this case the status quo is that folks are a little extra cautious with new articles (putting in a bit of extra sources, info, images etc.) beyond a micro-stub because it isn't "official" and so new articles have more of those things. Extra guidance that is more notability related is "homeless" because it is "out of place" in it's most likely home. But I'll still be an advocate of putting something in later towards this end.North8000 (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethmostigmus 🌿 03:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC), if it weren’t for the RfC soft protection, I would be adding this now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I Oppose this as written. It lacks useful substance. Sections Wikipedia:Notability (species)#Prokaryotes and Wikipedia:Notability (species)#Viruses and similar forms say nothing of substance, they are non-guidance, they are assertions that there is no guidance on prokaryotes and viruses. The only substance is Wikipedia:Notability (species)#Eukaryotes, which is 36 words of high brow assertion that requires the reader to go research on what it means. I really am shocked that this thin idea is being put forward as a guideline, especially given the inflexibility that comes after adoption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I think everyone else has the opposite view of those sections.
    The ==Eukaryotes== section doesn't give the names of the different taxonomic authorities. The other two give the name of the only acceptable authority. You might have to do some research – mostly clicking through to the Wikipedia article – but you have to do much less research for the non-eukaryotes sections. In the virus case, the "research" process means:
    • Click through to the Wikipedia article about the ICTV.
    • Find their website in the infobox.
    • Click the link to the master list on their website. It's in the middle of the front page of their website, above the scroll.
    In the case of the ==Eukaryotes== section, the answer is probably "Ask the relevant WikiProject, because the answer is 'it depends on what kind of organism it is'". I'd therefore say that the ==Eukaryotes== has less substance than the other two.
    The ==Eukaryotes== section also doesn't explicitly designate anything as being outside the scope. For example, the sections you describe has having "non-guidance" and "assertions that there is no guidance on prokaryotes and viruses" explicitly exclude all articles on:
    That again seems like more substance for the non-eukaryotes sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If processing a new article with this SNG requires “ask the relevant WikiProject” then it fails the threshold of deserving to be called a guideline. SNGs should point to answers. WikiProjects are a thing of the past, they are only dying. They can’t be relied on. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask the relevant WikiProject... for the right database. At least, that's what I understand WhatamIdoing to mean. The actual guidance is in the guideline, there's just no point in compiling a list of a hundred different taxonomic resources. If we did that, you'd complain we were cluttering up the text. Cremastra (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing WhatamIdoing's comment, I think that the prokaryote and virus sections are the strongest not in spite of but because of their simplicity. On the matter of eukaryotes, while it would be great to provide a set of instructions for editors to follow, it's just not that simple. There is no single authority on eukaryotes. I would love to make a huge list of all the authoritative databases for all the different eukaryote groups, but there are a lot of them, and they don't always agree. To quote what I said in a different comment: some taxa-specific resources that come to mind are World Spider Catalogue for spiders, Chilobase for centipedes, Systema Dipterorum for flies, FishBase for fishes... And the list goes on! There are also some regional databases, which sometimes disagree with their international counterparts (see Glossodia major - here in Australia, authorities place it in the genus Glossodia, while World Flora Online considers it a species of Caladenia). Some WikiProjects have their own preferred taxonomic sources (for example, WP:BIRDS generally follows the taxonomy set out by the International Ornithological Congress) but most don't seem to provide specific guidance.
    I'll also quote what @Choess: said on the topic: For areas where there isn't a clear central database, if someone was trying to demonstrate that a particular species was accepted, I would probably want to see the species treated as real in secondary source(s) (not just a name in a copied checklist), or perhaps a description in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal specializing in the field (where it's been scrutinized by reviewers with the skill to distinguish a new species from a trivial variation). [...] When there's a disagreement between databases over whether a group of organisms should be treated as two (or more) species or as a single one ("splitting" and "lumping"), I think it's largely a matter of editorial taste. To pull from my own work, about halfway down Myriopteris rufa#Taxonomy is a paragraph discussing how certain populations have been treated as a separate species under a different name. On the other hand, if I was able to write at great length about both species that are sometimes lumped together, I might prefer to keep them separate. The really important thing in such a case is to be transparent to the reader and note which sources lump, which split, and, if possible, the distinction made between the two species by the sources that do split them. This allows us to maintain WP:NPOV when authorities disagree. It's not always as simple as just following a database: it is up to editors to thoroughly research the taxon at hand (as anyone should when creating an article!), consult with other editors, and use their best judgement. I do support adding further guidance to the eukaryotes section, but such guidance can only go so far, and at the end of the day it will still be up to editors to do their due diligence. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The prokaryotes and virus sections are the strongest?! They don’t say anything. They begin with non-statements. The three sections read like placeholder text. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think saying They don't say anything is entirely inaccurate. They are short, sweet, and to the point: prokaryotes and viruses are only presumed notable under this guideline if they are accepted by the ICNP or ICNV respectively, and non-accepted species are presumed non-notable and subject to WP:GNG. What more needs to be said there? I don't ask this rhetorically, I genuinely want to know how you think these sections should be expanded. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidance should be written in the positive. Eg: Prokaryotes and viruses are presumed notable if listed by the ICNP or ICNV.
    Is that right? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If guidance could only be written in the positive, then we wouldn't have Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The main WP:MOS page wouldn't say "Do not" dozens of times. But the community has quite a lot of "negative guidance", and we need it.
    If you read the second sentence of the section about prokaryotes, it says:
    "Prokaryotic species are presumed notable only if they have a non-provisional correct name under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes."
    That is an entirely positive statement. That said, IMO one of the more important points of that section is that all other prokaryotes are explicitly excluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Chilobase! My favourite database. :) I used to write articles about centipedes, that's why. Cremastra (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this formalization into an actionable notability guideline, on the basis that a) this exact approach has worked well for a long time without creating any but the most minor of problems (which are continuously and efficiently dealt with); b) every species stub has guaranteed built-in expandability due to the required minimum sourcing (full description and diagnosis); c) scenarios of being flooded by millions of sub-stubs have not materialized, and are even more unlikely to happen now that the mass-creation guidelines have been clarified; and d) higher-level structure is efficiently provided at higher-level taxa, and while it may feel more satisfactory to telescope stubs into lists until expanded, this trades compactness for barriers to expansion coupled with a potential for substantially screwing up a system that is by now very well curated. The status quo does not need fixing, it needs recognition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as currently formulated I'm not opposed to species articles that contain at least a description, but there is no way we should be authorizing creation of stubs for every species someone proposes, if for no other reason than that taxonomy isn't stable, but Also because the history of the project is that these stubs tend to hang around unexpanded when a ews link in a genus article would provide the same info. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mangoe This is isn't opening the gates, though. This is codifying what we already de facto do. So this isn't a new policy or even a guideline, and certainly isn't going to change anything. It is being proposed because it is absurd to have a de facto SNG under WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Cremastra (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there is such a risk because people might have been more cautious (= putting more into any article article they create) because those currently technically violate the rules. That's why I put "intent is to codify existing practice" in my "Support" post and urged others to do the same. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe, I'm concerned that you might not have understood the proposal. This is not proposing every species someone proposes precisely because the taxonomy for proposed species is unstable. This is every species already accepted by the relevant taxonomic authorities – and nothing else (unless it qualifies for GNG). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fundamentally "presumed to be notable" in practice would be treated as "is notable", and means that you would never be able delete or, more crucially, merge these types of articles where it would make more sense to discuss species in aggregate. The amount you can say at the genus level seems like it would fit better than this, because coverage simply isn't there to create anything beyond one-source articles for the vast majority of species, which have very little even in their descriptions for a summary source like Wikipedia, and rely on primary sources. I don't expect consensus to swing this way but I might as well register my strong disagreement with the idea that we just chuck out the entire point of the encyclopedia (a focus on secondary sourcing as the guide for when we cover something) when someone wants to obsessively catalog every ant out there. We rightfully recognize this with almost every other subject out there, which is why our policies are what they are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • you would never be able delete: this is already the case.
  • or, more crucially, merge: as has been pointed out above, the criteria for merging is separate from notability (See eg. WP:NOPAGE) and this proposal does not affect that.
Charcoal feather (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs, how certain are you about the assertion that the coverage simply isn't there to create anything beyond one-source articles for the vast majority of species?
I clicked on Special:RandomInCategory/Articles with 'species' microformats ten times and found a median of three sources cited in species articles (range of 1 to 16; 20% cited only a single source). I looked into one of the two single-source articles (Haemodorum ensifolium) and discovered in less than a minute that there's an entry for that plant in the Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation, and there's probably an entry in Flora of Australia: Hydatellales to Liliales. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why is an SNG required in this case if multiple sources can apparently be found easily? FOARP (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal explains the community's long-standing actual practices, which increases transparency and should slightly reduce the (already small) number of doomed AFDs. It might also increase the number of valid AFDs and merge proposals, and I hope that it will give less-experienced editors some tools for finding out whether a given alleged species is actually an accepted species.
Compared to WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, it also identifies some relevant subjects that aren't presumed notable, which IMO is also a good idea. For example, there are some notable plasmids, but if this proposal is adopted, they will have to qualify for an article under the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you didn’t answer the question: you’re saying these articles always have multiple sources available anyway - so why do we need a guide that says one source is OK? FOARP (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid time-wasting nominations from nominators who don't understand the difference between the existence of sources and their presence as references in the Wikipedia article? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed guideline doesn't say anything about sourcing, it's just intended to codify the current practice of not deleting species articles. We don't need this SNG to allow or disallow any particular practice, it's just meant to say "this is the current consensus on species articles". Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Animal and plants are an encyclopedia's bread and butter, as far as I'm concerned. "species exists", "species has had papers written about it" and "species is recognised by relevant organisations" should be enough to weed out the nonsensense species to the degree that species-categorising academia is capable of. I also agree with other users in this discussion who say that presumed notability isn't much of a problem here. In the end, as our knowledge expands, so will our stubs. I do think there are problems with mass creation, but I would like to see that adressed in the mass creation policy platform-wide. I don't think we're going to stem the tide by trying to adress it here by proxy. That's going to have to be a whole different RFC. Also, perhaps a little philosophically, but as someone with a background in ecology, among other things, I don't think there's such a thing as an unimportant species. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reflects existing consensus and practices. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written – needs more clarity on its position on upmerging. (e/c)
After reading through the extensive surrounding discussion, it's apparent the debate isn't about whether species are notable or whether articles on them should be outright deleted at AfD – it's really about when species should be covered in stand-alone articles and when they should be covered in broader articles on their genera.
It's therefore absolutely essential for the guideline to clearly and explicitly articulate its position on this sort of up-merging – even if that position is as simple as "this guideline has nothing to say on editorial decisions about whether information on notable topics should stand alone or as part of a broader article". Otherwise I agree with SMCCandlish, Fram and David Fuchs: there's a real risk that "all taxonomically-described species are presumed notable" (uncontroversial) is taken as "all taxonomically-described species merit separate articles and should not be merged to their genera" (more controversial).
As written, the guideline fails to do this. It acknowledges the idea that we might want to cover a notable species in a broader article instead of a stand-alone page (editors should use their best judgment to determine whether Wikipedia is best served by a separate article, a stand-alone list, or merging content into an article about a broader subject). However, this only appears in the sections on prokaryotes and viruses – it's conspicuously absent from the broader introduction and the section on eukaryotes. By the maxim of quantity, the clumsy implication is editors don't need to judge whether Wikipedia is best served by a separate article, so long as the species is a eukaryote. – Teratix ₵ 16:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all taxonomically-described species merit separate articles and should not be merged to their genera would be misinterpreting the guideline and should be treated as such. That always comes under WP:NOPAGE, which is an established separate guideline. Cremastra (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be duplicating existing guidance for no reason. All this guideline does, and is supposed to do, is establish that species with a valid/correct name are presumed to be notable. Notability does not require a separate article. WP:PAGEDECIDE still applies here, like any other SNG, and merging is an editorial decision unrelated to notability. C F A 💬 17:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both that's what the guideline is supposed to do. My concern is it's written in a way that makes misinterpretation unnecessarily more likely. – Teratix ₵ 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? I don't think so. To say that something (anything) is presumed notable is to say that it appears to qualify for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. (That's a redirect straight to Wikipedia:Notability.) Being presumed notable, according to WP:N, "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
All topics that are presumed notable (=what this proposal says) could be merged at the discretion/according to a consensus of editors. But if you're concerned about it, we could suggest some text. It could say something like "Exactly like any other subject, editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article". I'd predict a few editors to oppose on the grounds of needless redundancy per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#­Content, and most not to care either way. Any accurate description will have no effect in the end, except leading to a few extra words on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I oppose changes to this proposal during the RFC. But once it's closed, if it closes with adoption (or if it doesn't, and someone wants to re-work it for a second try), then it can be amended, expanded, re-written, etc., just like any other guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for guidelines to be made slightly more redundant if that means their positions on contentious issues are clearer. There is at least one experienced editor who is explicitly taking the guideline as establishing a presumption against upmerging, and there are several more whose comments only really make sense if they are understanding the guideline as disfavouring upmerges. – Teratix ₵ 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: You appear to have !voted three times in this RfC, once in 'support' and twice 'opposed'. Please strike two of those !votes. Donald Albury 17:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't, you might be misreading notes I have placed on other editors' comments to indicate they have been moved from VPP, where this discussion was briefly duplicated. – Teratix ₵ 17:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. My apologies for my misunderstanding. Donald Albury 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Mostly useful to have articles on accepted species. Ideally these articles would at least link to the original paper describing it so information could be accessed -- maybe that could be added? -- but those are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to obtain so that could be a limitation (e.g. published in 1965 on paper only, good luck). Agree that while these articles may only be able to use primary sources, WP:PRIMARY can be waived when we're talking about a scientific paper which is the best available information on the topic. Do not support the creation of stubs with bots, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoogles (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrfoogles, what distinguishes the reliability and impact of a species discovery paper from any other scientific discovery paper such that we can waive PRIMARY for the former and not the latter? Also, a species does not even need to be reliably published to be formally accepted; see this commentary regarding the taxonomic vandalism perpetrated by one amateur herpetologist who publishes almost exclusively in his own un-peer-reviewed vanity website:

    In addition to naming well over 100 supposedly new snake and lizard genera, this individual has also produced taxonomic revisions of the world’s cobras, burrowing asps, vipers, rattlesnakes, water snakes, blindsnakes, pythons, crocodiles and so on. But, alas, his work is not of the careful, methodical, conservative and respected sort that you might associate with a specialised, dedicated amateur; rather, his articles appear in his own, in-house, un-reviewed, decidedly non-technical publications, they’re notoriously unscientific in style and content, and his taxonomic recommendations have been demonstrated to be problematic, frequently erroneous and often ridiculous (witness the many new taxa he has named after his pet dogs; I’m not kidding, I wish I was).

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

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

    Also curious what @SmokeyJoe thinks about this given our discussions on other primary-sourced topics. JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the issue of bad taxonomists is worth noting, I think it's fair to say that Hoser's works fail WP:RS as they are self published in what essentialy amounts to a personal vanity "journal", and would not be acceptable to use as taxonomic references even setting aside the question of primary/secondary sources. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does seem reasonable to require that the accepted publication be published in a reliable journal. As for want I’m ok with violating WP:PRIMARY: in my opinion scientific papers are kind of on the edge of “primary sources”. Most things are marked primary because they only provide raw details and you have to do interpretation of them. Scientific papers do their own interpretation, so it’s less necessary unless you doubt the correctness of their results. So by relying entirely on primary sources here, we don’t require ourselves to do original research: only to have to trust the species descriptions, being published in a reliable journal, are mostly right. Exceptional claims can require exceptional sources, too. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that most older descriptions and the works reconciling species with many names (e.g., when Alice publishes one, and Bob, not having seen hers, publishes the same species later under a new name) are published in books, so I don't think we can require a scientific journal only. But the key words are "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists", which is very different from "published somewhere and rejected, disputed, or ignored". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mrfoogles, I think a major reason why it's important to continue classifying scientific research articles as primary for the purposes of Wikipedia (which NOR explicitly does) is the fact that they are so often wrong in their analyses and conclusions (see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False), and the lower the number of independent follow-up studies -- i.e., validation and/or critical secondary analysis -- the higher the risk of propagating and cementing inaccurate/misrepresented content. And especially for species there is the additional problem that reproducing any of the original paper's observations on the organism's wild, living characteristics--things that can't be gleaned from a type specimen--may be exceptionally difficult or even impossible. It's pretty widely understood that scientific discoveries in every other discipline should never be article topics if at that time they can only be based on what is reported in their original papers (including any data curated in databases), not least because such topics have objectively failed to demonstrate the level of attention we require at WP:N. So why should it be any different for species articles, which more or (more often) less undergo the exact same degree of independent scrutiny as the peer-review process for any other paper? JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ioannidis' paper is awesome, but it's about the use hypothesis testing and statistical significance. There's no hypothesis in species identification, and there's no statistical analysis. "Hey, I caught a big blue moth, and I'm going to name it after a Greek goddess" is not the kind of science that he's talking about in that paper. This is much more about natural history than about experimental science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What!!!? A taxonomic designation is a hypothesis. Even at its most descriptive/qualitative, it is a researcher hypothesizing that specific characters support a diagnosis of a new species and its place in taxonomy, which is absolutely not objective and is certainly subject to error. And determination of species novelty can very obviously involve statistical analysis, even moreso now that barcoding is taking off. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JoelleJay, I have for a long time offered natural species and ancient history as two topic areas where the requirement for secondary sources is weakest. The reason is not because these areas tend to have the least secondary source content, but because they are the least likely to be pushed with promotional motivation. I consider these to be at the boundary of acceptable content, and as is typical, at the boundaries you find the most difficult questions.
    I consider natural species and ancient history to be inherently encyclopedic. It has to be verifiable, but we can give it a lot more leeway with respect to the test for independent secondary source coverage because it rarely needs to be culled. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe, can I ask why you think species articles are less likely to be pushed for promotional reasons than any other scientific topic? Self-promotion in species discovery is actually a very longstanding and well-recognized problem, in particular because of the ability to insert one's name into nomenclature (see mihi itch), which is considered by many to be a significant cause of taxonomic inflation (the trend of "new species" being identified by increasingly arbitrary delineations between species and subspecies etc.). Why would an entomologist be inherently less ego-driven than an evolutionary biologist or molecular geneticist, anyway? I know many people from all three fields and certainly don't get the impression that the first is any more selfless, or any less pressured by "publish or perish", than the others. And for sure the identification of a new species is not considered a bigger deal to the entomologists and bacteriologists I know than the publication of any other research paper, so I don't really get why we should treat each discovery as orders of magnitude more important than the relevant scientific community itself treats it. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why you think species articles are less likely to be pushed for promotional reasons than any other scientific topic?. Because new species, about which we know nothing beyond their existence, species without significance, they are unable to generate an income for anyone.
    Self-promotion in species discovery is actually a very longstanding and well-recognized problem. Not seriously though. If it is verified, no one really cares that the discover gets their name written into species nomenclature. It’s considered appropriate. Mihi itch is not a problem.
    taxonomic inflation. Now that is a problem. But it is a problem of verification. This problem is no worse in swathes of perms-sub-stubs than it is in a massive single-page database.
    entomologist be inherently less ego-driven than an evolutionary biologist or molecular geneticist, anyway?. Easy. Obvious. Evolutionary biology and genetics are fields with huge crossover to profitable business, pharmaceutical, charlatans, etc. Mapping out the existence of never before noted species without any hint of significance is not a profitable business. It’s even an under-respected academic career, they’ll get very kind words at retirement but not grants or promotions. Low impact publishing does not win you praise and glory.
    Are you wanting to work “importance” into NSPECIES?
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because new species, about which we know nothing beyond their existence, species without significance, they are unable to generate an income for anyone.
    Easy. Obvious. Evolutionary biology and genetics are fields with huge crossover to profitable business, pharmaceutical, charlatans, etc. Mapping out the existence of never before noted species without any hint of significance is not a profitable business. It’s even an under-respected academic career, they’ll get very kind words at retirement but not grants or promotions. Low impact publishing does not win you praise and glory.     ...What? WHAT? The academics who publish papers describing new species get paid to be academics, absolutely identical to virtually all the other academics conducting basic (as opposed to translational or clinical) research in every other scientific field. The vast majority of published scientific discoveries also are "unable to generate income for anyone", and this approaches 100% for basic research, which is, by definition, far removed from the kind of applied research that is profitable on its own. And professors of entomology etc. (i.e. the people behind almost all of the species publications) get grants and promotions just like anyone else, where on earth did you get the idea that this was a field of under-paid, under-appreciated heroes purely motivated by the desire to advance knowledge? Everyone conducting basic research is doing so without any expectation of renown or profit; the only distinction for taxonomists is that they actually do guarantee some renown in the form of eponymy -- something that is only formalized in other fields if a discovery is both suitable for eponymization and actually gets referenced in multiple other publications.
    Not seriously though. If it is verified, no one really cares that the discover gets their name written into species nomenclature. It’s considered appropriate. I'm not debating whether it's considered appropriate and standard in the field, I'm noting that taxonomy has a unique vehicle for self-promotion that has been the subject of academic studies demonstrating its detrimental effects. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Publishing low impact reports does not get a researcher new grants or promotion. In fact, it counts against them.
    Creating a new name for something that does get used by anyone else is not renown. They need others to meaningfully reuse the new name, and this reuse is a second source.
    Can you point to evidence, commentary, of detrimental effects of promotion in taxonomy? That should be extremely beneficial to discussion on this proposed SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ....What exactly is your experience with academic research? Because anyone actually working in it knows that tenure committees and grant councils look at much more than just the IF of journals and citations, especially in fields where citations are low across the board. How do you think universities and grant orgs ever decide whom to promote/fund in disciplines like taxonomy and pure math where everything is in "low-impact reports"? The authors of real journal publications identifying new species are still employed as professors, museum curators, ecologists, conservationists, etc. regardless of how "impactful" their papers are. And there are plenty of funding opportunities specifically for taxonomy -- e.g. this NSF grant cluster -- just as there are for other basic research fields. Again, this is the point of basic research.
    Taxonomy codes do not require anyone else to use someone's nomenclature for it to be officially listed in comprehensive species directories and appear in taxa trees. Some don't even require the nomenclature to be published in a real journal by a real scientist. That is orders of magnitude easier to achieve than it is for a chemist to earn themselves an eponymous reaction listed in Reaxys, and thus makes it much, much more susceptible to self-promotion.
    Besides the SciAm article I linked earlier:
    Confronting taxonomic vandalism in biology

    Self-published taxon descriptions, bereft of a basis of evidence, are a long-standing problem in taxonomy. The problem derives in part from the Principle of Priority in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which forces the use of the oldest available nomen irrespective of scientific merit. This provides a route to ‘immortality’ for unscrupulous individuals through the mass-naming of taxa without scientific basis, a phenomenon referred to as taxonomic vandalism.
    ... This opportunity for self-immortalization has led a small number of authors to flood the literature on some organismal groups with large numbers of scientifically unfounded and often ethically objectionable new names for a plethora of taxa, but without providing adequate – or any – scientific justification. This taxonomic shotgun approach can involve the unsupported, speculative description of taxa based on distribution gaps or superficial differences, scooping the discoveries of other authors, or ‘clade harvesting’ from published phylogenies...
    ... A number of recent names have contained attempts at toilet humour (e.g. ‘Colleeneremia dunnyseat’) or offensive terms (e.g. Simoselaps ‘fukdat’), sometimes explained with disrespectful references to members of indigenous communities and their languages, in clear breach of Section 4 of the Code’s Code of Ethics. In addition, Hoser’s papers are replete with defamatory comments and accusations against anyone critical of his work, using intemperate and incendiary language clearly unacceptable in published scientific discourse. Moreover, Denzer et al. (2016) have shown that a large proportion (up to 80%) of Hoser’s diagnoses and other sections of text appear to be “plagiarized” from academic sources.

    Naming and gaming: The illicit taxonomic practice of ‘nomenclatural harvesting’ and how to avoid it

    There are few achievements in the publishing activities of biologists that produce greater permanence than naming a taxon. ... taxonomy carries with it a certain glamour, not least because in the system of binominal nomenclature proposed by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), the authors' names become inextricably linked with the taxon names they coin. This Linnaean system has served biologists well but, ever since its inception (Linnaeus, 1758), it has also been a realm of misdeeds. ... some have expressed that [nomenclature codes] do not go far enough in prescribing the conditions whereby nomina become valid and available (Kaiser, 2013; Yanega, 2013) while others have lamented the problem with nomenclatural mihilism (Dubois, 2015; Evenhuis, 2008). ... Unscrupulous individuals can and do jump freely into taxonomy to satisfy their ‘mihi itch’ (Evenhuis, 2008) by engaging in a practice called ‘taxonomic vandalism’ (Jäch, 2007), creating taxon names without proper scientific work to back them up.

    Zoological nomina in the century of extinctions: new proposals

    ... the traditional emphasis put on authorship in nomenclature plays in fact a negative role in taxonomy. Removing the names of authors, but not the date, from the nominal-complex by which each taxon is designated would de-emphasise the role of authorship in nomenclature. It would reduce the burden of nomenclatural taxonomic inflation and synonymy load due to nomenclatural mihilism and unwarranted descriptions of new taxa that will later have to be treated as synonyms.

    A Few Bad Scientists Are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy

    The goal of taxonomic vandalism is often self-aggrandizement. Even in such an unglamorous field, there is prestige and reward—and with them, the temptation to misbehave. “If you name a new species, there’s some notoriety to it,” Thomson says. “You get these people that decide that they just want to name everything, so they can go down in history as having named hundreds and hundreds of species.”

    Other issues with how disorganized, unscientific, imprecise, and inconsistent taxonomy can be:
    Taxonomy: retain scientific autonomy

    Even though the species as a taxon is thought to represent a real entity in nature, a species description is no different conceptually from any other scientific hypothesis

    Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation

    The assumption that species are fixed entities1 underpins every international agreement on biodiversity conservation, all national environmental legislation and the efforts of many individuals and organizations to safeguard plants and animals. Yet for a discipline aiming to impose order on the natural world, taxonomy (the classification of complex organisms) is remarkably anarchic.

    There is reasonable agreement among taxonomists that a species should represent a distinct evolutionary lineage. But there is none about how a lineage should be defined. 'Species' are often created or dismissed arbitrarily, according to the individual taxonomist's adherence to one of at least 30 definitions2. Crucially, there is no global oversight of taxonomic decisions — researchers can 'split or lump' species with no consideration of the consequences. ... Many mammalian taxonomists use the phylogenetic species concept (PSC): two populations are listed as distinct species if they have a common ancestor but differ physically or genetically2. Meanwhile, many bird taxonomists favour the more conservative biological species concept — the idea that true species should not normally produce fertile hybrids2. An estimate published last year suggests that the number of bird species would more than double were bird taxonomists to adopt the PSC3. Depending on which species concept is used, one class can seem more threatened than another, and so receive a bigger slice of conservation funding.

    Literally thousands of taxa have later been considered invalidly named, and that's just for the organisms that other people actually publish on.
    Taxonomic vandalism in malacology: comments on molluscan taxa recently described by N. N. Thach and colleagues (2014–2019)

    A Vietnamese malacologist Nguyen Ngoc Thach described 235 land snail species and subspecies ... Nearly all taxa were described in self-published books and non-peer-reviewed journals. The low quality of the published photographs, imprecise locality data, deficient literature surveys, and the lack of examination of type specimens raise reasonable doubts concerning the validity of these taxa.

    (Smithsonian article)

    By the numbers, Hoser is a taxonomy maven. Between 2000 and 2012 alone, Hoser named three-quarters of all new genera and subgenera of snakes; overall, he’s named over 800 taxa, including dozens of snakes and lizards.

    JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you two would like to talk about the problems of tenure in modern academia, perhaps that part of the discussion could happen on a User_talk: page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree User:WhatamIdoing.
    I’ve been arguing that new species naming is unlikely to be muddied by commercial or financial promotion. User:JoelleJay‘s recent posts address a different question, maybe we can call it “esoteric vanity namings”.
    I don’t think this justifies requiring GNG-level secondary sources, but may be sufficiently dealt with by requiring the two independent reliable sources (the point of this thread). SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commercial promotion like...self-published conchology books and shell-selling companies? JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe, does someone (with no specialized degrees, I might add) selling the shells of species they discovered, on the same website on which they sell the "journal" they created to report these species, constitute commercial or financial promotion? See some of the products offered by Guido Poppe (whose Wikipedia article was created by someone who claims to own the images it uses, and has created many stubs on snail species, e.g. Homalopoma concors, which isn't even at the accepted species name (Gloriacollonia concors, which is sourced to the original publication in Visaya by Poppe and a followup pub in partner company ConchBooks by Poppe)...), like Bayerotrochus philpoppei1 ("accepted" on Molluscabase, where it is sourced to the original description by Anseeuw P, Poppe G, Goto Y and to a "personal communication" from Anseeuw P). JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn’t think so.
    These questions need fleshing out, and noting on the SNG, before it’s a serious SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what IS commercial/financial promotion in the context of academia?? Because if the only thing that counts is profiting off "inventions" or "biotech startups" then that would apply to a truly negligible(*) percentage of researchers (I would guess far less than 1%) and would fall entirely under NCORP anyway so wouldn't be a concern elsewhere.
    And it sure seems like almost no one !voting here is actually reading the proposal, let alone recognizing that it turns us into a database for primary research abstracts on topics of objectively minimal importance and potentially zero scientific vetting.
    (*)Most of the more than $75 billion a year from the federal government and other sources that the National Science Foundation calculates is spent by academia on research is not intended to immediately result in commercial applications. It’s about fundamental knowledge. The basic research performed in university laboratories underpins discoveries that may take years to end up in the market, if they ever do. ... Universities and colleges spun off 11,000 start-ups between 1996 and 2015 — an average of less than 600 per year — according to the Association of University Technology Managers, whose members oversee what is known as technology transfer. That’s one-tenth of 1 percent of the roughly 400,000 annual start-ups reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ... After all, faculty are awarded tenure and promotion based on measures such as how much research money they bring in and how many papers they publish, not their numbers of patents or start-ups or the licensing revenue they earn. Even the profits from commercialization, which most universities share with them, prove little motivation. JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. I think out only big difference is that I am happy with the formal abandonment of requiring two independent secondary sources.
    I agree that !voters don’t seem to be reading the proposed SNG, but are voting a wish that there should be an SNG. I may not be so concerned about “of objectively minimal importance”, but I am very concerned about “potentially zero scientific vetting”.
    I don’t mind Wikipedia subsuming some species databases, but if it does, this SNG must explicitly name which databases are to be afforded that extraordinary trust.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do JolleJay’s examples permeate the canonical databases, which should be listed in the SNG before it’s considered serious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, would you consider collapsing this long comment? It is off-topic and very much distracts from the main discussion here. Cremastra (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence that species identification is widely recognized across multiple fields as being uniquely prone to self-promotional efforts, that this self-promotion causes severe issues across numerous taxa, and that the problems are directly tied to well-recognized deficiencies in nomenclatural and scientific recognition by the exact same organizations this proposal bases its criteria on, seems very much on-topic. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mapping out the existence of never before noted [protein/niche chemical process/theorem in pure math] without any hint of significance is not a profitable business.
    Seriously, this is what the vast majority of academic research is! Please do tell me how I can profit off of demonstrating that mitochondrial morphology in one of the six C. elegans touch receptor neurons is "kinda weird" when you knock out a certain protein with zero homologs in any other species... People who already spent 5-8 years getting a PhD do not stay in academia unless they're fine living on a $60k/year postdoc salary for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ more years. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of academic research is not research that wins new grants or promotions. My point is that publishing descriptions of new obscure species is not motivated by problematic promotion, Wikipedia has no need for NCORP-strength filtering of it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need NCORP-strength filtering, we need the bare minimum requirement of SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent RS that is expected for every other scientific topic to have a standalone page. We discourage even mentioning new research discoveries in relevant pages unless and until they have been discussed by independent authors, precisely because the conclusions in such primary reports rarely hold up under scrutiny and rarely are significant enough to be BALASP. So why should we have the exact opposite treatment -- actually, more than opposite, since species don't even need to be described in RS to be valid -- for this one field, in complete absence of evidence that its publications are any more reliable or scientifically sound or impactful than those of every other field, and in the presence of bountiful evidence that nomenclatural acceptance is actually far less rigorous a process and far more conducive to self-promotion than scientific acceptance in every other field?
    And also, the vast majority of academic research is funded by grants, which are won by the same people publishing these "low-impact" papers. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In re species don't even need to be described in RS to be valid: Can you provide an example of a species that is "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" (e.g., a species that is not being described with words like "taxonomic vandalism") and whose description has never been published in a reliable source? So far, I've only seen you provide examples of non-accepted (though named) species that are being called taxonomic vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still mollusks identified by Thach that don't have any other publications on them that are listed as "accepted" on, e.g., WoRMS -- for example Solen poppei, which has one GS hit (the website of a shell club). It was originally published in a non-indexed "journal" put out by a "shell dealer website" (as described in the article I linked above), and, surely totally by coincidence, the species bears the name of the owner of that company (amateur collector Guido Poppe). Amphidromus ngai has two sources: Thach's original paper in Visaya and Thach's book self-published through 48HRBooks Company. Those are just two examples that came up for this one taxonomic vandal...how many others exist from similarly poor sources by authors who haven't been identified as problematic simply because no one else has looked into their research? JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for an example that has both of two characteristics:
    1. Not published in a reliable source
    2. Not being called taxonomic vandalism.
    Mind the gap between "[only] the name has been accepted as meeting certain requirements, which is a convenient marker that works in most cases" and "the relevant authorities actually accept the species, which is the actual goal of this proposal".
    If Nguyen Noch Thach's work is being called taxonomic vandalism, then that does not meet the second criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two examples meet both of those criteria. They were not discussed as one of the land snail species critiqued in that one article (the first is marine, the second is just one of many for which the authors offered "no comment" (weren't analyzed)), so they have not (yet) been called taxonomic vandalism. WoRMS says the status of both species is "accepted". JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You described them as "just two examples that came up for this one taxonomic vandal". Therefore they do not appear to meet the requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for a species that is not being described with words like "taxonomic vandalism". Neither of those species has been described as such, even if their discoverer has been called a vandal for other species. And anyway, what does it matter if they had been called vandalism; that just makes it worse that a governing body still lists them as "accepted" based solely on their original non-RS description. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, the author has non-self-published works on this subject, so the self-published books aren't necessarily unreliable sources per WP:SPS.
    Second, "name accepted" (the marker recommended for a presumption of notability) and "species accepted" (the actual rule in the second sentence of this proposal) are two different things. I believe you have found an instance in which the marker might not indicate actual acceptance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that we have much, much higher standards for what counts as an "expert" for SPS purposes. Merely getting published in RS is nowhere close to good enough.
    And please do tell me where I can see exactly which species are definitively "accepted" in the sense that you mean, since the last time I asked I was told If you want to know whether Allengreerus ronhoseri is a valid species, you could try googling it and unlike with plants and viruses, there is no single database that tracks which animal species are accepted. If the only way to gauge "acceptance" is by performing your own OR examination of the literature such that you are satisfied "the taxonomic community" has consensus that it is "correct", then that should be explicitly stated in the proposal, or better, restated as "accepted species have multiple secondary independent RS discussing them". JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Choess since they've alluded to this before.
    Currently, for animals, editors who are very familiar with ICZN taxonomy might be able to infer from this proposal that

    "a name existing in the ICZN affords a presumption of passing NSPECIES, but for a species to actually pass NSPECIES and have a presumption of notability you personally have to find other sources that are discussing this species using this name and assess whether this constitutes "taxonomic acceptance". You cannot achieve "taxonomic acceptance" merely by being listed in ICZN, not least because they accept basically anything put on the internet regardless of reliability or scientific merit and do not record community consensus; nor can you always go to taxon-specific curated databases because when they say a species' status is "accepted" it actually probably just means the name is accepted. Also you cannot assume that any sources cited by these databases are actually reliable for Wikipedia purposes, since they regularly cite self-published and vanity-published papers by people who would fail SPS expertise. So you need to do your own digging to figure out if something is actually RS.


    What literally everyone else will read is either

    If it's in the ICZN, it's presumed to be a valid species, therefore I can make an article on it and it will be up to other editors to prove that the species is not accepted by consensus in the community.

    or

    ICZN doesn't guarantee anything, but this other database that literally says "status: accepted" obviously means the species is "valid", and as there is zero suggestion in the guideline that the sources this database cites might actually be non-RS, I can assume the description of the species is totally reliable and experts with PhDs have validated it.

    JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another one published in Visaya by the owner of Visaya (Poppe) and one of his employees with just a bachelor's: Conus admirationis. It has a mention in another book, but no description and all info is sourced to the original paper. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to be answering, here. I'm not particularly concerned about misinterpretation, because editors with some subject-matter expertise will understand what it means, and the kind of editors who create taxon stubs without subject-matter expertise don't pay attention to policy until someone forces it on them by WP:BLAR, AfD, etc. This sort of analysis isn't "OR", but the normal activity of editors trying to resolve incongruities between sources and is, frankly, inevitable; entirely apart from the question of databases, if some reliable secondary literature treats "A" as a good species and some treats it as a synonym of "B", some sort of deep dive and editorial judgment will be necessary in deciding how to deal with it here. Because the size and quality (probably inversely correlated), and indeed existence, of taxonomic databases varies across the tree of life, I think it makes sense to develop supplemental guidance for different branches as to what constitutes good evidence for taxonomic acceptance. e.g., with reference to DYanega's comment, we might suggest that acceptance in MolluscaBase establishes a rebuttable presumption of taxonomic acceptance if the species was described in peer-reviewed literature or in older expert SPSs (where taxonomists have had time for examination and revision), but that presumption doesn't extend to recent SPSs, which would have to be reinforced by additional sources.
    Ultimately, I think we're unlikely to agree because we have different views on what PAGs, including SNGs, should accomplish. My view is that we should be arranging our PAGs so that our choice of content and articles reflects the understanding of experts in the relevant branches of knowledge. They are heuristics that try to approximate those experts' judgment of true and false, important and unimportant, without involving us in exhaustive labor. You seem to be determined to treat them as a sort of axiom system, where anything you can construe to have transgressed (your interpretation of) policy is a priori unacceptable. I find that contrary to the overall philosophy of Wikipedia; we have no warrant for trying to "improve" an external discipline with playpen epistemology, just as we have no warrant to engage in original research. Choess (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged you since you had earlier commented on the difference between nomenclature acceptance and taxonomic acceptance. I think it is a big problem that even the editors proposing this guideline do not seem to understand/agree on what constitutes "taxonomic acceptance" for animals. The proposed guideline states: All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae, or a valid name for animals and protozoa.
    "Valid name" links to a page that does not explain where name validity can be found, so how are NPP/AFC supposed to confirm something like this? Does this mean that any species for a which a name has not been used by multiple academic RS is automatically invalid? How is this assessment not OR when it requires editors evaluate the scientific merit and reliability of papers themselves to determine "consensus" on a given name?
    The proposal also states:because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication.This is untrue, as names can be "accepted" by ICZN based entirely on unreliable publications. There is no mention of other taxonomic databases that would be permitted as evidence that a name is "valid"; the proposal essentially says this is only "proven" by existence of a valid name in ICZN when no such thing actually exists according to animal species editors.
    I don't see the evidence that notability PAGs are ever guided by experts in the field for any other topic? JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this sounds like a mass-creation mess. Species entries already have a history of clogging up other wikis, so I feel it might be a bad idea to have liberal notability criteria here too. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous This changes absolutely nothing as regards mass-creation. WP:MASSCREATION applies univerally – to species, to athletes, to villages in Pakistan. Cremastra (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, taking the villages in Pakistan issue, do you know just how much of a problem that still is, despite us shutting down the mass-creation by Dr. Blofeld years ago? Ditto Athletes, despite Lugnuts having been blocked more than two years ago now? We're still going through all those articles and deleting the ones that shouldn't have been created. Unfortunately WP:MASSCREATION doesn't help at all because it takes a long time for anyone to spot what's going on, longer still to block the mass-creation (which is always high-drama), and even longer still to clean up the tens/hundreds of thousands of low-quality stubs that it results in, most of which get deleted/redirected. 14:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this guideline doesn't make mass creation more likely. In fact, it deliberately references WP:MASSCREATION, something which WP:SPECIES certainly doesn't. Cremastra (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely does as it appears to introduce/reinforce another "presumed notability" guide, meaning that you can just turn the contents of an online database directly in to Wikipedia articles just by inserting the correct words in to a template.
    BTW, I really meant it when I said that we have a huge problem with Pakistani villages and athletes still. I just searched the Pakistani villages and Pind Brahmanan was in the first few results - a place that none of the sources cited in the article actually appears to support the existence of (the location cited in the article is an empty field). Looking for a random Olympian I found Moussa Said, which would now be thought to be clearly a notability-fail because the only evidence that he ever existed is a few stats on sports-reference.com. If I wanted to delete either of these articles, from experience I know it would not be easy for the village because GEOLAND is treated as an automatic pass even for places that don't clearly exist, and for NSPORTS it would have been impossible until NSPORTS2022 and is still not easy now.
    Cleaning up mass-created articles is a massive task and we should never, ever put in to place a guide that enables it because the results are always a net-negative in terms of editor time. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NSPECIES is a fait accompli. We haven't deleted a species since 2016. As for those fearing mass creation, we're past that problem. Yes, Polbot was a fiasco. No, its not going to happen again. NSPECIES has been practical policy for as long as I can remember, and it hasn't caused an issue. As for the upmerging concerns, I don't think this guideline as written is incompatible with upmerging. Notability is presumed, but the point of a presumption is that it is rebuttable. There are certainly some areas, especially for prokaryotes, where writing genera level treatments are much more practical than species level treatments. But its a case by case decision, which would need good evidence (i.e. rebutting the presumption) to show why a genera only treatment would be better. While I'm sensitive to the idea that we should add a paragraph about upmerging, methinks that might be best achieved in a separate RfC. In the meantime, let's ensure our documentation matches practice, and pass this policy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But its a case by case decision, which would need good evidence (i.e. rebutting the presumption) to show why a genera only treatment would be better Hold on, the guideline is not supposed to establish a presumption against upmerging. – Teratix ₵ 02:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know it hasn't caused (or won't cause) an issue if so many new species reports are never followed up with any independent verification of the characters they describe? For every other scientific discipline we can point to our policy on primary sources as a reason not to harbor premature standalone pages on new discoveries, thus limiting the potential for hoaxes and self-promo and just plain incorrect material being stated in wikivoice. What makes these species discovery papers so much more reliable and scientifically impactful than anything else? And codifying this as a guideline would absolutely endorse all species irrebuttably deserving of standalones, as editors already insist this is the case without any positive evidence they meet PRIMARY and NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek - "Yes, Polbot was a fiasco. No, its not going to happen again." - Just a note that Polbot isn't the only problematic mass-creator that there has been in the WP:SPECIES space. Ruigeroeland's mass-created copyvios are still being cleaned up even now, and they stopped editing August 2018. Hell, their copyvios weren't even found until March 2021, years after they quit.
    We've discussed above a case of what appears to be WP:MEATBOT mass-creation (slotting words from a database in to a template to create articles at a rate of one every few minutes, at a rate of more than 30 a day) ongoing this very year. Why are you so certain that it couldn't happen again? FOARP (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, valid species seem to me to be inherently encyclopedic in nature. However I do support stronger discouragement against a high rate of stub creation in this topic area especially, even if it isn't explicitly "mass creation". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose after careful consideration of the discussion above and a few guidelines, including WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT. I don't oppose on the grounds of article quality, expandability, or mass creation, and I recognize that this essentially codifies existing practice, but this guideline grants eukaryotic species articles undue immunity from WP:PRIMARY. My issue with the guideline is this: All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable is equivalent to the statement that "for eukaryotic species, if a specific primary source exists, then the species is presumed notable." There is no issue in using a primary source to state accurate, verifiable information on a subject, but a primary source is not enough to establish notability. From WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. A primary source can establish existence, but only secondary sources establish notability.
I simply believe that a comprehensive taxon database is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is not any source documenting that a species has been accepted by taxonomists secondary (and also independent), pretty much by definition? Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal isn't "it's automatically or inherently notable because it exists". The proposal is "it's presumed notable because we can guarantee that a scholarly source has been written about it".
Also, technically, "only secondary sources establish notability under the WP:GNG". SNGs take different approaches, with several (e.g., NGEO, NPROF) not requiring secondary sources. That said, if you think that all SNGs should require secondary sources even though they don't, or even that this one should, no matter what the others do, then that's a perfectly valid opinion, and editors are entitled to their opinions. There has always been a wide diversity of opinions in the community about what constitutes a secondary source and whether they are necessary for notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

only secondary sources establish notability under the WP:GNG

That’s not accurate - see WP:WHYN
Further, WP:PRIMARY applies to all articles, and if an article isn’t permitted to exist under a core policy we shouldn’t be considering it notable, as it will lead to confusion and the creation of articles that need to be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHYN is not a policy (or a guideline); it is an explanation. WP:PSTS is a policy, and it observes that articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, but it also notes that whether a source is primary or secondary in a particular instance isn't an attribute of the source itself, but rather the relationship between the source and the claim. Independence is similar.
So I ask again; is not any source we are likely to use to show that a species has been accepted by taxonomists not likely to be both secondary (with respect to the species' identification) and independent (of the researchers discovering the species)? My inclination is to expect that the relevant sources will have these characteristics. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WHYN is a guideline?
And no, it is neither likely to be secondary nor independent. The most likely non-database source to be used - and per an SME, in 90%+ of cases no other sources will exist - is the original description of the species. Further, as it is written by the researchers who discovered the species, it isn’t independent of them. BilledMammal (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, the WP:WHYN section, as far as I can tell, is intended to provide an explanation for the rest of WP:N rather than itself having the force of a guideline.
Also, I am uncertain why you specified a non-database source just now. An RS database that indicates authoritatively that a species is recognized strikes me as good a source for species as an RS database that indicates that a place is officially recognized and inhabited is for officially recognized, inhabited places. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, we can’t mirror databases.
Further, databases are not secondary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth are databases not secondary sources? How does, say, GBIF count as "primary"?
And is User:WhatamIdoing/Database article indiscriminate? Cremastra (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they’re a repository of primary information. And articles based solely on database sources would be a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE violation. However, this chain has become a little deep, so I will back out now. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the community shares the view that databases are primary sources "by definition", or more precisely, that they are primary sources for all claims that could be cited to them in articles. (This view appears to reflect an assumption that primary or secondary is a characteristic of sources themselves, whereas WP:PST characterizes sources as primary or secondary in relation to specific claims.)
Also, the point of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE is that all information presented on wikipedia must be accompanied by its relevant context. There is actually nothing in the section about databases (except two special kinds of databases: lyrics databases and software changelogs), and nothing in the section discouraging the use of databases in article development. And I for one suspect based on recent discussions that a table of species in a "roll-up" article is more likely to provide decontextualized data (and therefore run afoul of NOTINDISCRIMINATE) than would a short standalone article.
Finally, concerning this additional reply: the view that WP:WHYN is currently understood as placing requirements on article creation that are not expressed elsewhere in WP:N has not been supported by the community any time I have seen the argument made. Therefore I conclude that the section is not intended to have the force of a notability guideline, even though it appears on a guideline page. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught in WP:NPPSCHOOL that data (and databases) are always primary. Nevertheless, I still support this proposal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then NPPSCHOOL is wrong, and see https://omim.org/entry/609423#text for a database entry the single-handedly disproves it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting counter-example. This seems more like an encyclopedia (tertiary) than a database of keys and values (primary). I think the idea that keys and values (data) is always primary is a reasonable position. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Life often also has secondary of tertiary information. Their website has inexplicably crashed, but if you look at an archived copy of their data page for hexapods, you'll see that most, if not all, data are sourced to, and linked to, papers or other databases. Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to say that NPPSCHOOL teaches a number of convenient fictions, about notability and sourcing standards in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I missed it previously; if WHYN isn’t supposed to have the weight of a guideline then it should be in an essay, not a guideline. As it stands it is a guideline, and the consensus of this discussion should be evaluated in that context. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in the distinction between fact and presumption, but I still stand by my own statement prior to that quote: a primary source is not enough to even presume notability. It's my opinion that presuming notability from an established name is erroneous. You're also correct that consensus-driven SNGs overrule WP:GNG, and it's clear that I'm not in the consensus. I hope that my oppose can encourage other editors to reevaluate the proposal, since I believe that it still runs afoul of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDB. I'd most like to hear the opinions of fellow editors on whether this is akin to permitting in writing a comprehensive (accepted) species database within Wikipedia, and especially whether this is within the scope of Wikipedia as a project. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of WP:NPLACE? C F A 💬 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it suffers from the same issue of presumed notability derived from properties of the subject other than its coverage in secondary sources. Pagliaccious (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not everyone agrees on if all articles need to meet GNG. C F A 💬 02:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put me down as another person who thinks that WP:GEOLAND has resulted in the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of stubs about places that are not notable in any possible way, and often don't actually exist in the way (or in the place) described in the article. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Elmidae's comment above summarizes my view fairly well. And per Newimpartial's remarks, I find the concerns about what counts as "primary" versus "secondary" in this context is a red fish of the genus Clupea. XOR'easter (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the reasons I've laid out before. Including:
  1. "Official acceptance" of a species name can involve nothing more than one organization acknowledging that an unreliable, self-published source has primacy in naming rights. It does not verify that what the publication says about the species is accurate, that its proposed taxonomic position is feasible, or that it is even a new species at all. It relies explicitly on other researchers to adopt or not adopt that name via publication of their own secondary coverage of the topic.
  2. There is nothing to suggest that the primary research papers announcing discovery of a new species are any more scientifically reliable, encyclopedic, or impactful than any other research paper. Certainly they are at least as prone to self-promotional efforts as any other discipline, perhaps even more so due to the ability to name innumerable things after yourself. See for example the centuries-old phenomenon of mihi itch: the state of those whose main ambition is to describe new species (or other taxa: subspecies, hybrids, genera, etc.) as a mean to immortalize their names. Consider also the case of amateur herpetologist Raymond Hoser, who has "published" descriptions of hundreds of new taxa on a personal website he calls the Australasian Journal of Herpetology. Many of these taxa have since been reclassified as not new, are noted to contain egregious descriptive and taxonomic errors, have absurd and unscientific names, and/or have been usurped by actual scientists intentionally ignoring naming primacy etiquette due to the aforementioned issues.
  3. Nomenclature codes for different taxa are governed by organizations that have wildly different requirements for formalizing something as a new species, and in fact can have very different definitions of what even is a distinct species in the first place! Inconsistency between nomenclature orgs and the very fluid boundaries between taxa ranks even within one org contribute to the problem of taxonomic inflation: excessive increase in the number of recognised taxa in a given context, due not to the discovery of new taxa but rather to putatively arbitrary changes to how taxa are delineated.
  4. Combining the above, this guideline will endorse the creation of potentially millions of stubs on organisms based on arbitrary definitions of "species" or even outright PROMO fraud, each containing information exclusively sourceable from a single primary article that may have merely been posted on some amateur collector's personal website, and 90% of these topics will never receive direct attention from anyone else in the world, let alone be the subject of any secondary analysis or any validation of the original paper's claims about range, behavior, larval stages, genetics, or any other characters that aren't discernible from the provided type specimen (if one is even needed).
This would be a guideline that actively flouts our policies on primary sources and INDISCRIMINATE and encourages creation of articles completely divorced from any expectation of coverage, scientific importance, or even confirmation of existence. AFAICT the vast majority of supporters of this proposal are completely unaware of these staggering issues, which absolutely should have been disclosed in the proposal so that people actually know what they're !voting for. A new species discovery is not some rare event that must meet reified, objective, validated standards in taxonomic classification; thousands of new species are announced every year, by people ranging from multiple tenured professors to a single backyard amateur, publishing in journals ranging from Nature to un-peer-reviewed vanity journals to self-published websites, based on the testimony of one group, and very frequently only distinguishable from other species by an arbitrary cutoff like 2% divergence in a barcoding gene (or when even 2% is too high, at the level of individual nucleotide substitutions) that does not have any meaningful taxonomic context. JoelleJay (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite hyperbolic and fundamentally misunderstands the proposed guideline. Hoser's names are invalid under the ICZN and would clearly not be independently notable under this guideline. (I was mistaken - Hoser's names are not considered invalid by the ICZN, though they still would not be considered notable under this guideline) I must emphasise that guideline states that species are presumed notable, not that all described species are considered valid and must have their own article - species that are distinguishable only by genetic differences are an obvious case in which upmerging to genus level would be warranted, and nowhere in this guideline is there a mandate for individual articles to exist at all. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoser's names most certainly are treated as valid-until-proven-otherwise under ICZN, which explicitly clarified that they do accept unscientific, self-published, un-peer-reviewed papers such as his for nomenclature claims. This has in fact been lamented in several reliably-published academic articles (emph mine):

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

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

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

JoelleJay (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethmostigmus: I think there is some confusion about the meaning of "accepted species", which I attempted to clarify in the runup to this discussion. Being "accepted" (or "valid", or what have you) under a nomenclatural Code is necessary (because it forces the author to provide a description) but not sufficient for a species to meet the criteria of the proposal under discussion. Nomenclatural acceptance (i.e., "can we use this name as a label for a species") is not the same as taxonomic acceptance (i.e., "is this group of organisms really a species") which is why the latter and not the former is specified in the proposal. The requirement for taxonomist(s) curating the database to agree that the described species is really novel and not something already known is what filters out most of the things Joelle is objecting to. Choess (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess Which is part of why I am objecting to I do think providing extra guidance on how users should assess the validity of a name is a solid idea. Put very simply: for plants, algae, and fungi, we defer to the guidance of the ICNafp (names listed at IPNI/MycoBank/Index Fungorum), for animals we follow the ICZN (names listed at ZooBank). "Taxonomic acceptance" is something that can really only be determined if other researchers are discussing it, i.e. it receives secondary coverage. If certain taxonomic databases only list a species after there have been multiple publications on it and the curators can give their critical assessment of its validity, then that's great and they should be in the guideline proposal! But I have not seen evidence that this is true for all taxa (IOW, that each taxon is covered by a database that always provides such significant secondary evaluations, citing the source articles), and if it is true then THAT should be the criterion for inclusion because it indicates secondary coverage is far more probable and thus might actually comply with PAGs. But the proposal as it is now implies that simply appearing in ZooBank or whatever, attached to a "reliably-published" description, is by itself necessary and sufficient to "presume" notability. JoelleJay (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t address point 3, but I think that 1 and 2 would be fixed by requiring that the description be non-self-published at the least and not considered unreliable by the taxonomic community. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we know if they are considered unreliable by the taxonomic community if no one else has yet published on them? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Hoser example points to "how we can know". For most taxonomic groups (but not all) there are online authority files, checklists, and catalogs. Some of these are effectively automated, and will include everything, regardless of its merit - e.g., GBIF. However, there are many such sources that are NOT automated, and are instead managed actively by taxonomic experts, and therefore ARE genuine authority files. None of Hoser's names is listed in any of the human-curated herpetological authority files or catalogs, because herpetologists universally boycott his names and do not recognize them as being validly published, despite their technically marginal compliance with the ICZN. Does it require research and specialized knowledge to distinguish between a true authority file and a name-collecting bot like GBIF? Yes, I suppose it does, and that's unfortunate. Still, there are lines of evidence one can use to determine whether the taxonomic community recognizes a species/genus name as valid, so while it is difficult to tell, it is not impossible. TBH, the established policies in Wikipedia that prohibit self-published sources, if applied to taxonomic literature, would do a VASTLY superior job at weeding out the bad taxonomy that has made it into print since roughly the year 2000, when a new wave of self-publishing took off. In that time frame we have seen really awful self-publishing herpetologists, dipterists, lepidopterists, coleopterists, hymenopterists, and more. In a nutshell, and speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, I would endorse the rigorous enforcement of Wikipedia's "no self published sources" (with a potential cutoff around 1999) as a check against the thing you are worried about - that a bunch of species articles could be created referring to the effectively fictional names appearing in self-publishing authors' vanity publications. Dyanega (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, because species are an encyclopedic topic and suggesting they can't even be presumed notable is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this codifies existing practice, but also I think that practice has been good for the encyclopedia. Restricting it to eukaryotes and keeping a pointer to MASSCREATE are appropriate limits to prevent abuse. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reflects existing practice, aligns with what I personally think is right. I also appreciate the clear discussion of what species are not presumed notable. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is not a database, or a collection of indiscriminate information. This is enshrined in WP:NOT, one of the most basic PAGs we have. We have had many, many problems with guidelines that create a presumption of notability without making sure that there is actually an article to be written about the topic. WP:GEOLAND is probably the worst, but the issue we had with sports people until WP:NSPORTS2022 is also another example of this.
At the very least we need to have sufficient content to write an article that is verified by someone else. This does not do that, instead it allows millions of articles to be created based on content that may have been checked by no-one before being published. In the GEOLAND space we have seen many examples of how exactly this kind of content in gazetteers like GNIS and GNS have led to the creation of many thousands of articles about places that don't exist, and which subsequently had to be deleted en masse. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, can you explain what you mean by "based on content that may have been checked by no-one before being published"? So, for example, this proposal specifies that a virus can only be presumed notable if it's already been accepted by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (or if it passes the GNG, but that's unlikely). Acceptance by the ICTV is proven by determining whether it's listed in their spreadsheet of accepted species. The first one in the current list is Alphalipothrixvirus beppuense. The spreadsheet links to a changelog documenting its past: https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=202308643 including dates of acceptance and the method by which the approvals happened (e.g., "online meeting" or "email ratification").
Is there anything in that source, or the actions of that scholarly body, that makes you think any virus on their list could fairly be described as "checked by no-one before being published"?
This is not the equivalent of someone generating a list of every place name they've ever found or every athlete they've ever heard of. These are significant scholarly organizations. One of them requires publication in a specific peer-reviewed scientific journal. Surely none of us think that peer-reviewed journal articles are "checked by no-one before being published"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay raises examples above of what are essentially self-published sources from which species could be produced that would pass this guideline. I'm sure the ICTV are a good bunch of people of course. FOARP (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal begins like this: "In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable..."
When someone's claims about a species are being called "vandalism" by the rest of the field, I don't think that sounds like "accepted by the relevant international body". I think I'd use words like "disputed" and "rejected" and "controversial" to describe that situation, but not "accepted". Do you think that having someone's work called "taxonomic vandalism" is a good indication that it's accepted by the relevant scholars? If not, then I'm not sure why you would think that an un-accepted species would pass this proposed guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely are accepted by the relevant international body. This was made even more explicit in 2021, when the ICZN unequivocally confirmed that Hoser's discoveries are regarded as valid and stated herpetologists' voluntary decision to ignore and overwrite Hoser's names "might be a better way forward than a suppression of Hoser's works by the ICZN". That means that any issues with Hoser's contributions can only be rectified if other researchers individually decide to ignore his nomenclature in their own publications on those species. Which necessarily means other people write about them, something that may not ever happen and certainly will not happen at the time the nomenclature meets the proposed criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is accepted as a useable name for publication. That does not mean the taxon is recognised as valid. Bringing up Hoser's fake species as a reason to oppose this proposal when this proposal reflects existing practice, under which Hoser's taxa are not given individual articles not least because he publishes in an unreliable source, is nonsense. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly constitutes recognition of the taxon as being valid in cases where no other researchers have published on it? How are editors supposed to determine that a particular species in ZooBank is "considered valid" by the taxonomy community if the community has not commented on it? Where can I see whether Allengreerus ronhoseri is "valid" on this page? Are we just supposed to know that the journal he published in is an SPS? Hoser is also almost certainly not the only taxonomic vandal out there; the problems with contributions are only noticed if others discuss them, and for some niche taxa that may be decades after they appear on ZooBank (or never). JoelleJay (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know whether Allengreerus ronhoseri is a valid species, you could try googling it - that is to say, doing the kind of basic research any editor would be expected to do when creating any article. This is really not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.
How are editors supposed to determine that a particular species in ZooBank is "considered valid" by the taxonomy community if the community has not commented on it? If a species description appears in a reliable source, it has likely been peer reviewed, and may be presumed notable. If a species description is published in an unreliable source, that is a perfectly good reason to assume it is non-notable under this guideline until it is discussed in a reliable source.
Are we just supposed to know that the journal he published in is an SPS? Yes. Checking if a source is reliable is the first step of including a reference in an article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight:
- An article can be created and survive AFD with "Keep per NSPECIES" as the only rationale if the name is listed by ICZN.
- It can only be deleted if the editor then goes and does what the ICZN themselves doesn't do - check the reliability of the journal from which it was sourced?
Is there any other database that we simply hand the keys of Wikipedia over to in this fashion? Despite knowing that they actually don't check their own sourcing to our standard? FOARP (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to actually understand what the ICZN actually is/does. The ICZN is a code that sets out how we name animal species (nomenclatural rules). It is not a database and it does not give input on the taxonomic validity (ie. whether a species is a new species, or a subspecies of another species, etc) of a newly published name - it just tells us whether or not the name is allowed to be used, it doesn't say anything about the species itself. If my explanation doesn't make sense, give the ICZN article and/or nomenclature codes article a read. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're actually not supposed to base any criterion presumptions off of appearing in the ZooBank database the ICZN administers, despite what you suggested: I do think providing extra guidance on how users should assess the validity of a name is a solid idea. Put very simply: for plants, algae, and fungi, we defer to the guidance of the ICNafp (names listed at IPNI/MycoBank/Index Fungorum), for animals we follow the ICZN (names listed at ZooBank) ...? JoelleJay (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said assess the validity of a name and not "assess the validity of a taxon" for a reason. Those are different things. A synonym is a valid name without being its own taxon. Either you are intentionally trying to misrepresent me and this guideline, or you are betraying a tremendous lack of knowledge of this subject matter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said Regarding taxonomists and where to find them directly before that, in response to a comment asking specifically about “All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists” needs sourcing. Is "accepted by taxonomists" not supposed to mean "taxonomically accepted" but rather "nomenclature is accepted"? JoelleJay (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you view my comment in full and in context it's pretty clear that I was listing the various nomenclatural codes and associated databases as the first port of call when trying to determine the validity of any given species. It is literally the most basic check you can do, hence why I specified they were to be used to assess the validity of a name and said that I was putting it very simply. I quoted SmokeyJoe saying Regarding taxonomists and where to find them to make a joke about Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). Either you misread my comment or you're engaging in bad faith strawmanning. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case you expected everyone else to recognize that your direct response to SmokeyJoe's question--about how to ascertain whether a species is "accepted" in the context of language in the proposal--does not actually answer that question at all, since (as apparently everyone already knows) obviously the ICZN et al only governs the names and does not indicate the species "acceptance", a completely different concept that you did not describe anywhere in that comment... JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a simple set of databases through which one can begin the process of ascertaining the validity of a species, by determining the validity of its name, as the basic first step. It was a general question so I gave a general, basic answer - unlike with plants and viruses, there is no single database that tracks which animal species are accepted, so I chose to keep it simple and just name the nomenclatural codes. Can you please stop hounding me on this and diverting this discussion away from the actual policy? You're wasting both our time. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the above-discussed acceptance of Hoser's names by the ICZN. Please tell me why an article on one of Hoser's additions would not fall within the situation I discussed above? FOARP (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, this scenario you put forward would not happen. A name being nomenclaturally accepted by the ICZN does not make any assessment on its taxonomic validity. Anyone who came to a species AfD and based their vote to keep an article because it is nomenclaturally valid would be betraying the fact that they don't understand taxonomy, let alone this policy (which states that valid species are presumed notable, not that all valid names are notable). We already merge/redirect synonymous names, and we would continue to do so if this guideline passes. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were really concerned about this (assuming the proposal is adopted), we could always add a sentence later like "Raymond Hoser's work on reptile classification, which has been described by one palaeozoologist as "taxonomic vandalism", is a simple example of published work that is not accepted by relevant taxonomic authorities and therefore not considered notable under this guideline". Even if you believe that it is a problem, it is by no means an insurmountable problem.
Also, I think it's worth understanding the scale for this question. There are fewer than 4,000 reptile species. This represents 1/500th of the number of species. I believe that we already have articles on most of the real species and none on Hoser's rejected classifications. Consequently, the practical effect of adding or not-adding such a sentence – or adopting or not-adopting this proposal – on our reptile articles is basically nil. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how do we know it's valid if the scientific community hasn't commented on it at all? Merely being published in RS, even in a peer-reviewed journal, means almost nothing when it comes to the accuracy of the author's descriptions/interpretations/proposed taxonomic placement (it's not like reviewers are personally traveling to visit the type specimen or the original collection site, or repeating the experiments I say I've done, or...). So why exactly should it probably underwent peer review be an acceptable threshold for species notability on Wikipedia if being published in what we call RS has no consistent correlation with whether the actual research community considers the species "valid" (some of the hundreds of taxa Hoser has described are accepted by at least some other researchers, so it's not like being published in vanity press means nomenclature and proposed taxonomy are always ignored/usurped)? Why decide that compliance with WP:RS (a guideline that would include SPS by experts!) is a barrier but not compliance with the policies WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT? Why should peer review, apparently in journals of any quality, be sufficient to establish a species meets WP:N when it most definitely is not for any other scientific topic? JoelleJay (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think a subcommittee meeting approving a request to regularize 111 species names with proper binomial nomenclature is remotely indicative that a species has been "checked" in any meaningful way, let alone in a way that provides verifiable secondary commentary? Their discussion isn't even published! By that standard I could write an article on my F31 proposal (which, it turns out, was founded entirely on completely incorrect data interpretations reported by my lab in Nature) on the basis that it was discussed and approved by a significant scholarly organization? And their discussion on it actually is published... JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to assume that recognized species are of encyclopaedic interest in a sense in which your F31 proposal is not (the same sense in which legally-recognized, inhabited places are of encyclopaedic interest and films that have not entered principal photography, are not).
This is actually a great example of how any purely formal, context-free criterion based on sourcing utterly fails as an indicator of encyclopaedic relevance, at least when it comes to zones at one end or the other of a spectrum of inherent interest. Newimpartial (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes each species "of encyclopedic interest" in a way that each Alexa fluorophore, or each disease-causing allele for a particular gene, is not? If no one else has discussed a topic in their own papers--and, in fact, is even expected to publish on it in the future--and the only external attention it's verifiably received is inclusion in databases/repositories by an academic org, then how exactly can we claim it is encyclopedic? I also was not arguing that my F31 proposal actually meets any sourcing-based notability guideline -- the discussion it garnered is clearly non-independent, among other things -- I was only pointing out that ICTV subcommittee meeting releases are much worse evidence of a topic "having been checked by other people" than even NIH study group feedback on doctoral student fellowship applications. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I can't tell you exactly why the community considers recognized species as being more like legally-recognized places and less like un-made films, when it comes to encyclopaedic interest, but it seems quite clear to be that the community in general holds this view.
If I were to offer a post-hoc rationalization of my own, it would be that the act of recognizing a species - however flawed - imbues the topic with interest, in much the same way as a hamlet without official recognition falls one side of a boundary but a village (even if it is smaller than the hamlet) falls on the other side if it is part of an official geographical hierarchy. Newimpartial (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with other commentators that the reason why some people think this about species on here is that they believe cataloguing specieses to be part of a noble mission. In contrast documenting astronomical bodies, chemical formulas etc. is not “noble” in these people’s view. I accept that this is well intended, but it is not building an encyclopaedia, which is necessary a summary of knowledge rather than a reproduction of it. FOARP (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and the history of species AfDs indicates that most* editors feel that species are an inherently encyclopedic topic. It's not about cataloguing (that's clearly not the goal - none of us supporting this proposal intend to have Wikipedia articles for every single species, that's not feasible or necessary), it's about the topic being of use and interest to Wikipedia's readers. When a lay person searches for information on a given species, they are most likely hoping for a Wikipedia article on it that summarises the relevant literature. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"none of us supporting this proposal intend to have Wikipedia articles for every single species" - but this guide basically entrenches the position that we should, that there is no species with an accepted name that cannot be the subject of an article on Wikipedia, regardless of how little is known or written about it.
I also don't accept that "Keep per NSPECIES" votes are really thought-out statements in support of the encyclopaedic nature of species (above asteroids, stars, galaxies, chemical formulas etc. covering which is apparently not a "noble mission"). They are just as easily read as a vote for the proposition that we are not a encyclopaedia for the purpose of covering species, but instead a directory. We had similarly long periods of no Olympians ever being deleted until the community realised what was going on, again with "Keep per NSPORTS" votes being cited in support of that position. We also still have GEOLAND treated as a reason for covering every single geographical entity covered in a Gazetteer, again, regardless of whether there is (or was ever) anything to actually write about. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't say anything about what we should have articles on. It only says what's likely to be accepted (e.g., whatever's accepted by taxonomic authorities) and what's likely to be rejected (e.g., almost everything else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, given the way in which mass-creation works, once an SNG exists that allows the contents of a database to be transformed in to low-quality articles, "likely to be accepted" becomes "impossible to stop".
C46 could (and did) simply point to GEOLAND as a no-further-discussion-needed excuse for what they were doing. See here for a discussion in which GEOLAND is repeatedly-referenced shield for what turned out to be a massive campaign of negligent article-creation that has so far required the deletion of ~20,000 articles (and counting). FOARP (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an apples and oranges comparison. A newly described species has at least one type specimen deposited somewhere for other academics to examine. A species represents real organisms that exist and are (in the case of most eukaryotes, the taxa this proposal presumes notable) observable to anyone who happens to come across them. Species very clearly fall into a category similar to places and landmarks, not astronomical objects or chemicals. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A newly described species has at least one type specimen deposited somewhere for other academics to examine" - JoelleJay has described the numerous instances where this is not true, and provided good evidence for that position. Moreover, since when has possible availability of a sample in a depository not open for consultation by editors been our standard for availability of sourcing? FOARP (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? How is availability of a type specimen different from the plasmids I've submitted to AddGene or the strains I've gotten accepted into official C. elegans repositories? Anyone can order these to examine them (and with the strains they will get live animals genetically identical to the ones I submitted) -- that's the whole point of making sure published reagents are available to the community! And I fail to see the distinction between species and astronomical objects or chemicals when all of them are equally available for other researchers to validate with the methods considered acceptable in that field. Chemicals especially are even more accessible for reproducibility purposes than any type specimen since researchers can literally just synthesize it themselves or ask for a sample of it from the authors without having to travel to the particular museum in Australia that holds the sole physical evidence of its existence. JoelleJay (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know from previous discussions that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT matter for you, but if you can't see the difference between an species of insect and a chemical component, I really don't know what to tell you. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to know that the answer to this is simply to say that this is an WP:ILIKEIT issue for you. I've also got to point out that this proposal includes viruses, something about which there is still a debate of sorts as to whether they are even living organism and not just a very complicated chemical process. Actually I don't know how this standard would treat prions, which are often put on the other side of the "life"/"chemistry" divide. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I think we are both getting into WP:BLUDGEONING territory, so I'm going to cool it for a bit - these comments are coming in quite fast an in large numbers and I imagine it is making this discussion difficult to follow. If you reply to this comment, know that I am not ignoring you if it takes a while to respond, or if I don't respond. I'm still reading and considering your comments, I just don't want to be disruptive. Feel free to reach out on my talk instead if there's anything directed at me in particular.)
I actually edit in this area, primarily expanding stubs, so naturally I want there to be official, consistent guidelines on this matter. I support this guideline for a variety of reasons, but me liking biology is the least of those, and there are plenty of taxa that I personally love but do not think are notable enough for individual articles (looking at you, Rutilia species complexes where the individual species are near impossible to differentiate).
I don't see why this proposal including viruses is an issue? Viruses are classified with similar taxonomy to cellular life, so it makes sense to include them - this guideline doesn't attempt to make any determinations about what is/is not alive. I assume (?) prions fall under the similar element(s) mentioned in the virus section, so they should follow WP:GNG under this guideline (as they do currently). Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do explain how each of the millions of species of insects is inherently more encyclopedic--that is, deserving of a standalone, because practically that is exactly what this guideline has always been endorsing--than a new fluorophore or worm strain when the latter can and often do easily have more information in their primary-published descriptions, necessarily have much stronger requirements proving their "diagnosis" as novel (including, for many databases, actually being published in peer-reviewed journals), are much more accessible for reproducibility purposes (literally the construct/animal itself and often its sequence/primer designs must be available after publication), and are curated and summarized in reliable scholarly databases. And what IDONTLIKE are guidelines that actively subvert NOT and PRIMARY, I am extremely consistent across all topics in this regard and it has nothing to do with my feelings on taxonomy. JoelleJay (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Species very clearly fall into a category similar to places and landmarks" - you know that places and landmarks don't get a presumption of notability under NGEO, right? FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my comparison to places and landmarks was in relation to their verifiability and observability, compared to molecules or distant astronomical objects which are not observable by (or especially understandable to) the general public. I know that WP:NEO goes not give a presumption of notability, though it does state: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. This is essentially my opinion of how species article should be handled. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not support a guide that requires the kind of sourcing needed for a landmark (I.e., multiple independent reliable sources)? FOARP (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a part of WP:NGEO that requires multiple sources for landmarks? I genuinely can't find it, apologies if I'm just missing something. The natural features section says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article, but my reading of this is that a single source, if suitably reliable and detailed enough to write an independent article, is generally sufficient.
At the end of the day, I take the approach (informed by WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST/WP:NTEMP) that article content/sourcing is a matter separate from notability. There's also the ongoing discussion over whether species descriptions are primary sources or not, if primary sources should be used at all, if databases are primary or secondary sources or should be used at all... There are a lot of factors to consider here. That said, I don't oppose having some sort of minimum sourcing requirement, for species articles or anything else - I just don't it's something that should be handled by a notability guideline, or something that sinks this proposal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single source is not sufficient to write a stand alone GEOFEAT article, most such articles that end up before AFD get redirected/merged to a more general article as suggested in GEOFEAT. WP:GEOLAND is the SNG that gives a presumption of notability, but that is limited to legally-recognised populated places (and frankly is very problematic). FOARP (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? Do you actually mean to say that if I have an entire book on the history and construction of the a GEOFEAT subject (e.g., the Golden Gate Bridge), you don't think I'd be capable of writing a stand-alone article about that, and it'd end up getting merged and redirected to a more general article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're on the same page, WP:GEOFEAT covers all "Artificial geographical features", specifically including:
  • officially recognized cultural heritage and national heritage features,
  • settlements, administrative regions, and populated places
  • engineered constructs such as buildings
  • infrastructure (e.g., bridges, dams, train stations, road networks)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve been through this particularly on stuff on the registered list in the UK - just being on the list doesn’t give notability. The case were an entire book was published about something by a reliable publisher *and no-one else ever wrote anything about it* is such an edge case it hardly needs discussing (I think even in the GNG space that might be given the benefit of the doubt). FOARP (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually asking about that edge case. I'm asking why you believe A single source is not sufficient to write a stand alone GEOFEAT article. I can write an article with "only" one whole book. I bet you can, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reflects current practice. While there's a pretty good consensus in favor of that practice, it's not unanimous, as seen here. Indeed, many of the folks opposing here are the same who have been working to make it easier to purge Wikipedia of stub articles for years. In some cases I think that's right; in this case, not. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as currently written, while having articles on taxonomically accepted species makes sense, and I have written a couple of limited resource species articles myself, I am not sure what the creation of this guideline as written is meant to solve. We as editors are meant to base Wikipedia articles off sources, and if there is a "reputable academic publication" that is the only good source, that source should be provided to make the article. Creating a "presumed notable" guideline seems like it would do little more than allow editors to ignore the need to use the relevant sources, which does not feel a good practice. CMD (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is meant to solve the problem that we have been using WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES as a de facto notability guideline in AfDs when it isn't one, officially. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems very circular. CMD (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is circular to desire that we base notability of species on a guideline, and non-circular to continue insisting without a guideline that species are notable because they have always been deemed notable? That seems the opposite of accurate to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A guideline to justify an argument to use it is circular yes. CMD (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather restate it than debate someone's choice of a term. A major area of Wikipedia gives no realistic wp:notability guidance. And so we should give some realistic guidance. A SYMPTOM of the current problem is that people are looking to an ESSAY (which clearly states that it is not a guideline) for the only source of realistic guidance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's helpful. CMD (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This guideline is intended to codify the existing practice around species articles, that being that they are generally not deleted (except in cases where the species is not considered valid) because they are generally considered notable and encyclopedically valuable. This guideline was proposed because, while WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES reflects current practice, it is not an official guideline, which has lead to confusion and arguments over the years. Making this official gives us a guideline to point to when issues arise. This guideline also sets out that ranks below species (eg. subspecies and cultivars) are presumed not notable, something that SPECIESOUTCOMES doesn't address.
    If I'm understanding correctly, your concern is that unreferenced articles will be made under this guideline. This is a fair concern, but it's not something that actually changes under this guideline - this already happens, and will continue to happen even if this proposal fails (bar an alternate notability proposal coming into effect and declaring species non-notable, which seems to go against community consensus). This is ultimately not a notability concern, and is outside the scope of this proposal. Per WP:ARTN, article quality is irrelevant to notability - if a topic is notable, it remains notable even if it has a terrible article. I hope this helps clarify the purpose/function of this proposal a bit. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for more details. My concern is not that unreferenced articles will be made, it is that this guideline (further?) formalises such creations as a correct practice. I don't see why that is irrelevant to the proposal, as it seems to be what the proposal will do. CMD (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless an opposing guideline that declares species to be assumed non-notable is implemented, this is something that will continue to happen regardless of whether or not this guideline is adopted. I support this proposal despite the concern about new (sub)stubs is because these species articles are inherently improvable - even if a totally unreferenced article is made, there exists at least a species description with which it can be expanded. As WP:NEXIST puts it: The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. [...] Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. We're going to get low-quality articles being made regardless, but we at least know that low-quality species articles are fixable, and WP:NPP can still draftify new species articles if they're truly dire. Personally, I'm not worried because I just don't think that much is going to actually change under this guideline, and even if we do get a few more crappy stubs made, we know that they can be improved. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional and non-notable articles keep being created, we don't adopt guidelines condoning those practices as a result. Articles can be expanded without this proposed guideline. If nothing is going to change, what is the point of this? CMD (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is to codify WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and to make it easier for editors to differentiate between likely notable (taxonomically valid) taxa and likely non-notable (unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG) taxa like non-accepted taxa, varieties, hybrids, etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what is the point of this? Speaking only for me, I think the point of this is that I'd like our guidelines to be accurate and reflect reality. And the reality for many years is that species have been an unwritten SNG. It should be possible for someone new to notability on Wikipedia to click the list of SNGs and see an accurate list, and not have to learn through trial and error that species are always kept at AFD. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis, please quote for me the words in this proposal that formalize the creation of uncited articles as a correct practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It very explicitly accepts articles that "could be sourced", rather than articles that are sourced. CMD (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis, I agree that those three words are in the proposal but that's not what the sentence says, and I think you know that. It says that being "accepted...requires...a reputable academic publication" and consequently (if it's actually accepted) "the article...could be sourced to at least one academic publication".
    Nothing there says anything remotely like "It's correct to not bother citing that academic reputable publication". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think you know that if the articles did cite that publication then that would render the proposed guideline moot, so the guideline can only apply to those that did not "bother" (where it "could" be cited). CMD (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis Could you please explain why citing one publication would render the proposed guideline moot? Cremastra (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed guideline is written for articles that "could be sourced to at least one academic publication". It is also for those where one can find an "indicator of the existence of published sources". It is not written to apply to articles that are sourced to at least one academic publication, or already demonstrate the existence of published sources. CMD (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this interptetation very strange. This SNG would serve as an indication of notability alternative to the WP:GNG. The GNG is not satisfied by an article being sourced to at least one academic publication, or by demonstrating the existence of published sources, so unless some unusual meaning is being ascribed to "moot" by CMD, I can only parse the claim being made here as either inaccurate or irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps unfortunately it seems, I did not see a link to and spend awhile thinking about a proposed guideline which says a species article should be "sourced to at least one academic publication" or should demonstrate "the existence of published sources", I came to one with the longer quotes I used above. CMD (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's referring to WP:NEXIST, not suggesting flouting WP:V – two very different things. Cremastra (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for two reasons. (1) I note that Wikipedia:PRIMARY states that, "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". So the issue is just, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources". That seems to me a misguided rule for species articles. The information in the original species description can often be extensive enough to be well worth summarising in Wikipedia even though no secondary literature exists.
(2) I don't like the alternative of merging weak species articles into articles on genera. Unlike with species, there is nothing biologically fundamental about genera, so their constituent species can change considerably as the fashion changes whether to lump or split. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biological fundamentality of species is easily overstated. They are hard to define, and can also be lumped or split. Our current convention when naming monotypic genera is to choose the genus name, not the species name. CMD (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there can be debate about species boundaries, but the criteria are less arbitrary than for genera, leading to considerably more agreement and stability in this aspect of the taxonomy. I've always thought naming monotypic genera is a barmy policy, but it is not really relevant to the current debate. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also disagreed with the convention in the past, however it seems we are a minority. CMD (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the original species description can often be extensive enough to be well worth summarising in Wikipedia even though no secondary literature exists. Why is this ok for a species discovery article and not for a discovery article for any other scientific topic? Papers on novel astronomical objects, reagents, subcellular bodies, etc. will each have just as much or more encyclopedic information on the topic, and yet we need other researchers to have published their own contextualization of it--and to verify that the claims of the original paper are accurate--to deem it important enough for a standalone page (or to be mentioned at all!). JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written. To be sure, in practice, species articles are not going to get deleted at AFD. However, many notable topics are best discussed as part of larger articles. This guideline should at least mention this issue and provide some guidance on when a separate species article is merited, and when a list item or a section on a larger article on the genus is appropriate. Would be happy to support if such guidance was added to avoid any LUGSTUBS part 2 worries. SnowFire (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be interested in a segment of the discussion we had during the development of this article on if/how we should include WP:MASSCREATE in this policy. There was disagreement about whether or not we should have a section on mass-creation or simply link to MASSCREATE, and I think the arguments made there also apply to the inclusion of WP:PAGEDECIDE in the guideline. I think WhatamIdoing's philosophy was to keep it as concise as possible. The intent is that PAGEDECIDE still fully applies, and editors are trusted to use their best judgement and about when/how to merge. All that said, I definitely don't oppose making PACEDECIDE a bit more obvious in this guideline. I don't want it to be too specific or restrictive (ie. you must merge when this, you cannot merge when that), and would want to encourage editors to discuss larger scale merges with the relevant WikiProjects, but considering that this issue of merging has been raised persistently throughout this discussion I do think it needs to be addressed. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MASSCREATE was moved from BOTPOL to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Mass page creation a few days ago. There have been several ideas about how to improve it recently. Even if we thought it were good to provide a summary of that policy here (I've no objection to that in principle), it might be better to wait until we're sure that MASSCREATE's contents are stable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written per many others above: This is in dire need of at least some guidance or mention of upmerging and whether a separate article is warranted. I'm also concerned by the points raised by JoelleJay, and would like additional guidance on what amounts to "taxonomic acceptance" or, perhaps more importantly, what does not count for it. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan: Could you give an example of another subject notability guideline that gives guidance on upmerging or whether a separate article is warranted? – Joe (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NASTRO - which seems appropriate, as it also deals with topics that warrant mention but perhaps not an article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also WP:GEONATURAL and other subsections of WP:NGEO. Ljleppan (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or for worse, it's very rare for SNG's to give much guidance outside of defining notability. Even those examples are just quick notes. So lack of such is the norm rather than indicating a problem. Also, either way, this can evolve. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I asked because I wondered what such a section would add beyond the existence guidance in WP:PAGEDECIDE, given that we usually avoid redundancy in policies and guidelines. WP:NASTRO's guidance on merging appears to be in response to a set of mass-created articles on non-notable asteroids made prior to the guideline, which is not applicable to species. WP:GEONATURAL if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography to me adds very little to WP:PAGEDECIDE, it just suggests a merge target ("a more general article on local geography"). Is that what you imagine for WP:NSPECIES – a section saying, "if the individual species isn't notable, consider merging up to the genus/family/etc. as applicable?" – Joe (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to see something along the lines of "For example, a species with no information available except <something> should probably be described in an article on the <some suitable upmerge candidate term>", with the specifics of <something> and <some suitable upmerge candidate term> needing to be discussed. Ljleppan (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be possible to boldly change the WP:NSPECIES guideline afterwards with your proposed language that includes recommended but non-binding language like "should probably be..."? It's worth discussing here beforehand, but I don't see it making or breaking the proposal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A criterion I talk:Notability&oldid=1226762173 as this proposal was being developed is whether the stub contains a diagnosis that helps distinguish it from other species. (Maybe we could even specify a morphological diagnosis?) I feel like that comes much closer to describing most editors' (and readers'!) expectation for what they would like to find when they open a species article than the paltering about sourcing that's made up much of this discussion. I don't know exactly what the venue would be, but I would support adopting that or similar language as PAGEDECIDE guidance. Choess (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming it's adopted, it could be changed like any other notability guideline. In this case, a simple chat on the talk page might be more effective than a WP:PGBOLD change, since those <something>s will have to be identified. The suitable upmerge candidate term is probably Genus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support that too, since it's an easy-to-understand and reasonable criterion. It also makes sure the article is actually informative to some degree. Cremastra (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We might have to think about what's the right way to say this. In principle, notability guidelines do not control article content, so a notability guideline should not normally say that an article should contain (e.g.,) "a description that helps distinguish it from related species". (It's fine for a style guideline to say that, but not for a notability guideline.) I think the closest we could come is to say that "an article without <something> could/should be considered for merging", and even that would be a stretch, because of the principle that article content does not determine notability. We might not be able to get more approved than "an article for which it is impossible to write <something> should be merged up" ...but in that case, the <something> would have to be something other than a description, because it will always be possible to write a description for any species presumed notable under this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NATFEAT has something similar ("provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist"), so there precedent for something like this. Cremastra (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NATFEAT has something similar to "an article for which it is impossible to write <something>". It is not similar to "the stub contains <something>". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a NATFEAT has a single source in a database that says (in so many words) "XXXX is a mountain in Antarctica, part of the YYYY range of mountains, and is named after ZZZZ and was discovered in YEAR" then it's not going to survive AFD. It's going to get merged or redirected. See, for example:
    GEO gives a pretty strong direction on what to do with the "island on a river" example. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are really comparable to species stubs. It seems that these are natural features which have a published name and location, but little if anything else written on them, as is common for natural features. A described species will have at least a name (and place in the tree of life), type locality, and a physical description - that alone (excluding all the other things typically written about species: history, life cycle, behaviour, ecology, conservation, etc) allows the building of a much more substantial article. A stub written about a natural feature which is only mentioned on a map or in a geological survey likely has far, far less information available about it than even many obscure species of organism, just because natural features tend not to receive the detailed coverage that living things do. The difference between a stub like that and, say, a taxon stub like Testulea was before I started editing it, is that the latter could be expanded to nearly 400 words with just one source. This is the essence of WP:ARTN. By their very nature (lol), species receive detailed coverage practically by default, while natural features typically do not. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support calling a spade a spade – still if a bunch of notable articles were tiny stubs with little prospects for expansion/cross wiki-linking, upmerging them remains a powerful and effective way to make them more findeable. We can deal with the challenge of having 2 million speciese articles when that happens; the same way we hypothetically can deal with having 7 billion biography articles if and when that happens. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose We are not a mere database of everything merely because it exists. We should not be enabling the mass-creation of articles that are only – and can only be – no more than a couple sentences long. We should not have millions of articles on species only described in a single paper. A presumption of notability should still not excuse the fact that multiple substantive sources are needed for a standalone article. We should encourage consolidation of information in genus or family articles, not the proliferation of more permanent sub-stubs. Without a mechanism to prevent people churning out thousands of copy-pasted pages, this is one of the worst ideas ever proposed here. SNGs should provide guidance about use of sources, not provide blanket exemptions from actually needing them. Reywas92Talk 03:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its quite misleading to say Without a mechanism to prevent people churning out thousands of copy-pasted pages when WP:MASSCREATE describes the mechanism (Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved by the community). Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92, I don't think it's 'physically' possible for us to have millions of articles on species only described in a single paper. There aren't enough accepted species to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many users who have churned out scores of articles per day. They are still typically made by hand rather than semi-automated, and this proposal would make it even harder to delete such articles, so no, MASSCREATE is not an adequate mechanism. I admit "millions" is exaggerated, but there are still far too many species with no coverage outside of a couple papers. We should not have these articles with little content in bulk. Reywas92Talk 14:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 Why? Little content is a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. The information isn't untrue, deceptive, libellous, or otherwise problematic. In many cases, these articles can very easily be expanded. And that doesn't necessarily mean writing whole paragraphs; if each editor adds a short sentence or two, the article will still drastically improve.
    And another thing. Species with no coverage outside one or two papers can still, and do still, have useful articles. The actual description of Scolopendra metuenda is based only on the original paper by Pocock; Rhysida celeris is based on a re-description from 2013; Phobaeticus annamallayanus which I wrote this week is largely based on Wood-Mason's original description and the 2008 revision. I could go on. In fact, I will. The meat of Phryganistria tamdaoensis (I mean, the actual description, not the news articles), is a summary of the original 2014 paper, and it's an exceedingly good and detailed description (with nice photos; it starts on page 15).
    What benefit does deleting sub-stubs have? The deletion of Castnia juturna was roundly rejected, and for good reason. The orginal description, although in German, should still be useful; this paper published in Zootaxa gives an attractive summary of the species' taxonomic history and a short note on its distribution and even its behaviour (the latter is less common, and should be valued). Last year, I proposed Heterosporium luci as an example of a taxon with very limited information; I was resoundingly proven wrong. Deleting sub-stubs detracts from the value of the encyclopedia in a small way in the present, but given the potential of each article – provided of course that the subject is an accepted species, which is one of the caveats of this proposed guideline – given the potential of each article, deleting them detracts significantly from the encyclopedia's future value.
    Now, having covered "why would we want to delete these?" (we wouldn't), I'll move on to "why would this guideline make it harder to delete these?" People already invoke WP:NSPECIES to defend taxon articles taken to AfD; in some cases, they just say that all species are notable and that's that. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spulerina lochmaea unanimously WP:SNOWed; and I'll note at the time of nomination it only had one cited sentence. (Now it has six cited sentences, and four references).
    TL;DR: I disagree with everything you wrote. Cremastra (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is many users who have churned out scores of articles per day also perhaps a bit of an exaggeration? If it were true that "many" editors were writing "scores of articles per day", then I think we'd have a lot more species articles than we actually do. BilledMammal above found that only 22 editors ever have created 1,000+ short stubs about species. Not all of them are currently active editors, and their article creations have been spread across the English Wikipedia's 23.5-year-long history. We had more than 800,000 registered accounts make an edit during the previous calendar year, and about 15 million since founding. This does not sound like "many" and it does not sound like "churning out scores of articles per day". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A single editor, operating at a high rate, can be highly disruptive - see Lugnuts. I think the takeaway from the 22 is that there are editors willing to behave like Lugnuts in this topic area, and we should be very careful about enabling them. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that when you let people edit, it's possible they will be highly disruptive, but also no, IMO it hasn't been a problem in this particular area. I don't see evidence that any of those 22 editors are "willing to behave like Lugnuts", and I consider that a rather insulting thing to say about them. Editors are BLPs, too, and deserve basic respect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “hasn’t been a problem in this particular area” -??????
    Yes. It absolutely has. The clean up of Ruigeroeland’s articles is still ongoing. EDIT: for those who missed it, see here, here, and here. The TL;DR version is that Ruigeroelenad was an editor the WP:SPECIES project just *LOVED* because they created something like 42k+ articles about species (I counted 10 barnstars on just the last page of their talk page archive), up until they stopped contributing in August 2018. In March 2021 it was discovered that Ruigeroeland had been very careless when it came to copying from what they apparently thought were public domain sources, and as a consequence had introduced thousands of COPYVIOs. These COPYVIOs are still being investigated (the most recent deletion logged here was on 13 August 2024). FOARP (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very frustrating situation, however, I'm not sure how this is a notability issue - sounds like a problem of editors with permissions going completely unchecked, not anything specific to species or their notability. I imagine most (if not all) of those articles would be perfectly salvageable once the copyvio is dealt with, so the issue is not the existence of the articles, but their unchecked creation with copyrighted material. I agree that low effort (and policy violating, in this case) mass creation is undesirable, but I don't think it's an issue that a notability guideline like this will make or break. This sounds like an oversight problem more than anything else. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a notability issue, because it is the result of a practice of simply copying the contents of a database on to Wikipedia, and the multi-source requirement of notability in place in most of Wikipedia is the prime barrier to this practise. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP: If Ruigeroeland was "simply copying the contents of a database on to Wikipedia", why does the second line of the copyright cleanup say "The MO is copying of species descriptions from journal articles."? (It looks like he was copying species descriptions from the copyrighted original publications which, being copyrighted by their original authors, are generally not available in databases in bulk, which is how I could tell your description is not accurate.) Choess (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "are generally not available in databases in bulk" - How do you think he found the articles? FOARP (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Libgen? Sci-Hub? I mean, both of us know what the output looks like when someone is mass-creating from a single database in utter ignorance of its contents: thousands of stubs like "X is a moth. It lives in Africa," some of which are wrong depending on how crummy the underlying database is. Ruigeroeland was pushing in the direction we'd like to see in species articles (citing multiple sources and adding substantive description) but he did so through utter, flagrant copyvio; if he'd been going for maximum speed and relying on SPECIESOUTCOMES to defend stubs, he wouldn't have been making the articles long enough to include the copyvios!
    I think your position on SNGs is defensible, but I don't think the Ruigeroeland case is very germane—he could have been doing something similar with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for GNG-notable articles, for instance. A better takeaway might be that as our sourcing quality has shifted from "someone's Geocities page" to "paywalled or print scholarly source", it's become more difficult to automatically detect copyvio, although maybe we're improving. Choess (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the logic is "he found journal articles via a database, so using databases is bad", then we'd have to ban editors from using Google and PubMed, too, because you can find journal articles by searching them, too.
    The fact that someone was a serial copyright violator does not mean that the subjects are non-notable. It is also not true that continuing to say that they're not Officially™ Notable, even though they all qualify for articles, would prevent anyone from violating copyrights.
    The situation you're proposing is literally:
    • A decade ago, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says these subjects are okay, and he violated copyrights.
    • If we keep doing the same thing that we've been doing, then we'll magically get a different outcome in the future.
    • If we do something different, we won't get a different outcome in the future.
    I understand that you're anxious about this, but this is frankly not logical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A while ago you were saying that mass-creation has never been a problem in the SPECIES space. Now you’re saying it has been a problem “a decade ago” (actually, right now), but this doesn’t matter in your view because it somehow isn’t clear to you that these articles weren’t just straight ripped off of a list?
    That is literally the only way anyone is ever going to create 42,000 articles by hand. FOARP (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how either accepting or rejecting this proposal will have any effect on the prevalence of copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The community has clearly shown, with Lugnuts and other cases, that there is no tolerance for out-of-process mass creation and that such behavior would likely result in blocks/bans being dished out. So I do not see this as being an Achilles' heel here. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The community has clearly shown, with Lugnuts and other cases, that there is no tolerance for out-of-process mass creation" - Getting anything done about Lugnuts took a MASSIVE effort from people (Billedmammals, Reywas92, JoelleJay, FRAM, Mangoe. and myself as well as others) who are saying that we *SHOULDN'T* do this. For many, many years Lugnuts was able to get away with what they did because of SNGs exactly like the one being proposed here. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything stopping someone from doing this right now, given WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES? Is this guideline, reflective of existing practice, actually going to give anyone a new method with which to get away with mass creation, when WP:MASSCREATE and WP:PAGEDECIDE will still apply as they do now? Not sure if I'm missing something, because I just don't see how this guideline will actually change anything in this area. Seems like a matter for WP:BOTPOL, WP:NPP, and/or WP:PERM. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear. Please replace with Lugnuts and other cases with after the Lugnuts ban. Curbon7 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lugnuts ban came after the C46 case, which itself came after all the trouble with Dr. Blofeld. Simply stopping one negligent mass creator creates no barriers against others. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might make sense as an answer if all we had ever done was "simply stopping one negligent mass creator", but it fails to address the point that, unlike in those past instances, WP:MASSCREATE exists and will apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MASSCREATE also existed at those times. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... we're looking at a situation in which one editor definitely violated a legal policy (copyvio) and possibly violated a procedural policy (bot policy) to mass create articles. And we're supposed to believe that adopting a notability guideline will prevent major policy violations? Or that not adopting it will discourage major policy violations?
If someone's willing to violate major policies, I doubt that a notability guideline will make any difference at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding SNGs should provide guidance about use of sources, not provide blanket exemptions from actually needing them: to my eye, the former is what this guideline actually does. For each type of organism, it says where to look to tell if taxonomists have accepted it. This advice is directly helpful to any less-than-expert editor, telling them which sources to look up and when. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe what we're hearing is that less-than-expert editors would prefer to see something more cookbook-like, such as this:
"The only legitimate taxonomic authority for viruses and similar lifeforms is the ICTV. To determine whether a virus has been accepted, go to https://ictv.global/msl and download the most recent spreadsheet listing all of the taxonomically accepted viruses. If it's listed there, it's an accepted species and is presumed notable. If it's not, then it's not." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something like this, at least for the prokaryote and virus sections. Providing guidance for eukaryotes is much more complicated, and will come with caveats ("reliable sources may disagree on taxonomy - editors are encouraged to consult with the relevant WikiProject"?), but I don't think it's totally unworkable. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of guidance is useful, as the majority of our editors would probably not know the difference between a valid name and a valid taxon, and referral to lists like these could prevent a lot of pointless bickering (not all, obviously, there will always be edge cases, and sometimes even cases where there is a real issue to sort out) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a scientific subject like taxonomy and species identification is inherently more notable than most of the topics that have numerous Wikipedia articles, such as pop culture and sports. Even if an article is nothing more than one sentence describing the species, with at least one reliable source and a taxobox, it provides valuable encyclopedic information to users. And so I have no problem here with a lower bar to notability than most Wikipedia topic, especially since we are not going to run out of room for them, even if there are millions of so-called sub-stubs. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – seems crucial to any encyclopedia attempting to ascertain human knowledge. From editors in this field on Wikipedia, it sounds like this approach is already normal practice: makes sense to formalize it. – Aza24 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is already standard practice, so it seems sensible to codify it. Some language about upmerging should be added to the existing draft, but that's a surmountable problem and I'd rather not see the whole proposal tanked over it. The concerns about a flood of sub-stubs don't strike me as plausible; many of the alleged permanent substubs have already been expanded, and there is precedent for upmerging in this topic area already. I also think that, compared to some of the other topics people have discussed in analogies, species are more likely to be discussed by a steadily growing body of sources (and thus will have more expansion prospects). To compare against sportspeople: there's never going to be another 1912 Olympics, and its participants aren't going to rise from the grave and achieve more feats. We already have virtually all of the information we'll ever have on those people. By contrast, an obscure but extant species of insect may continue to be the subject of research and discussion, now or in the future. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is standard practice reflected in WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. As a WP:WikiProject Microbiology member, I want to highlight that the consensus among biology-article editors (reflected in the Wikipedia Discord's #wpbiology channel, among other places) already embraces upmerging to genera articles when the species-specific info is too scarce. Editors in this space do not enjoy creating one-sentence stubs, but when we find them, we are always able to rely on the "significant description published in a reputable academic publication" that justified the article's creation in our expansion efforts. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Discord channel isn't necessarily a good cross-section of the WP community. Cremastra (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've toyed with proposing this myself - it reflects the common standard, for the simple reason that a scientifically described species has a detailed source about it by definition. Also, most of the objections have to do with standalone articles, which this in no way requires; notable subjects are upmerged all the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    notable subjects are upmerged all the time. When does this happen with species? Every discussion I've seen attempting this has been rejected in favor of retaining a standalone even if it is sourceable exclusively to a primary research report... JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this codifies the general practice that has been followed up to this point. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a reasonable proposal that codifies existing practice. I also read the entire discussion section with interest and came away utterly unconvinced by the case for opposing this. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as reasonable common sense. The two major camps here, such as they are, appear to boil down to "reasonable common sense" and "the latest page in the burn-book bullying of Lugnuts, in every single off-topic venue possible until the end of time." Let it go. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as codifying existing practice, and as good in its own right. Already as written, it prevents proliferation of articles on stuff like operational taxonomic units. Per WP:No page, notable topics can be upmerged if consensus deems it better, but validly published species should be considered notable and worthy of being detailed somewhere. Crossroads -talk- 22:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crossroads validly published species should be considered notable and worthy of being detailed somewhere. The claim in the proposal and the FAQs that achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication is objectively false, and thus the guidance that Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of ... a valid name for animals and protozoa is invalid. The nomenclature code governing all animals defines a "valid name" as "the oldest available name, unless it has been invalidated" and has explicitly affirmed multiple times that descriptions in self-published, amateur works are sufficient for a name to become available. ZooBank has 305 publications from Australasian Journal of Herpetology being used for species nomenclature, for example (this is the website of amateur herpetologist Raymond Hoser). JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Codifying longstanding practice is necessary all over the encyclopedia. Our rules and guidelines are already obtuse enough to newcomers. NSPECIES is basically a guideline already, we may as well call it one. As other editors have pointed out: 1. This doesn't change the status quo. Species stubs are created slowly and make up a small part of the encyclopedia. 2. This doesn't allow mass stub-creation, which requires specific community approval per WP:MASSCREATE. 3. This doesn't prevent upmerging (sorely needed) – that is regulated by WP:PAGEDECIDE, not notability. Toadspike [Talk] 11:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other opposition. Izno (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Telling people that this many topics are automatically notable is inevitably going to lead to mass creation of tiny stubs. Wikipedia is not a database, and many of these stubs barely count as encyclopedia articles. Wikispecies exists as the proper location of a wiki-based species database. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't changing anything: it's codifying de facto existing practice, and actually slightly tightens affairs, as Newimpartial points out below. Cremastra (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this proposal codifies an existing consensus about the notability of species, while offering a slight "tightening" of the guideline that makes the SNG more robust than the preceding OUTCOMES. The community is quite clear that the existing consensus about the notability of species "works", that it is supported by the overwhelming majority of editors that actually work in this area, and that the major change to the status quo advocated by some of the most enthusiastic Oppose !voters is not desired by the community.
Actual mass creation of articles would be a problem if it happened, but it hasn't actually happened in this area, it isn't favored by this guideline, and the attempt by BM effectively to redefine mass creation to include small-scale manual creation of articles - well, that hasn't met with approval from the community, either. (And yes, my sense of community sentiment is based on having read this entire discussion, as well as its recent antecedents.)
TL;DR - this new SNG should reduce friction without cost to the encyclopaedia, which is exactly what a new guideline ought to do. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenative support mostly due to the fact that there hasn't been an article deleted in this catagory. I've seen what AfD is like, they'll take any excuse to delete an article. The oppose cases aren't satifying for that reason - if an article can standalone as a stub then there is no reason to upmerge. Most of the conversation have been about longstanding policy like OR and GNG, something which is not going to get rectified here but probably needs it's own RFC in the future. Swordman97 talk to me 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the draft is edited to recommend merging information about species about which little is known beyond their existence to an appropriate list or more general article. I share the concerns expressed above that the draft, as proposed, would encourage the proliferation of species stubs that would create an even greater maintenance overhead and that would not best serve readers. Sandstein 07:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No other guideline has that "recommendation" because it is redundant as WP:NOPAGE covers all articles. Curbon7 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 Other guidelines don't have wikiprojects that actively oppose merging/redirecting their topics to higher-level articles in almost every case... There's also no guidance explaining why it is ok to base an article around a single primary research article (which is where most of the details needed to expand something out of stub territory would be sourced from), in opposition to our policy. Many of these papers contain loads of info, but if the only place it appears is in one research paper why is it any more encyclopedic than any other primary research findings? Even if some details can also be found on a curated database, unless the curator is specifically discussing them in their own words the content has no verifiable evidence of secondary analysis. That's the kind of thing that should be merged--topics that have no sustained coverage and no or little secondary independent coverage. And yet if this guideline is explicitly endorsing articles on topics with such poor demonstration of significance, how can a NOPAGE argument ever be made? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, it seems that English Wikipedia as a community regards some topics at a certain level of RS coverage are of more encyclopaedic relevance than other topics at that same level of coverage. The community appears to regard recognized species as carrying a greater degree of encyclopaedicity than most other topics, even most scientific topics.
    Any editor is likely to disagee with the community's clear consensus view about something, and in this case I think it will be important for dissenters with the new SPECIES consensus to respect the WP:CONLEVEL of the eventual closure on this topic (whatever the specicic close turns out to be). Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it's true in your experience that Other guidelines don't have wikiprojects that actively oppose merging/redirecting their topics to higher-level articles in almost every case... but I remember groups telling me that professional athletes must never be merged up to teams/seasons/lists, even if we know almost nothing about them. I also remember editors working on the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) proposal insisting that a 19th-century California school, about which is known whether it issued a high school diploma, its location, and that it was in operation for a couple of years, but not basic facts such as its name(!!!) really must have a separate article if it issued even one high school diploma.
    I think that Newimpartial is correct: In practice, the community considers some subjects (e.g., species, towns, newspapers) to be more desirable for an encyclopedia than some other subjects (e.g., businesses, websites, minor politicians). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you got that feedback like 5 years ago, but the recent changes in notability considerations trend very strongly against indiscriminate inclusion of standalones, and BLAR is now very common practice at NSPORTS. NSCHOOLS never made it to guideline status so is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it was even longer ago than that. The pendulum swings back and forth from inclusion to exclusion over the years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging is almost always the right answer when dealing with a substub unlikely to be ever expanded. Merged articles are easier to maintain and keep free of vandalism and we should be encouraging them not discouraging them. A species like any other topic is only notable if it the subject of substantial coverage beyond the proposer of such classification. Also per JoelleJay (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support call a WP:SPADE a WP:SPADE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified Support. But I'm not whole-hog on this, and I think we need to be very clear about what it is that we are doing here, and that it is a substantial carve-out from our usual processes and standards for notability. The issues raised by the opposers, particularly BilledMammal, FOARP, and CMD, are actual and non-trivial, and I think there is no way to deal with them but head-on.
    First, though this is a point which has already been raised here in a fashion that is more express than most SNG discussions I have been party to (whether in establishing or applying them), I want to be clear about one point: SNGs were never meant to replace GNG as an alternative pathway to establishing longterm notability. For better or for worse (and believe me, there have been times over the last ten years in particular where I have felt that the project and the average quality of our entries would be far better off if SNGs had never become a thing), an SNG is meant to establish "presumptive" notability: that is to say, if certain criteria are met, we can assume, for a time, that an article could be conditionally greenlit even if it would fail GNG at that time, on the presumption that it should be possible to support the subject with proper sourcing within a reasonable amount of time. The fact that the community never established tighter general rules (in a concrete policy existing separate from individual SNGs) for the criteria allowing the creation of articles, nor for a timeline upon which presumptive notability could be judged to have expired is a big part of the problem with SNGs that has enabled truly gargantuan numbers of articles that can't pass GNG and an incalculable amount of wasted community time and effort debating their individual validity and just generally dealing with them.
    And yet, in this instance, I somehow find myself conditionally in favour of this very broad proposal. And I'll be bluntly honest, it's a call I am making much more on my own idiosyncratic view of the relative value of certain types of articles, in a way I wouldn't normally permit myself. Candidly, my feeling is that the existence of a species, if established by the process of relavent taxonomic and phylogenic research, is an innately notable subject. Much more so than individual academics, sportspersons, companies, or literally any other category which we typically see a glut of non-notable articles from, by way of an SNG. Can this be accurately described as a personal bias? Oh yes, I won't deny it. But then, at this level, I do think it is very much within the purview of the community to decide what an encyclopedia should be--even to the point of putting our fingers on the scales, to some extent, by permitting a presumption that every legitimate species is deserving of an article.
    At the same time, I have reservations. My biggest concern is that the standard proposed for Eukaryotic species is probably too lax. It is one thing to support the proposition that any well-attested species be entitled coverage in the encylcopedia, but quite another to allow that same standard without additional safeguards. I would have had this concern regardless, but some of the good faith research done by other editors in the above discussion further demonstrates just how much the SNG as written would enable articles for species that are validated through amateur efforts. That is a big problem, so I'd like to see substantial tighening of the eukaryote section before my !support can be counted as full-throated. Second, I do think there is a very nuanced WP:PAGEDECIDE discussion regarding this proposal which we are only at the beginning of now. While I am not per se opposed to allowing every species to have it's own stub (or even sub-stub), there are arguments to be made for merging up any and all species articles that are created under this SNG which could not pass GNG, provided that most or all of coverage of the attested species initially added into the stub remains somewhere on the project, at the end of the day. So I'd prefer to see language to that effect added to the SNG before it goes live as well. SnowRise let's rap 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that nearly exactly aligns with my thoughts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree with most of this, though I'm still confused why so many people see species as so much more encyclopedic than any other scientific research result? Species designations are as much hypotheses as niche chemical reaction mechanisms (or whatever), but they don't even need to be published in peer-reviewed academic sources... JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per proposer, Newimpartial and others. Disruptive mass-creation of articles or creation of copyright violations should be dealt with as problematic behaviours. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with addition of nothospecies (see below). Ivan (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Иованъ: can you clarify: do you support this proposal only if nothospecies are also included, or do you support this proposal and also recommend the inclusion of nothospecies? Cremastra (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I support this proposal with or without. But I have proposed to reword the first paragraph to ensure the inclusion of "hybrids" is not misinterpreted to include nothospecies, which are also species and can have correct names. Ivan (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the formalization of what appears to be current practice. TarnishedPathtalk 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications (NSPECIES)

[edit]

Suggest we close this September 2nd or shortly thereafter

[edit]

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

This is currently 476 comments from 68 people, or about 1.7 tomats of text, so I don't imagine that it will be closed very quickly after it's posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests. It'll likely take two or three hours just to read everything. It's possible that we'll get a response quickly, but some RFCs wait on the list for a month, especially when they are very long.
The last new person to join the conversation was five days ago, and the previous person was four days before that, so I think it's probably reached its natural conclusion. However, I suggest letting the RFC bot pull the tag, so there can be no doubt about whether a full 30 days has elapsed since the initiation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the dates. It started at the end of August 9th, so it will hit 30 days at the end of September 8th (UTC time). We should wait until the bot removes the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I struck my error. I would also strike it in the section title but that might mess up something. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the list at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. Overall, the discussion has slowed quite a bit, but just in case anyone is wondering, until it's actually closed and summarized, there's no rule against adding a last-minute comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, WhatamIdoing, what do we do if no one ever wants to close it? :P We'll be at 100 days tomorrow. SilverserenC 04:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need an RFC closed. I think it will get a closing summary before another hundred days pass. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it needs a close. it's a major item so some may be hesitant to tackle it. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minimum two sources

[edit]

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{od}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I agree in principle with North8000, but since this discussion is happening (even though it should not impact the existing RfC) I'll give my 2 cents. Although I support the existing RfC, I could support this modification, as long as the 2nd source is to validate that the species is accepted by more than just the original describer, which would include reliable databases. Rlendog (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pretty much agree with you, but I just want to point out that this second source requirement (at least, as you interpret it - others in this discussion do not consider reliable databases suitable for this purpose) already exists within this guideline: for a species to be given the presumption of notablity under this guideline it must be accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists, which will almost always come in the form of being listed as accepted in a curated database like World Flora Online or World Register of Marine Species. So if you take the view that reliable databases are suitable to fulfil this second source requirement, a two source requirement is already part of the guideline. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also tried to make this point, but am not sure that it was correctly understood. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the proposal, the only criterion needed for an animal to meet NSPECIES is for its name to be "valid" according to the ICZN. But becoming a "valid name" does not reflect taxonomic acceptance by anyone other than the source authors. It does not require the species to have been published in a reliable source. It explicitly does not involve any evaluation of scientific merit whatsoever: if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. “As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid,” Scherz says. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the proposal says. The proposal is about species, not names. I have explained this distinction to you already and yet you're continuing to push this completely falsified strawman narrative in which this proposal expect Wikipedia articles be created for every single name ever validly published. Either you still don't understand the role and function of the ICZN, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it and this proposal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's fair. I think she has concerns and is trying to convince us that the proposal needs to be improved. Perhaps later we'll decide to add a footnote that says something like "BTW, just to be extremely clear, this doesn't include anything by anyone who's been called a taxonomic vandal unless it passes GNG". In the meantime, it's not actually necessary for everyone to agree. It's 100% okay if she has a different opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned about differences in opinion on whether this proposal is good or bad, but I am concerned about the misrepresentations that risk misleading editors trying to read this discussion. [T]he only criterion needed for an animal to meet NSPECIES is for its name to be "valid" according to the ICZN is pretty obviously inaccurate. Taxonomic acceptance and nomenclatural validity are different things: names accepted by the ICZN/ICNafp are not the same as accepted species. Nomenclaturally valid synonyms aren't considered independently notable now, and the guideline doesn't change that. I and others have already clarified this distinction to JoelleJay: she has ignored these comments and continued to make the same claims.
    I don't think a footnote of that nature is really necessary - a name that is not accepted by the relevant taxonomic authority is already presumed non-notable under the guideline as written. I do think we should develop a small amendment to explain the difference between taxonomic acceptance and nomenclatural validity (the guideline already says Consider making appropriate redirects for synonyms, which gives us a starting point to expand upon). This isn't a problem now (see Loopy30's comment above re: Hoser's names), and I don't think it is going to be a problem under this guideline, but it won't hurt to make it crystal clear. I don't think it's realistic to expect the guideline to provide a comprehensive list of sources one can use to determine taxonomic acceptance for all groups, but I do think we can give examples of sources we consider insufficient for this purpose: GBIF, ZooBank, and IPNI are the ones that come to mind right now. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal literally says All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of ... a valid name for animals and protozoa. Valid name (zoology) states this is under the exclusive purview of the ICZN. Where are you getting that this proposal requires more than the valid name to establish "taxonomic acceptance"? JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm starting to see why your argument makes no sense to me - you've misunderstood the difference between available names/validly published names (names that are nomenclaturally valid under the corresponding code) and valid name (zoology)/correct name (names that are accepted as the "true" name for a given taxon), and you've misunderstood how we decide the "true" name of a taxon. The guideline uses the term "valid name" to refer to the "true" name of a species, not in the sense of nomenclatural validity, which is why it links to valid name (zoology)/correct name and not available name/validly published name. A single taxon can have many nomenclaturally valid synonyms (available/validly published names), but (excluding situations in which there are taxonomic disagreements) only one of those names is considered the valid/correct name for that taxon. The ICZN/ICNafp set out the rules for how we determine which name is the "true" name, but they don't decide which name is the right one for a particular taxon - there is no master list of valid/correct names published by the ICZN/ICNafp. The valid/correct name for a taxon changes as taxonomist propose new names and combinations, it is not solely decided by the commissioners of the ICZN/ICNafp. You say Valid name (zoology) states this is under the exclusive purview of the ICZN but this is not accurate: what the article says is that A name can only be valid (or invalid) when it is an available name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), that is, that a name must at minimum meet the nomenclatural rules of the ICZN to be considered valid, not that the ICZN directly decides which name is the valid name for a taxon, or that all nomenclaturally valid names are the valid name for a taxon. Does this make more sense? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what a valid name is. How it is to be determined that an available name is not (yet?) valid is what I am trying to get people to explain -- that's why I asked Dyanega about situations where, per the standards set by the code, a species would achieve a "valid name" through its use in multiple self-published papers, or multiple papers by the same author. Even if the wider taxonomic community would boycott that name on principle, if they aren't publishing anything on that taxon at all then the only things we have to go on are those self-published/non-independent papers and the name's availability. Nothing in the Code suggests that such a name couldn't be valid. What this proposal is conflating is the ICZN definition of "valid name" and the unstated criterion of "being listed in certain curated databases" that some taxonomists/Wikipedians apparently use as proof of a valid name. Nowhere in the ICZN Code can I find anything saying that having a name accepted in a database is the only way to demonstrate that a valid name exists. The issue is compounded by misleading and inaccurate wording in this proposal like because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication, which will absolutely be read as "the nomenclatural code is the direct arbiter of name acceptance" and "name availability + not invalid is equivalent to acceptance" rather than "for animal species, you have to figure out for yourself whether a name would be accepted given the rules in the Code" or "for animal species, you can assume that a listing in CERTAIN databases demonstrates that a name is accepted and taxonomically valid". JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are good points, and we need to address them in any guidance. Do you have any reasonably practicable suggestions that are likely to work for the average editor without being excessively or unnecessarily restrictive most of the time, since as far as I can tell these problems are only relevant to a small minority of species. Do we try to keep these few problem cases out by making it more difficult for the simple cases, or do we get rid of them after they exist as and when we find them, which is already a standard procedure? Or something else? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can provide a list of databases whose designation of "valid species" we consider proof of taxonomic acceptance. This would need to be achieved by consensus in CENT-listed RfCs, ideally on RSN. A good criterion for database inclusion would be basically universal citation of 2+ peer-reviewed academic publications before listing a species as "valid".
    For taxa that are not covered by these databases, to demonstrate taxonomic acceptance we can require coverage by multiple independent academic reliable sources that do not include databases (unless curators also publish detailed secondary coverage of the species that do not just repeat claims of the primary sources). My impression is that this issue may apply to all animal species -- I only looked at the Mollusca database because it was brought up somewhere upthread, and almost immediately found the problems with Thach and Poppe. I suspect there may be similar problems in other databases.
    I appreciate your taking the time to consider my points. Lately it has felt like no one is even reading what I say. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Proposal to add nothospecies

[edit]

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

Nothospecies and hybridogenic species, including kleptons, are species, and Notability (species) applies".
Jump to: Discussion Survey Notifications

Discussion (nothospecies)

[edit]

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

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

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

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

===Survey (nothospecies)===

Notifications (NSPECIES)

[edit]

Please fix the problems with animals

[edit]

These problematic statements in the guidance have still not been addressed:
1. In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable
2. achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication.
3. All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of ... a valid name for animals and protozoa.

The ICZN does not require publication in an academic source -- or even a reliable source -- for proposed nomenclature to become available. It also does not require additional publications, of any quality, and including databases, for an available name to become "valid" (as is clear from e.g. Mollusk Base). Therefore claim #2 is plainly false and unworkable as guidance.

Even if we interpret "relevant international body of taxonomists" to be "one of the dozens of clade-specific orgs that the guideline makes zero reference to existing" rather than "the nomenclature code from the relevant international body of taxonomists that we explicitly link to", claim #2 is still totally false. As I demonstrated above, all it takes for a mollusk name to be listed as "valid" is publication to the same standards as the ICZN -- even when the name is self-published by someone with an extensive history of bogus species designations. Such names are not downgraded until other papers (again, of any quality) are published disputing them. I only checked into Mollusk Base because it was mentioned as an example of an international society that provides the alleged secondary academic RS coverage -- even though the org explicitly disclaims performing any evaluation of a proposed name, is not academic, and does not appear to be under editorial review; if this is the case for one random org, how do we know every other valid name-designating body doesn't use the same low standards?

Details

Wording problems:
accepted by the relevant international body and accepted under the relevant nomenclature code puts the onus of species "acceptance" strictly on "the relevant international body" and "the relevant nomenclature code", which for animals is the ICZN. However, the ICZN does not positively adjudicate individual species validity; rather, it sets out the minimal requirements needed for a species name to become available for use by other researchers and for a name to become considered the "correct" name for that species.

  • Because the ICZN does not itself actively "accept" individual species names, we must interpret "accepted by" as meaning "conforms with" the nomenclatural standards set by the ICZN. This is a much more passive role compared to species validity determinations by the other nomenclatural codes and should be clarified. "Acceptance", if meaning "compliance with the Code", is also ambiguous:
    • A species name can be "accepted" in the sense that it complies with the nomenclatural requirements for availability, which can be achieved with a self-published, completely unreliable paper. This would obviously be a very poor criterion for presumption of notability.
    • If the intended meaning of "accepted" is instead "conforms with the Code's standards as to species name validity", then this needs to be clarified.
  • If the "relevant international body" is actually supposed to mean "select, curated databases", then the whole sentence about "relevant nomenclature code" needs to be changed or removed, as it implies simple compliance with the Code is sufficient for species name acceptance. Which databases are satisfactory must be discussed in the guidance.

Functional problems:
Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a valid name for animals means meeting the following criteria is sufficient for a species to be inherently notable:

  1. The species name is available. Alongside conforming to binominal nomenclature formatting and using the Latin alphabet, these are the criteria for a name to be available:
    1. The species name is "published", a status that explicitly can be met with self-published non-academic non-peer-reviewed papers or books or webpages, authored by anyone regardless of qualifications or expertise.
    2. The species name must purport to be valid.
  2. The species name has not been invalidated or challenged.

This is all the guidance on what constitutes a "valid name" that I could find by the ICZN1,2,3 (emphases mine):

  • The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission.

    one that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and, in the case of a name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment.

    The correct name for a taxonomic taxon, i.e. the oldest potentially valid name of a name-bearing type which falls within an author's concept of the taxon

  • Thus, all forms of invalidation require further publications on the taxon, but there is nothing to suggest an available name is not valid if no one else has published on it, or if the only publications on it are self-published.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That took me a few tries to read and understand. If you don't mind a few "devils advocate" questions to help understand/sort this out. Aren't you self-conflicting? It was you who said that a mere listing in ICZN qualifies as meeting the SNG requirements (paraphrasing....recognized as an extent species by the relevant international body of taxonomists) and then you go on to say that it doesn't meet those requirements because ICZN listing means merely that that name is available and an unverified claim has been made by someone. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that it doesn't meet the SNG? I'm just noting that "having a valid name" (=presumed notable) for animals requires nothing more than the name being available and unchallenged, which is utterly inconsistent with the claims made in the guidance that valid species names always correspond to significant descriptions in reputable academic publications. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from where I got it from before, you just said it again in your 22:55, 20 November 2024 post. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to analyze/sort out your OP. A premise of the approval of this SNG is that it can be evolved, and if your post sorts out into something that needs a change, we should work on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the story runs like this:
  • For a small number of "extant species", there exist "names" which have (theoretically) been "accepted under the relevant nomenclature code", but that are not actually "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" because they were not "published in a reputable academic publication".
  • Therefore, when the guideline says that "achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication", this statement is somewhere between utterly false (it is sometimes possible, at least temporarily, to get a name by publishing a significant description in a disreputable publication) and a Lie-to-children (what ultimately matters is acceptance of the species, rather than registration of the name, and these two have been demonstrated to diverge in – where's an envelope when you need one – less than 1 in 1,000 species; this paper, for example, reports the official rejection of 59 such problems and their accepted replacements, and no source I've yet seen speaks of more than "about 100". Since there are about two million accepted species, we would need 20,000 such problems to have this affect even 1% of species).
I therefore judge this to be immaterial, but realistically speaking, I expect the slight discrepancy, amply compensated for by editors who have consistently discouraged, deleted, and redirected all such uses, to rankle for JoelleJay unless and until the wording is changed to be 100.000% correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amply compensated for by editors who have consistently discouraged, deleted, and redirected all such uses Indeed. Endless articles being created for non-accepted/valid synonyms was not a problem before this guideline and will continue to not be a problem now that the guideline has been adopted, and people like me will continue to validate the status of species articles we work on and move/redirect pages as appropriate. Hair-splitting over nomenclatural validity and taxonomic acceptance like this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know?? From an earlier post:
[There is] someone (with no specialized degrees, I might add) selling the shells of species they discovered, on the same website on which they sell the "journal" they created to report these species. See some of the products offered by Guido Poppe (whose Wikipedia article was created by someone who claims to own the images it uses, and has created many stubs on snail species, e.g. Homalopoma concors, which isn't even at the accepted species name (Gloriacollonia concors, which is sourced to the original publication in Visaya by Poppe and a followup pub in partner company ConchBooks by Poppe)...), like Bayerotrochus philpoppei1 ("accepted" on Molluscabase, where it is sourced to the original description by Anseeuw P, Poppe G, Goto Y and to a "personal communication" from Anseeuw P).
That's one editor who has created dozens of stubs on snails, many of which he discovered and/or were published in his pseudo-journal. We already have nearly 600 different articles citing a totally unindexed, un-peer-reviewed journal that doesn't even appear to have any editors, so it sure doesn't seem like we're doing a good job filtering out the "unreliable" sources supporting species articles. And again, that's just for one journal that apparently no editors have ever looked into more carefully. How much content that is exclusively citeable to that source will need to be removed?
(Pinging @FOARP, who upthread had asked about the reliability of the sources used to describe new species) JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy doesn't run on your standards, and your insistence that species described in non-indexed publications are automatically invalid, even when included in authoritative databases recognised by experts in the field, is frankly out of touch. These articles are not copyvio, promotional (no, the fact that the author also sells shells does not automatically make a species article with no mention of his business an advert), defamatory, or misleading in any meaningful way - they are no bigger problem than any other pages marked with maintenance templates, and this is a problem that persists across Wikipedia in every topic because we rely on editors to put in the hard work of keeping things up to date. You'll find that JoJan moved Homalopoma concors to the correct name as soon as the synonymy was noticed, by the way. Unless you would like to assist in developing a bot to automatically update articles as new taxonomic opinions roll in, Wikipedia remains a perpetual work-in-progress where perfection is not required. If you care about these outdated pages, please join us in consulting the literature and reliable databases to determine the correct names of species and update their articles to the best of our ability. You're just wasting time repeating the same arguments from the proposal discussion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My standards are the verifiability policy requirements for this website. On Wikipedia information must be sourceable to reliable sources, it does not matter what implicit sourcing standards "taxonomy runs on" (especially when they have been widely criticized in real academic publications), if such RS are not available then the information cannot be included on Wikipedia. If a guideline is saying it's acceptable to have an article that can only be verified by a hobbyist's unreliable self-published webpage and a database that uncritically scrapes its details, then the guideline is a problem. Requiring positive proof that a garbage-sourced topic is inaccurate before we can remove it is literally the opposite of our policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that's what's actually happening? We have had no difficulty removing work from the "taxonomic vandals". We expect to have no difficulty doing so in the future.
Ethmostigmus, I'm intrigued by what you said above: Taxonomy doesn't run on your standards. It doesn't happen to run on my personal standards, either, but the field's standards are the ones that matter. If they don't have a problem with an expert marking his own work, then who am I to tell them they're wrong? In similar Wikipedia scandals, I've seen small journals publish papers written by their own editor-in-chief. Wikipedians who disagree with the content of the paper soundly denounce the publication as utterly unethical and proof of unreliability. Wikipedians who agree with the content of the paper never say a word about such scandalous behavior, probably because it's not actually scandalous in the context of the field.
I remember when astronomers started posting their findings on this new "internet" thing. It was very upsetting to some in the field. No more gatekeepers? Nobody endorsing my work? Nobody telling me which thing is worth paying attention to? However, pretty soon, the advantage of immediacy and completeness won over the field. Sure, there are mistakes and corrections and the occasional embarrassing mess, but real science can be messy. Sometimes the initial answers are wrong. Sometimes even the corrections are wrong. What matters, though, is that science corrects itself over time. That means that both they, and we, have to cope with the fact that today's "accepted" species could well be tomorrow's "invalid" one. I'm okay with that. The editors who do most of the work in this area seem to be okay with that. And it's okay if not all editors find that reality comfortable. People can live with discomfort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you understand what I'm getting at. Species descriptions, good species descriptions of new taxa, are often published in hobbyist publications, and yes, sometimes by people who are in the business of selling specimens. These people are often in the best position to discover new species - think of the times a new fish has only been described because someone saw something unusual at a fish market! As an example, Pterostylis antennifera was first described in an issue of Australian Orchid Review, a hobbyist magazine, by Australian botanist David L. Jones. Many valid Australian orchid species (and many synonyms - orchid taxonomy here is quite a topic) have been described in AOR, and experts behind the Australian Plant Census evaluate their validity. This is pretty standard. I've found taxonomy to be rather meritocratic compared to other fields - you don't necessarily need a degree or to get your work into a big-name journal to describe a new species. If your work stands up to scrutiny, others in the field will accept it, and if not, it will be placed into synonymy like all the rest. Taxonomy is an artificial construct - it is constantly shifting as new authors interpret new data and reinterpret old data in the context of new knowledge. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Databases like MolluscaBase, WoRMS, Plants of the World Online, World Spider Catalogue, etc are considered generally reliable sources by experts in their respective taxa. You are the one who doesn't consider them reliable, and your opinion does not take priority over actual taxonomists. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked into Mollusk Base because it was mentioned as an example of an international society that provides the alleged secondary academic RS coverage -- even though the org explicitly disclaims performing any evaluation of a proposed name, is not academic, and does not appear to be under editorial review This is just not accurate. I don't know why you've decided to try to discredit MolluscaBase, but what you've said about it is simply incorrect. Per its own "about" page, it is an authoritative, permanently updated account of all molluscan species. It is an offshoot (and recognised database) of the World Register of Marine Species run out of the Flanders Marine Institute and curated by professional malacologists from institutions like the Australian Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History, Harvard University, the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, etc. It is routinely cited in malacology papers. To claim that MolluscaBase (or WoRMS by extension) is "not academic" is completely ridiculous. The editors of MolluscaBase are subject matter experts who curate the database based on the most recent literature, because that is how taxonomy functions. You might not like it, but you don't know the field, and you are not the arbiter of academia. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a prior comment:
And for more evidence that for Mollusca a single publication that merely meets name availability standards is automatically sufficient for a species to have a valid name, and this lasts until specifically proven otherwise:
12345 and definitely many many more listed as valid among the 211 other taxa in the database citing that 2021 48HRBooks book and the 227 taxa citing a 2020 48HRBooks book;
109 and 147 taxa respectively citing the "June 2017" (date is apparently uncertain) and "December 2018" (date is according to a personal communication) 48HRBooks books that a) were the sources of many of the 235 taxa shredded by Pall-Gergely et al in 2020, including many 12 currently listed as accepted (valid) (they were only mentioned as "no comment" in the 2020 paper) and added to the database in August 2017 alongside many 1 of the taxa that were explicitly called out as vandalism in 2020 and subsequently had their "accepted" status changed to "uncertain", and b) species whose statuses are uncertain only because different 48HRBooks by Thach are dueling over their possible synonymy 1;
this species that was added by curator Pall-Gergely in February 2022 sourced to a February 2022 article by Pall-Gergely.
That is a tiny selection of examples related to just one malacologist whose work was eventually noticed by other researchers; how many other single-document (let alone self-published) taxa are uncritically added to and listed as having valid names on this database alone? How many other databases employ similar standards for name validation?
Mollusk Base explicitly states that they do not perform any analysis or evaluation of a given species publication, which is why they will uncritically list names as "valid" that were published through pay-to-print book companies by known taxonomic vandals. There is no apparent editorial control beyond curation, which is why its curators can personally add entries calling a species they discovered "valid" the day after they published on it. There is no secondary prose discussion of any aspect of a new species entry, and why should there be when the database is not and does not purport to be an academic publication? It's literally no different from WormBase curating data on genetics, phenotypes, reagent availability, etc. for individual C. elegans strains; it might be generally reliable, but it is not an academic publication. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your other comment. I am aware of the situation with Thach. Barna Páll-Gergely, the malacologist who rejected many of Thach's names, is himself a MolluscaBase editor. Again, following the most recent literature and applying the relevant nomenclatural code to determine the validity of a taxon is just how taxonomy works.
This is all a red herring anyway, given that under this guideline the moment a species is no longer considered valid by the relevant taxonomists, it is expected to be redirected to the valid name. This is the process Wikipedia has operated under for years and has not changed. If you have an issue with MolluscaBase, take it up with the field of malacology and all the respected authors who contribute to and cite it in their work. It is treated as a reliable source by the experts who utilise it in their research, and editors will continue to use it as such, regardless of your personal opinion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pall-Gergely is the MolluscaBase editor who created the entry for a species he discovered and listed its name as "valid" only days after he published it. That's probably fine for a simple database but it is absolutely not something that would be acceptable for any academic publication, a significant description in which this SNG claims will always exist for valid species.
Pages that are verifiable almost exclusively to singular unreliable sources should not exist on Wikipedia. We don't allow pages based wholly on reliably-published single scientific studies, even when their details have been populated into numerous official databases and are guaranteed to be the subject of further independent research. From what has been said previously it seems that a large proportion of new species are never even published on again, let alone in a reasonable timeframe or by an independent group or in a reliable source, so we don't even have a defensible expectation that any issues will ever be noted! JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by We don't allow pages based wholly on reliably-published single scientific studies, even when their details have been populated into numerous official databases and are guaranteed to be the subject of further independent research.
Is this intended as a normative or a descriptive statement? Because if it is intended to be descriptive, I dont think it can possibly be accurate unless the domain of the topic is specified. But perhaps it is intended to be a normative statement (expressing an individual preference)... Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)&oldid=1258712654"