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]

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.[7][8] 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 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 anything.

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

Should I start voting now?[edit]

No, this is not open for a vote yet.

But please do put this page on your watchlist.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation[edit]

I still think it's important to have "automated or semi-automated" in the mass creation section. Otherwise it doesn't accurately summarise what that policy says. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections. @Cremastra, do you object? All the relevant policies, including MEATBOT, apply to all article creations, so I don't think that including or excluding it changes anything, but perhaps it would be clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the addition now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated?[edit]

Saw this on my watchlist via an edit to WP:OUTCOMES. This seems a bit complicated. I think the de facto standard is if it's a species and it's not a hoax (i.e. it appears in Catalogue of Life or has citations to reliable sources supporting it), then it's automatically notable. I am not sure we need to burden patrollers with this additional flowchart of "is it a prokaryote/eukaryote/virus?" "Does it show up in ICNP/ICTV?" "Is it a correct name or a valid name?"

If this were to be RFC'd today, I'd probably oppose it due to this complexity, but would support a simpler version. It is silly that species are not an official SNG even though they are a de facto SNG, so I support the idea of promoting species to SNG in general. We might not even need a subpage for it. It could be as simple as adding a bullet or sentence to WP:N.

Do you have plans to eventually RFC this? Honestly I don't know if any new SNGs can be created in today's climate that leans slightly deletionist, but I guess it doesn't hurt to try. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan a full WP:PROPOSAL, @Novem Linguae.
The stuff about ICNP/ICTV is the definition of "is it a species?" for these areas. We don't care whether someone with a website has declared themselves to be a taxonomist and said they accept it; we care specifically whether these specific authorities accept it. I have thought about adding links to the best databases for the convenience of editors who don't already know what they are.
Would you prefer that the Prokaryote and Virus sections were combined into a single section under a heading like "Microbes" or "Microorganisms"? There are eukaryotic microbes (e.g., baker's yeast), so that section wouldn't, strictly speaking, cover all microbes, but perhaps it would feel simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this entire proposal can be simplified down to "Species that can be verified to a reliable source such as a respected taxonomic database or published academic journal are automatically notable." I would hesitate to include more detail than that.
Mentioning ICNP/ICTV is a red flag for me because I've never heard of those or used them in my species work. The databases I am familiar with are:
Catalogue of Life is the database I check first because it is both broad and reliable, but any respected database should work. There's lots of them: WoRMS for marine animals, NCBI and LPSN for bacteria, MycoBank and Index Fungorum for fungi, Mindat.org for protozoa and parasites, etc. I used to use iNaturalist, but I discovered that was self-published so I no longer use that one.
cc Plantdrew –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae, the second sentence of the draft says:
In general, all species, extinct or extant, that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable, and all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority) are notable only if they meet other guidelines, such as the general notability guideline.
Does that cover what you're after?
I've included more detail because I think that will help non-specialist editors figure out that they need to be looking at MycoBank database (which follows the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) and not looking at Bob's Big Database of Crytozoological Organisms, which doesn't.
As for ICNP/ICTV, I think they're the correct organizations. For example, if you read the first sentence of our article on the LPSN article, it says that LPSN follows the ICNP's rules. I agree that any database/book/list/source that follows the relevant nomenclature code should work (and any that doesn't probably isn't respected). Nomenclature codes#Codification of Scientific Names appears to have the list of codes. I don't think there is a consolidated list of databases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking more broadly, I feel GNG is too short, and SNGs are too long. I feel that adding a 7 paragraph document to the SNGs when we can cover it in 1 sentence would not move toward solving this problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with it in principle, but you want fewer details provided? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see whether the opposition leans more towards "I support the principle, but this version has problems" or "I oppose the principle, because we need to change our approach". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every nomenclatural code has an organization that publishes it and considers amendments to the code (as well as petitions to set aside a normal rule for a particular name). ICTV is an abbreviation for the organization that deals with virus nomenclature. ICVCN is an abbreviation for the viral code of nomenclature. The ICTV is unusual in that the organization also maintains a database of accepted species names (I guess we could refer to the database as e.g. "2023 ICTV Taxonomy Release", but it may also be called (ambiguously) ICTV).
ICNP is an abbreviation for the code for prokaryotes. "International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes" (abbreviated ICSP) is the organization. LPSN is a database that is specifically endorsed by the prokaryote code, but it is not maintained by the organization itself.
Most species databases aren't specifically endorsed by any code or code-governing organization. Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Since I specialize in eukaryotes I fully endorse this draft. I firmly believe all eukaryotic species are notable. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks, is there anything that you think should be changed before the WP:PROPOSAL process begins? For example, is there anything unclear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should specify that the "valid name" applies to protozoa as well as true animals, since protozoa are also governed by the ICZN code just as algae are regulated by the ICBN code. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccepted species[edit]

I think this needs to do more to address the concept of species (or names for species) that are not accepted. Every species is accepted by the person(s) who described it. But most species that have been ever been described (i.e. that have a "significant description [...] published in a reputable academic publication") are not "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists". For example, FishBase has records for 33,230 species (and subspecies) and 94,647 records for synonyms.

Practically speaking, we rely on taxonomic databases themselves to filter out the accepted species from the non-accepted "species" (i.e. names that are judged by the relevant international body of taxonomists not be worth considering as corresponding to distinct species). The original description of a species can provide the basis for writing an informative article. The original description can not provide evidence that a species is "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists". An additional source is needed for that.

A couple nuances of current practice that aren't addressed here (and perhaps don't need to be):

  • Subspecies aren't afforded an assumption of notability, but they still must have a "significant description [...] published in a reputable academic publication" (but many taxa now accepted as species were first described as subspecies, and vice versa).
  • An assumption of notability for accepted species is part of the WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES observation that species articles don't get deleted. But the other part of that is that there always is somewhere to redirect any articles that exist for a named species that is not an accepted species. Articles for species that are regarded as synonyms (according to e.g. a taxonomic database) are routinely unilaterally redirected by experienced editors without opening any kind of discussion about it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew, thanks for your advice. That suggests these changes to the opening paragraph:
  • Add subspecies to the exclusion line: all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority) and subspecies are notable only if they meet other guidelines
  • Restrict to extant species: In general, all extant species, extinct or extant, that are accepted
  • Add something like "Consider making redirects for synonyms and other non-accepted species."
I have also wondered whether hybrids (e.g., Category:Hybrid plants and the List of plant hybrids) need a specific mention. I don't know what to write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support all three changes you've outlined. I would suggest we treat hybrids, cultivars, morphs, etc the same as subspecies, ie. only notable if they meet WP:GNG. The amount of cultivated hybrids etc is staggering, and most will never receive any coverage beyond a listing on the breeder's website - not enough to write even a start class article. While some are definitely independently notable according to GNG, most are best redirected and discussed within their respective species/genus article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've made these suggested changes. Please check them and let us know whether they seem appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil taxa[edit]

Not to bog down the process, but it should be noted that the paleontology guideline is nuanced, with the starting point that no species articles be created all extinct lineages generally stop at the genus level. But there is a standing caveat to the guideline, in that extinct species in extant genera are afforded articles, as they are always differing from the living members of the genus via age/preservation/location etc.--Kevmin § 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin, please, bog down the process as much as you need to! This is the best possible time to get it right. It is more important to get it right than to get it done right away.
Would you like to see a specific section for extinct species? Do the usual existing rules apply equally to eukaryotes and prokaryotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I've understood the system, the rule is:
  • If all species in the genera are extinct: Normally merge everything to the genera article. However, when the level of detail for any given species is significant, that individual species could be split, Wikipedia:Summary style, to a separate article. (This could theoretically result in all species being split, if they are all very long/detailed, but it could also result in a genera article that has some species merged up and others split off.)
  • If this species is extinct, but other species in the genera are extant: Create separate articles for each species.
Does that sound right? What have I missed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: That covers it very well, and a section would definitely be warranted as Wp:Palaeontology does diverge from base Nspecies. The closer you get to modern, especially post 66 MYA/End Cretaceous event, the more frequently you get species attributed to living genera, and we avoid forcing those onto the genus pages. Conversely large sexy vertebrates of the Ice age tend to be information rich with enough nuance to allow for separate species articles at times, like some Mammoths, and so species level articles are allowed at times.--Kevmin § 20:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. How does something like this sound? It would presumably go after the virus section and before ==Mass creation==.
Extinct species

If all species in a genus are extinct, then the species are presumed non-notable and should be merged to the article about the genus. However, some extinct species in extinct genera, such as the Woolly mammoth and the Dodo bird, qualify for separate, stand-alone articles under the Wikipedia:General notability guideline.

If some species in a genus are extinct and others are still extant, such as the Riccordia genus of hummingbirds, then all species in that genus should be treated equally, which means that the extinct species is also presumed notable.

What would you recommend changing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say "fossil", not "extinct"; "if a genus is known only from fossils, then the species are...". Or alternatively "extinct before 1500". 1500 is the usual cutoff for modern extinctions; it represents a time when species could have been documented by European naturalists, and is after the time that most anthropogenic extinctions occurred in land masses that weren't settled by humans until relatively recently (Madagascar, Hawaii, New Zealand).
But I think fossil works better since it excludes some of the edge cases where there are articles for extinct species; e.g. bird species known from subfossil remains in extant genera from Hawaii et al., or mammoths known from full body specimens frozen in permafrost. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think I'll need new examples, then, as both bird examples are post-1500. Do you have any favorite mixed-survival plant genera? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)&oldid=1234342409"