Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)

Prior discussion

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

• Notability guideline – original draft [1], advance notice [2]
• WikiProject Tree of Life – advance notice [3]
• WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES – advance notice [4]

FAQ

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.[5][6] 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)

Should I start voting now?

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)

Mass creation

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)

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)

No objections. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the addition now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Too complicated?

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

So you agree with it in principle, but you want fewer details provided? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support

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)

@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)

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)