Talk:Pereskia aculeata

Diacritics in species names
I think we need to edit for usability, since this is an encyclopedia and not an official document. Note that the diacritic version has 253 results while the rules-following version has 940. That's a significant amount of usage with the diacritic (including Klein 1999), hence it should be mentioned as a common alternative. If you seriously want to remove things that don't follow ICZN decisions then a lot of the public (and practitioners) will not understand what's going on. ... As for "do not wikilink parts of binomials" was there a reason for doing that? Invasive Spices (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the form with the diacritic to be explained as an erroneous orthographic error. I certainly don't want to censor, only be clear that it is undoubtedly wrong. The species article Phenrica guerini (when created) is the place to say something like "The specific names is sometimes written as guérini, wich is incorrect according to the ICZN", with refs. In this article, all that matters is the species, not its varied orthography. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia articles can become the sources of, or supports for, errors. Having guerini/guérini in an article implies that either is acceptable, which is not correct. See also MOS:SLASH.
 * If the text mentions a species that doesn't have an article, a red link reveals this and may encourage the creation of an article – red links are good, as per WP:REDLINK. What is the point of something like GENUS SPECIES or, worse, GENUS SPECIES ? The first hides the fact that the species article doesn't exist and won't link to it when it's created, the second misleads when the species article is created, since the adjacent links look like one. I think MOS:PARTIALNAMELINK is also relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)