User talk:Adityavagarwal/Lepidoptera advice

Parentheses and brackets in zoological taxon authorities, and on updating/verifying/referencing them
''Gave this a wholly separate section because it is in response to only a very small part of your comment and would get in the way of our actual conversation. A full reply to the section above is on its way, too. Please just continue replying in the thread above except if it specifically pertains to the following information:''
 * Square brackets around a year (like [1916]) means "the exact year is uncertain, but this is the one that should be used" and square brackets around a name means "author was originally unknown/anonymous; their identity has been inferred from other sources, not from the first formal description itself". Both of those are fairly rare, the latter especially. Generally, if they're listed as such on an article, that is correct and doesn't need changing. What does happen more frequently is that they should have the square brackets, but don't, and in those cases the page should be changed.
 * Parentheses, like (Linnaeus, 1767), should&mdash;when applicable&mdash;always go around the entire name-and-year combination. It means 'this person was the first to formally describe the species, but the binomial name (literally something along the lines of 'two-named name', means: the 'generic name' (name of the genus) and the 'specific name' (name of the species), like Paralobesia viteana, which denotes the species called viteana that is part of the genus Paralobesia) now used is not the original combination'.
 * It mostly happens when species were originally described in one genus and then later transferred to (or split off to) another genus. E.g. Pyrgus oileus was first described by Linnaeus in 1767, but he described it as Papilio oileus. As a result, the proper way of noting the species-and-authority is Pyrgus oileus (Linnaeus, 1767). However, when mentioning the synonym Papilio oileus, it should be noted as Papilio oileus Linnaeus, 1767&mdash;because that is the original combination used by Linnaeus.
 * Those are very common and mistakes occur both ways around. We have species where the authority is listed in parentheses even though it shouldn't be, and we also have species where the authority is listed without parentheses even though it should have them. (It doesn't help that some of the sources used for articles aren't too careful about those. It also doesn't help that various sources use old taxonomy still. It makes sense they have the authority without parentheses if they still use the old binomial name, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong all the same. That's why I recommended you use funet for authorities, because that's one of the few sources around that does pay careful attention, generally is up-to-date on taxonomy and has most of the valid species and genera listed.)

To recap: As said above, a response to the entirety of your post is in progress. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If what funet gives as authority is identical to what our article has as authority, and the information is referenced in our article, there is no need to edit the page.
 * If what funet gives as authority is identical to what our article has as authority, but our information isn't referenced, it's worth taking the time to add the funet page as reference to our article.
 * If what funet gives as authority differs from what our article has, but the information in our article is referenced, check that reference.
 * If the given reference doesn't match what's said in our article: change to what funet says, remove the old reference and add funet as reference.
 * If the given reference does match what's said in our article: leave a message on the article's talkpage and/or consider letting me know so I can take a look at things.
 * If what funet gives as authority differs from what our article has, and the info in our article is not referenced:
 * Funet gives a different name - change our article to what funet says. Add the funet page as reference.
 * Funet gives a different year - same as with year.
 * Funet gives the same name and year, but adds square brackets around either - add the missing brackets, add funet as reference. (On the very rare occasion that we do have square brackets and funet doesn't, remove those square brackets, add funet as reference)
 * Funet gives the same name and year, but we have parentheses that the funet page doesn't have:
 * If our article has no synonyms listed, remove the parentheses and add funet as reference.
 * If our article has at least one synonym listed, but none with the same name-and-year as the authority, remove the parentheses and add funet as reference.
 * If our article gives a synonym that might be the purported 'original combination' (it's by the same person and in the same year as the person we have listed as authority) that the current name supposedly differs from, leave a note on the article's talkpage and/or consider letting me know so I can take a look. Don't change things, don't add funet as reference.
 * Funet gives the same name and year, but adds parentheses around the combination - add the parentheses, add funet as reference. Consider taking a look at our taxonomy and/or synonyms to see if those match what funet has to say&mdash;chances are we're missing some information or might be working from outdated information.
 * If some synonyms are in the infobox, that funet also has listed, but they're not referenced, add funet as reference behind them.
 * If some synonyms are in the infobox, that funet doesn't have, and they're not referenced--obviously don't add funet as reference. Possibly consider looking for a different source to reference those or leave them be, depending on how much time you want to spend on an article.
 * If some synonyms are in place, using funet as a reference, but funet doesn't actually list those--remove them and leave a quick note on the article's talkpage.
 * If funet has synonyms we don't have: add them (if the article doesn't have any synonyms listed in the infobox yet, ask me how to if you can't figure it out; if the article does have other synonyms listed, just follow the same format used for those) and add funet as reference.
 * Moved here from User talk:Adityavagarwal after user's agreement, with a slight change to the section header. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)