Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)

Bird article name (capitalisation)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane about four articles related to birds species. The rationale is that there is no reason why bird names should be capitalised while Wikipedia recommends that all species names should not be written with capitals. Please participate to the discussion. Thank you! Mama meta modal (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
 * "Improve" is a subjective opinion of yours - to avoid any semblance of canvassing, you'd want to keep the language as neutral as possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your proffreading. I reformulated the initial message today. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Request for comments

 * This RfC is already over.

There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane.

Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Consensus
The discussion was closed (and the pages moved) on 26 March 2014, see Talk:Crowned crane for details.

Mama meta modal (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Move review for species pages at Move review/Log/2014 March. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Mama meta modal (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
 * H. H. Wander Strata (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Absolutely no consensus to push bird capitalization as a "standard" on Wikipedia
Given that they are clearly controversial, and were undiscussed, and are pushing a POV for which there is no consensus (they directly contradict MOS:LIFE), I've mostly reverted Shyamal's overly bold changes to the vernacular names material. I also partially reverted and partially manually corrected other attempts in a different section to push IOC names and style as a MOS-recognized "standard".  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  01:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting Shymal's edits is fine, because they needed more discussion here. Then making your own changes based on your point of view, without discussion here, was just as wrong. I support their reversion by another editor.
 * Any change, other than tidying, should be discussed here first. BRD is not a sensible strategy for MoS type pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. BRD is very, very frequently used used change guidelines and policies. WP:BRD itself suggests that the fastest way to determine who the "very interested people" are so that you can start a discussion with them is a WP:BOLD change. I find that this works very well.  In this case, this drawing out of the attentive parties also helps confirm my suspicion that this page is watched by few active editors other than those with a strongly expressed opinion in favor of the bird (and other) capitalization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish, can you specify the current disagreements between MOS:LIFE and this page, before Shyamal's changes? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Right this minute it's after 2am my time and I'm already about 3 or levels deep in inter-dependent multitasking of edits and posts (I have edit windows open 3 pages that I can see right now).  I'll move this request to the top of my list tomorrow.  The conflicts you ask about are multiple and sometimes subtle.  I should probably do them as numbered list; I know people get tired of block paragraphs from me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Had too much coffee, so I started drafting this, then realized that your mass revert nuked a large number of my trivial cleanup edits (much of it to my own earlier writing on this page!), and so had to go back in and do most of them again. I've made each one independently, with clear rationales for each. Feel free to revert one or another of them if you really feel it's urgent to do, if you provide clear rationales of your own. But another mass revert on a bogus basis like "undiscussed" will not be taken well, as it violates WP:BRD process (please read that guideline in detail).  THAT said, I've been careful not change anything genuinely substantive, especially if it impinges on this question here of the NC conflicts with MOS:LIFE.  I've gone through about 2/3 of the MOS faults that NCFAUNA has, and will add NCFLORA and NCCAPS afterward (which will be easier; they're mostly rehash).  If you're eager to see the draft, it's pretty obvious in my immediate edit history, and it has a talk page of course, if anyting in it already seems crazy to you.  I'll moved it to WP namespace when it's done, as it's liable to be the basis (or a basis) for the RfC that was suggested recently at MOS (not by me, by the way).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New discussion
The important discussion started on Talk:Crowned crane and Move review/Log/2014 March now moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Mama meta modal (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
 * The consensus is now clear. The relevant pages will soon be checked and made consistent with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
 * H. H. Wander Strata (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

"Normally" weasel-wording
The "normally" weasel-wording in the "Common (vernacular) names" section, which directly contradicts MOS:LIFE, is proposed to be removed. This is under discussion along with the conforming change to NCCAPS (which has "generally" instead of "normally"), at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa
WP:Naming conventions (fauna) says "the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus". There are two problems with this: Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say what should happen if there is a common name. The example below (relating to Myrmecobius fasciatus and Myrmecobius) suggests that the article goes at the common name (almost always that of the species), so the "no lower than the monotypic genus" doesn't apply in this case. If this is right, then I think it should be explicitly stated.
 * If I look at Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa I should find very few cases in which a animal genus name redirects to a scientific species name (as opposed to a common name). In reality it's easy to find such cases: ', ', ', ', , etc. Are these just errors?
 * I haven't seen any discussion of it, but it seems that the convention at WikiProject Fishes is to cover monotypic genera on the species page (I've come across several monotypic fish genus articles that were originally at the genus title and were subsequently moved to species). Plantdrew (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain why the article on a the sole member in a monotypic genus should have the genus rather than species name as the title? Especially as if there is a widely accepted vernacular name then that is used for the title, e.g. European rabbit. That just isn't consistent or logical. Quetzal1964 (talk)  06:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This topic has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. There are several answers to your question:
 * If the vernacular name is genuinely better known than the scientific name and meets all the other criteria at WP:AT, then it should be used as the title for the article on a monotypic genus and its sole species.
 * If not, then the view has been that (a) genus names are better known than binomials in most cases so better fit the principle of recognizability at WP:AT (b) binomials include the genus name, so better fit the principle of conciseness at WP:AT (c) using the genus name is consistent with the approach taken to extinct taxa where there is little useful information on the species, however many there are.
 * The complication for me is that a significant proportion of genus names need to be disambiguated, as you can see from looking through Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa for genus names ending with a parenthesized term. In these cases, the article has to be at the species name to fit the preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation. This makes the system inconsistent, and if we were starting from the beginning, I think I would support the scientific species name being the choice. But we are where we are. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that articles on paleontological species are discouraged. Paleontological species are discussed in an article for the genus. And monotypy is far more common in paleontological taxa than extant taxa. I'm not going to dig through the ToL archives for links now, but practice for paleontological articles was part of the discussion that led using the genus title for monotypic genera. Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass RM of animal breed articles
Please see Talk:Teeswater sheep, a mass request of a large number of moves, consisting of the commingling of about 7 different (even contradictory) types of renaming proposal. While it raises no issues with regard to species and subspecies, it could precedencially affect many (most?) breed articles and possibly also landrace articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See MOS RfC - Animal breeds in lower case
Someone's opened an RfC on using lower case for animal breeds except where they contain proper names, and this is followed by an alternative proposal based on breed standards. Both proposals would be a naming convention as well as style rule, so regulars here are liable to be interested in commenting. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Genus names with parenthetical disambiguation
There seems to be disparity across animal articles when the genus is a disambiguation title and there is no common name, with most falling into one of three forms: Name (genus) (e.g. Larisa (genus)), Name (common name) (e.g. Adela (moth)) or Name (higher taxon) (I can't find examples currently). Rarer examples include non-taxonomic parentheticals such as Carnarvonia (fossil). Should we attempt to propose guidelines for standardizing? I would like to propose that the form Name (common name) be formally recommended over the other forms, with few exceptions. Name (genus) might technically be more accurate, but Adela (moth) seems much more informative for non-scientific readers than Adela (genus), easier to search for and recognize per WP:COMMONNAME, and aesthetically nicer. I'd recommend the common names be broad enough to be as inclusive and recognizable as possible ("fish" rather than "goby") to aid standardization, and it could be left to the various taxon WikiProjects to decide which common disambig terms to use (e.g. "spider", or "gastropod"). Notable exceptions would include titles such as Mantis (genus), or Boa (genus) where the (genus) descriptor is more informative than say Mantis (mantis) and provides clearer disambiguation than Boa (snake). Thoughts? My draft is below--Animalparty-- (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, there are presently a little less than 900 articles with the form "Name (genus)" Also of note is Wikispecies' List of valid homonyms. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft of proposed guideline: "Genus titles with parenthetical disambiguation: When articles are titled after a genus with no common name, and that name requires a parenthetical disambiguation, the title should generally be in the form of Name (common name), where 'common name' is a vernacular name in singular form broad enough to encompass many similar genera yet still convey clarity. For example, the gastropod genus Helix shares its name with a number of other topics, seen at Helix (disambiguation). Therefore, the preferred title is 'Helix (gastropod)' rather than 'Helix (animal)' (too broad), 'Helix (snail)' (snail is imprecise), or 'Helix (genus)' (accurate, yet less recognizable). 'Name (genus)' also fails to disambiguate in those cases where the same genus name exists under different nomenclature codes (e.g. Gordonia (genus) refers to three articles). Exceptions to this guideline include cases where a genus name and common are the same (hence 'Mantis (genus)' rather than 'Mantis (mantis)', or 'Boa (genus)' rather than 'Boa (snake)' as Boa refers to various groups of snakes)."


 * "Name (genus)" regularly leads to problems when there is an organism with the same genus name under both the zoological and botanical codes. Thus various pages with "Cereus" in the title had to be moved recently, because the plant genus was at Cereus (genus) and the animal one at Cereus (anemone). I strongly agree that "(genus)" should be avoided as a disambiguation term wherever possible. The possible existence of an identical botanical name should also be mentioned in the guideline. Perhaps add something like "Name (genus)" also fails to disambiguate in those cases where the same genus name exists under both the zoological and botanical codes. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I believe bacterial nomenclature also allows synonyms, as evident in the three kingdoms of Gordonia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also a good point; there's a viral code as well but I don't know if the same genus name can be used there. So my suggested addition should end with ... under different nomenclature codes. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have argued in the past for "(genus)" being the standard disambiguator for genera (where not precluded by the presence of genera with the same name under different codes, of course), and I still believe it to be appropriate. If, for instance, I've remembered that as well as the duck-billed platypus, there is also a genus called Platypus, but I can't remember what it is, then Platypus (genus) is a very helpful title. I shouldn't have to already know that Platypus is a beetle, and I certainly shouldn't have to know that it's specifically a weevil; that's probably partly what I'm trying to find out by consulting this encyclopaedia. I will already know that it's a genus, however, because it's a single-word scientific name with none of the endings for a higher taxon. On the other hand, I won't have any idea what clade has been chosen to disambiguate it: "Platypus (animal)"? "Platypus (arthopod)"? "Platypus (insect)"? "Platypus (beetle)"? "Platypus (weevil)"? (I genuinely can't believe the article is actually at the last of those!) With rank-based disambiguation, you know exactly what the disambiguating term will be in advance, because it's the only possibility (this argument applies less well at higher rank, but I suspect there are fewer conflicts at that level).
 * I guess it all hinges on how well-known you think the word "genus" is. I suspect that, among the people who read the sort of low-level taxon article we're discussing, that figure will actually be pretty high. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of "genus" versus "common name" disambiguator can be handled with redirects, as in the case of Platypus (genus), which can be redirected to any name that we agree is preferred. That some might prefer "weevil" while others may prefer "beetle" or "genus" is part of the reason I initiated this discussion, in hopes of creating consensus. So assuming "Name (common name)" becomes a guideline, it could still be up to Projects to decide which common names are reasonable and appropriate, given the number of articles, prominence of the taxa in general use, common sense, etc. Thus "beetle" seems a reasonable common name for all Coleoptera genera requiring disambiguation, "moth" and "butterfly" seem reasonable for all insects commonly known as such, while "insect" may be reasonable for say Strepsiptera genera or similarly obscure groups. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another issue involves invalid synonyms, and this is another of the exceptions to the proposal: e.g. Petta appears to be a valid Polychaete genus (Petta (polychaete genus) and a junior synonym of Auchmophoba. "Petta (moth)" and "Petta (polychaete)" would eliminate the ambiguity of "Petta (genus)" but assuming "genus" is preferred in both cases, additional disambiguation may be warranted (e.g. "Petta (moth genus)").--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we really need redirects for junior synonyms? Shyamal (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your argument for "(genus)". We shouldn't expect readers to input the parenthesized disambiguation term. It should just be there to provide a unique title that can be wikilinked. If "Name (disambiguator)" exists, then typing just "Name" in the search bar should always enable the reader to reach the correct article, either because it ends up at a disambiguation page or because there's an appropriate hatnote at the destination that achieves the same purpose. Avoiding "(genus)" just prevents future hassle if it turns out that there is more than one genus with the same name.
 * the same argument suggests that forms like "(moth genus)" aren't necessary: the disambiguators don't need to be maximally meaningful, just enough to be unique. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tended to use "(genus)" if there is a single (ie non-homonymous) genus that clashes for instance with characters from Greek mythology or suchlike. That fails only when there are homonyms across kingdoms and then one needs alternative disambiguators either by kingdom or phylum. Shyamal (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously, there should be a route from the undisambiguated article to all the other articles with potentially clashing titles through hatnotes and dab pages, but we must also expect people to type in the disambiguated titles (both as readers and as editors). The Wikipedia servers aren't the fastest, and some devices are themselves slow, or someone may have to pay data charges. In all of these situations, waiting for the long article at platypus (for instance) to load just to get to the beetle article might be best avoided. It's not really just about finding a unique title, otherwise we might use meaningless identifiers, such as "Platypus (article ID 42998459)". No, the disambiguating term is also intended to be convenient, and the most convenient (in my opinion) is "(genus)", because it's the most universal, the most predictable, the most standardisable. Even now, if there were an article at "Randomus (polychaete), I would expect there to be a redirect (or dab page) at "Randomus (genus)". I'm not sure I'd expect it the other way round.
 * The comparison with "Platypus (article ID 42998459)" is not reasonable; the disambiguator has to be memorable, both for repeated readers and for editors creating wikilinks. The choice between "(genus)" and "(organism-type)" is finely balanced, I think, but then one sound reason to choose the latter is that it always works, which the former doesn't. However, it should certainly not be a matter of trying to ban "(genus)" or moving existing articles using this disambiguator, just expressing a reasoned preference for the alternative. A preference for "(genus)" has to be qualified by "unless the name is used in more than one code in which case ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be that the use of organism-type could be consistent, but there is a world of variation within that scheme. What taxonomic level do you choose? Kingdom? Phylum/division? Order? Family? Different animals are most naturally described in English as a "bird" (class), or a "reptile" (paraphyletic group), or a "rotifer" (phylum), or a "crustacean" (subphylum) or a "lobster" (family) or something else. There is just no way of knowing what rank will be chosen. The only way to make it consistent (uncorrected homonyms aside) is to name them by kingdom, since different codes entail different kingdoms, but the disambiguators "(animal)", "(plant)", "(fungus)" and "(chromalveolate)" could all be quite unexpected depending on the taxon in question. "Amoeba (amoebozoan)" would be a terrible title; Amoeba (genus) works well. If consistency matters, then disambiguating as far as possible with "(genus)" is a far better system. I wouldn't think of "Helix (gastropod)" in a long time; I would expect "(snail)", "(mollusc)" or "(mollusk)" to be much more likely. Much simpler to just have it at Helix (genus) (from which it was moved – unilaterally and unwisely – in 2009). --Stemonitis (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue of synonyms within a single code is much simpler. "Petta Warren, 1895" is not a valid name; it is a junior homonym of Petta Malmgren, 1866. Indeed, Petta Malmgren, 1866 appears to be the only meaning of "Petta" in the encyclopaedia, so there's no need for disambiguation at all. A slight complication occurs with unreplaced homonyms, where one name is invalid, but no replacement name has yet been supplied for the other. That is sufficiently rare that we can deal with it on a case-by-case basis. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity of "(genus)" as a disambiguator should not be underestimated. The last time this came up for plants, I did some research. I looked at the first 60 (alphabetically) plant genera that had a parenthetical disambiguator of "(plant)" or "(genus)". 22 of 60 were already disambiguated against an animal genus on Wikipedia. Checking against GBIF and Worms, I found that 45 of the 60 plant genera had a corresponding animal genus published. Granted, that included some animal genera best treated as synonyms, but there were also recognized animal genera not yet on Wikipedia. At any rate, for the plants I looked at, "(genus)" is still too ambiguous in somewhere between 35%-75% of cases.

Are 35%+ of all plant genera ambiguous with animal genera? No. But many scientific names are constructed by slapping a Latinate suffix on non-Latin personal name (as in Gordonia, or by creating a Greco-Latinate compound that nobody would've recognized 2000 years ago (as in Actinopeltis). If these weird hybrid terms are ambiguous with anything it's almost always going to be another genus constructed using the same rules, and "(genus)" won't work to disambiguate. Then there are scientific names taken directly from a term that had meaning in classical Greek/Latin. Obviously, these are ambiguous from the start with the classical term, but "(genus)" might work to disambiguate these; at least as long as another biologist didn't also find the classical term evocative and appropriate it for another genus (as happened with Laelaps and Echidna (disambiguation)).

Going through WikiProject Arthropod tagged articles with &quality=&importance=&score=&pagenameWC=on&limit=250&offset=1&sorta=Article+title&sortb=Quality this search], I found 132 articles that had a parenthetical disambiguatory term. 106 of these articles were on genera (the remainder being anatomical terms, biologists or taxa at ranks other than genus). 61 used "(genus)" as the dab term, and 45 used a different dab term (indeed, a horrifying mess of terms; a crab genus might be dabbed with "(crab)", "(arthropod)", "(crustacean)" or "(decapod)"). Of the 45 not using "(genus)", 31 can NOT use genus as there is already an article or redirect on Wikipedia for a different genus with the same name. Best case, if you try to standardize "(genus)" as the dab term for arthropods, you get 75 of 106 articles where it is sufficient to disambiguate. That doesn't strike me as especially consistent. If you go with "(animal)" it works in 99 of 106 cases; (animal) doesn't work for 2 articles where a genus is ambiguous with an anatomical feature in an animal, and 5 articles where there's an article or redirect for a homonymous animal genus (in two of these, there doesn't appear to be a replacement name yet for the junior homonym). If you go with "(arthropod)", it works in 101 of 106 cases (doesn't work for 1 genus/anatomy term (scutellum} and 4 homonymous genera that are arthropods in both uses ([[Battus, Cyclopyge, Harpagomorpha and Zalmoxis).

No one dab term is going to work 100% of the time. If you want the fewest number of dab terms covering the largest number of cases, (animal) is going to work far better than (genus). But (animal) is currently hardly used at all on Wikipedia and implementing it would require many moves. The table below shows the current status quo by WikiProject with regards to using common name or genus as a dab term. Common name is the singular form of the WikiProject name unless otherwise noted (e.g. (bird) or (fish)).

A couple notes. These figures are quick and dirty. "Total" for a project is ALL parenthetically dabbed articles (including anatomical terms and biologists). For most projects, genera account for almost all of the total, but for plants, mammals and birds, there are a large number of breed/cultivars and individual domestic animals with a dab term. And the figures in common name column may include article that aren't on genera (e.g. Operculum (fish). WikiProject Insects doesn't use (insect) very much, but does frequently use common names of orders (fly, beetle, etc.). Plantdrew (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies. The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation at WT:MoS about making that talk page the official site for style questions
The proposed style noticeboard has fallen through. There is now a conversation under way at WT:MoS about endorsing and centralizing its longstanding Q&A function. This would include encouraging users to ask questions about style and copyediting either at WT:MoS or a subpage and not at other talk pages. The discussion is still very preliminary and participants from other pages that would be affected are very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages.  Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on common name of Frill-necked lizard
Join talk at Talk:Frill-necked_lizard. Has implications as consensus looking not good. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice: RfC at VPPOL may have implications for NCFAUNA and MOS:LIFE
There's an RfC at Village pump (policy) about the sentence in WP:Disambiguation that encompasses the long-standing practice at WP:RM of permitting natural disambiguation for precision-and-recognizability reasons even in the absence of an actual article title collision. This frequently arises with plant and animal breeds, cultivars, landraces, and other non-human populations the names of which may be confused with human ones (e.g. the move of Algerian Arab, now a disambiguation page, to Algerian Arab sheep, and of British White to British White cattle to ease confusion with the White British). The RfC is misleading and non-neutral due to failure to perform due diligence with regard to previous consensus discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking pedantically, that has implications for practice in titling breed names, but not for this guideline. The guideline doesn't really address this practice at present. At least, aside from this relic of the capitalization debate: "When appended to the name of a standardised breed or cultivar as natural disambiguation, the species name is not capitalised: Siamese cat, Hass avocado". Both of those examples have title collisions that require disambiguation, so aren't really in the realm of adding a word to a non-colliding title to clarify what the topic is.


 * Perhaps the practice of clarifying breed titles should be added to the guideline? However, there are broader implications for non-breed articles. Black howler is missing the term that clarifies what it is, but it commonly appears in sources as "black howler monkey". On the other hand, Flavescent peacock, and Black buffalo are outright misleading, but these don't usually show up in sources with "fish" appended. Plantdrew (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA: A two-page solution is sometimes appropriate?
In the case of genera which historically included more than one species, but have been reduced to a single species by subsequent taxonomic revision, it is sometimes felt useful to list the now-disused combinations as 'former species'. Such a list would seem out of place on a page for the sole remaining species, so is it legitimate in that case to have separate pages for the genus and single remaining species? The specific case I'm looking at is Archamia (genus). There was previously a page 'Archamia' redirecting to Archamia bleekeri. I had them swapped without noticing the existence of the Archamia (genus) page. It seems to me that, aside from the case of undoubtedly monotypic genera, for which only one binomial combination has ever been published, there is a continuum from genera that have generally been treated as monotypic for a long time, and those affected by recent changes. The same situation could found at other ranks. Perhaps add an additional paragraph:

If a taxon is now treated in Wikipedia as monotypic, but in historical or alternative treatments is not monotypic, separate pages may still be retained for both taxa, the one for the monotypic taxon explaining its former or alternative scope.

I have used 'may' because sometimes (perhaps because two species have been lumped) the explanation could legitimately go on the single page envisaged by WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. William Avery (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC) William Avery (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a list of former species is out of place on a page covering the genus and sole remaining species. I've just written Hypertelis – it's a plant, but the same principles seem to apply. It seems quite natural and proper to me to have a list of former species in the taxonomy section, which will, of course, discuss past and present circumscriptions.
 * There should be a description section in every article about a taxon. But if there's only one subtaxon in the taxon, two articles will produce two descriptions that are essentially the same.
 * If the previously non-monotypic taxon is both sufficiently different and notable in its former circumscription to be worth a separate article, then there could be one article at something like "X (historic taxon)" and one at "X" covering the current taxon and its single subdivision. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps no problem in this case then. I can merge the list on Archamia (genus) into Archamia. William Avery (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In principle, a two-page solution might sometimes be appropriate. In practice, I don't know of any cases where there's so much information about a former broader circumscription to justify separate articles. That's not to say that somebody might not write an article with a ton of information about a former broad circumscription of a currently monotypic taxon, just that, as far as I'm aware, no articles like this exist. However, see Category:Obsolete taxa for articles that are basically about former circumscriptions (although monotypy isn't involved). I think in the case of Archamia, the former species can be covered in a single article with the current species. Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Boldface for common vs. scientific names
A recent attempted edit suggested that boldface only be used for whichever name matched the title of an article; that is, if the title uses the common name, then the common name appears in boldface in the first paragraph, and the scientific name does not, while if the article uses the scientific name, then the common name is not boldfaced but the scientific name is. Myself, I would argue that both should be in boldface the first time they appear, and that subsidiary common names appearing in the introduction should be bold, as well. For most of the pages dealing with insects, at least, this is the default practice - e.g., Crane fly, Dobsonfly, and Coccinellidae. However, there are apparently occasional exceptions, e.g. Monarch butterfly. Perhaps discussion is needed to establish a uniform approach? Dyanega (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure thst strict uniformity is needed, but I do believe that the scientific name and those vernacular names that are sufficiently commonly used should all be in bold. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad this has been raised, because Peter's view is what was once standard practice. There is a perplexing notion that binomials should not be emboldened, ever, and some biology sub-projects have seen this style applied across nearly all pages as a routine 'fix'. I can only think of two reasons why it might be avoided, and don't believe it overrides the long established norm: important redirects [available as a title] should be in bold, that is a stylistic foundation of the whole document. When the 'scientific name' defines the article's scope, it is more important than the title. However, if the list of names and redirects is expansive, there is a risk of a lead looking ungainly to some, this is a solution to that concern: I would not embolden every synonym and common name when they appear in their own section, deferring instead to the weight of sources and usage, and would create that to move out a long line of boldly formatted text from the lead section. cygnis insignis 09:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of articles that do not boldface the scientific name. To me it seems like that should always be in boldface, since it is always at least a redirect name and is a very well established name by which the subject is known (see MOS:BOLDFACE). I just noticed this in a bunch of snake articles and found my way here after trying to see if there is some special convention saying not to boldface them (which would not make sense to me). I just went through the List of largest snakes and I see that about 80% of them don't have the scientific name in boldface in the corresponding articles about them. The largest snakes in the world are presumably not obscure species that few people care about or notice. (I just boldfaced one of them, and will probably do more.) There are even some articles in which the scientific name is the title of the article but is not boldfaced in the lead section. Here's a link to the current version of Crotalus cerastes, for example. It does not have the article title in boldface. Is this just a snake phenomenon, or is it widespread for all species on Wikipedia? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay - what I have been doing for 15 years is trying to be as conforming as possible to one style - which is as follows:


 * - if article in scientific name - then that is in bold and italics in lead. Also common names are bolded - best to only mention widely used common names in lead. Esoteric ones can go in Taxonomy section.


 * - if article in common name then common name bolded and scientific name (for style reasons) looks best unbolded, italicised and in parentheses. I don't care too strongly if all scientific names in this group are bolded or unbolded (though I think unbolded looks better), it is much more important that they all follow a uniform style.


 * Does this make sense? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I think the primary (e.g., most well accepted) scientific name should always be in boldface in the lead, since that is a well accepted name by which the topic is known, and since it is always either a redirect name or the article title. I think that is more in keeping with MOS:BOLDFACE than what you described. I see no justification for not boldfacing the primary scientific name. For all articles on Wikipedia, we use boldface when providing the primary name(s) by which the topic is known, and the scientific name is an important well recognized name used for the topic. I agree that if there is a long list of common names and some of them are relatively obscure, the obscure ones don't need to be in boldface. But the primary scientific name should always be in the opening sentence and should always be in boldface. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that would support not using boldface for those (although I am willing to learn if that is an incorrect understanding.) —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Manual_of_Style/Organisms is not a policy or guideline (it has been in a draft stage for many years, and there have been no recent attempts to bring it from draft-status to guideline-status), but it has long suggested leaving the scientific name unbolded when the article title is a vernacular name. And that is the usual practice when the article title is a vernacular name. I'm not keen on putting any name (scientific or well-known vernacular) in parentheses; parenthetical terms are omitted from some views of Wikipedia (Google and Duckduckgo snippets (but not Bing), and formerly Wikipedia's internal pop-up previews). It may be better to discuss this particular issue at the MOS draft.


 * There is an issue relevant to this page in terms of the number of articles that are using an arbitrarily chosen vernacular name as a title (not necessarily the most common one) due to longstanding conflation of a common/vernacular name and WP:COMMONNAME. If scientific name titles were used instead of arbitrary vernacular names for various rare and poorly known amphibians, rodents and fish, there would be fewer cases where the MOS draft suggested unbolded scientific names. This page currently says:




 * That is complete nonsense. There are no "zoological nomenclature authorities" for vernacular names. There are various regional and international groups that suggest vernacular names with some degree of "officialness", but none none of these groups would style themselves as "nomenclature authorities". (and yes, there are some articles with scientific name titles where a vernacular name would be an improvement). Plantdrew (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are international formal proper names for birds and no other taxa. Okay, not fussed - if you can come up with a proposal that all scientific names in the lead should be bolded and it is supported as a style guideline that'd be a good start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What Casliber describes above has been my long understanding of Wikipedia style. I can't find that expressed in a guideline. (Perhaps I'm thinking of Manual of Style/Organisms, which is only a proposal.) BarrelProof's idea that the scientific name should be bold is a reasonable one, but I don't think we should start on that unless there's a change in consensus. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 13:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Organisms seems to be an expansion or possible future replacement of Manual of Style/Lead section, but the latter is a policy and not just a draft. They even have the same examples (eg. "Thomson's gazelle (Eudorcas thomsonii) is the most common gazelle of East Africa ..."). See this discussion for consensus to retain this status quo of bolding/unbolding in the lead ( ie. articles at the common name title having the common name bolded in the lead with the binomial unbolded and italics in parentheses immediately afterwards). Loopy30 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have always gone with the scientific name in bold/italics, as I feel that "ascetics" is an exceptionally unimpressive rational to override MOS:BOLDFACE and that it actively downplays the scientific name as irrelevant. the discussion happened over a decade ago and should be revisited.-- Kev min  § 15:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I started this thread (a few years ago now), and still feel the same; I feel that the scientific name should always be in bold the first time it appears, whether it is the article title or not. Beyond that, details are negotiable, but I would push for the MOS to make this the official approach. Dyanega (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since Loopy30 has pointed out a 2011 discussion (here) where there appears to have been a consensus not to boldface the scientific name, I suppose we should not be using boldface unless some new RfC is opened that reaches a different consensus. That doesn't fit my personal view, as described above, but it appears to have been agreed. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a consensus from over a decade ago, and one that per the comments above, is not regularly followed by a section of active taxa editors.-- Kev min  § 17:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking over that old discussion, it is limited to articles whose title is a common name, and it says nothing about taxonomic ranks, which makes a difference, in my mind. Reading it carefully, and considering the nuances, I would adjust my stance to this: IF the article title is a common name for a species/subspecies (not a genus, family, or other rank), then the format of having the scientific name immediately following the boldfaced common name but not bolded would be acceptable to me. I would not agree in cases other than species/subspecies names. So, for a family, it would appear as (e.g.) "Robber fly is the common name used for any member of the family Asilidae." Does that make sense to people? Dyanega (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see three issues with the "Robber fly" example: 1) That article is a, not ; are you suggesting to rename it? 2) If not, then are you still suggesting to start the article with the common name instead of the article title? 3) I think your suggested opening sentence violates MOS:REFERS – i.e., the subject of the article is the type of fly, not the name for the type of fly. As for species articles, what would be the suggested opening sentence for ? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I suggest preparing a new RfC. Yes, 11 years is a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia. Back then we still had a special capitalization convention just for birds and butterflies. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How are we back on this after so many years. :D I care little if the article's title is the common name or the scientific name. Embolden the first instance of the title name and any other reasonable variant and alternate name. Is the article about a species only? Then common name(s) and binomial get bold. Is the article about more than just a species (ie, is this a monotypic genus?)? Then bold as species, and bold the genus. Is this a genus article that's also a family article? Bold the genus and family name, as well as the common. Etc. It's simpler to do this, and leads to the most consistent level of emboldening. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. The further discussion should take place there, not here, in order to keep the discussion centralized. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

For editors with an interest in fauna naming....
See Talk:Yellow rattlesnake, Talk:Crotalus lutosus and Talk:Crotalus molossus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of those three, two of them are articles and one is a disambiguation page. Neither one of the two articles has the scientific name in boldface in the lead. The disambiguation page has three candidate targets. Out of those three targets, only one of them has the scientific name in boldface in the lead. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Echo of the above comment that a lot of articles about snakes don't seem to have the scientific name in boldface in the lead. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (edited) It used to be the case that many snake articles (which usually had scientific name titles) had common names presented as a pseudo-hatnote, with the scientific name in bold at the beginning of the article body. This was an idiosyncratic style of retired User:Jwinius. I'm not sure if other editors working on snake articles ever really followed their example. Various editors removed Jwinius's hatnotes; e.g. Black-tailed rattlesnake, Great Basin rattlesnake, Crotalus cerastes. Black-tailed and Great Basin rattlesnakes were moved to common name titles in 2020, after which Casliber debolded and parenthesized the scientific name. Crotalus cerastes remains at a scientific name title, but the scientific name was bolded de-bolded and parenthesized by the editor removing Jwinius's hatnote. I don't think the hatnote was good practice, but at least Jwinius was consistent in keeping the scientific name in bold. Plantdrew (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like Crotalus cerastes was not bolded in that edit; it was parenthesized but de-bolded. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to say de-bolded there. Edited. Plantdrew (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jwinius had his own style which differed from just about every other biology editor on wikipedia. Many snake articles are at scientific names due to his strong preference for same and often a lack of consensus will lead to change down the track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Apparent errors in "Common (vernacular) names" section
Hello all- In the third paragraph of the above-linked section, two of the example names given appear to be in contradiction to the guidance provided in that sentence. I do not believe that bottlenose or slime would be considered proper nouns. Eric talk 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That section is just about article titles, not for use in other contexts. Perhaps should be more clear. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 19:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the sentence to which I refer above does address body text, and seems to contradict itself. Maybe we should nix that part? My post was kind of a drive-by; I found this page while looking for discussions or guidance to supplement what I posted here: User_talk:169.234.220.45. Eric talk 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The main answer to the question is MOS:LIFE. It is a constant battle to keep species common names lower case except for proper nouns. Many enthusiasts read publications with different styles and think we are wrong. I've read books about butterflies where they capitalize the names of butterflies but use lower case for birds, and visa versa. That's their privilege, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia about everything, has its own manual of style and MOS:LIFE is plenty clear. I've not critically read Naming conventions (fauna) in a while and it may need rewriting. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I linked to in the discussion on the IP talkpage. But I now see that I misread the sentence in question anyway: For some reason I read "beyond the first word" as "beyond the first instance". Don't know why. Taking brain back to manufacturer for a refund. Eric talk 12:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sentence is a relic of the time when Wikipedia was capitalizing common names of species. There's no need to describe a capitalization practice for groups of species that is (now) the same as the capitalization practice for species. Plantdrew (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

New example required for WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA
Do we need a new example to replace the following:

The order Amphionidacea redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii.

Amphionides now seems to be placed in Decapoda. Although the redirect is still in place, I think this example should be changed to something technically correct.

Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Over at WT:TOL, Snoteleks says:
 * So any of those should do (other than I wouldn't use the Yogsothoth ones; they're funny to Lovecraft fans, but potentially distracting).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kweetal_nl added:
 * A subset of such birds: 3 orders, 38 families and many, many genera, here: User:Kweetal nl/sandbox10 Kweetal nl (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish, ok done one. Please review. I think at least one of those examples may be incorrect actually, so may do some more fixing. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe not in a position to carefully review this (not a subject-matter expert); I'm just basically acting as a messenger. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe not in a position to carefully review this (not a subject-matter expert); I'm just basically acting as a messenger. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Names of subgenera
Looking at Category:Animal subgenera, I see a mixture of subgenus articles titled Genus (Subgenus) and of others simply titled Subgenus. Is one of the two preferred, and should the titles be standardized one way or the other? The former would avoid clumsy parenthetical disambiguations like Thunnus (subgenus) (that could instead be Thunnus (Thunnus) per WP:NATURAL), although I'm not sure if that is necessarily preferred. Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , there's a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive_53, but that didn't result in any widely agreed consensus to follow a particular format. My preference is for Genus (Subgenus) since it more clearly indicates that something is a subgenus (for the small number of people who are aware of subgenus nomenclature) and handles cases of nominate subgenera (where the subgenus name is the same as the genus). Plantdrew (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I tend to agree with your preference, but it's sad that the discussion didn't seem to have gone anywhere. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)