Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Genus links

A Modest Mammal Proposal (migrated from WP:MAMMAL talk page
I'm just looking to see if anyone would be interested in a discussion to develop policy to standardise the way links and names are set up. At the moment i'm just looking at how genus pages show species, but if there's interest i'd like to expand it to other things. My opinion is that the setup should be:
 * species common name (full binomial name in italics)

Any comments/alternative suggestions? I note that lots of the articles (specifically dealing with rodents, where I spend a large chunk of time) have different setups, ranging from my suggestion to:


 * species binomial name

This I think is useless from the point of view of readers. Someone looking up animals by common name is unlikely to find this at all useful, and since the page automatically redirects to the common name most of the time you may as well display common name as the link.


 * species binomial name (species common name in italics)

Again, the binomial, when clicked, should redirect to the common name, so it's completely pointless.

I'm looking for comments, basic yay's or nay's, and suggestions as to how it could be applied elsewhere or expanded. With sufficient support/comments i'll take the comments into account and work it into a full-on proposal for the tree of life project. Ironholds 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea and I support this lay-out. However, I'd like to add that it should be possible to add a species's distribution, something like this:


 * Some Weird Rat (Rattus weirdanimalus) (southern Brazil and Uruguay)
 * In my opinion, this makes long lists of species a bit more reader-friendly, as it is no longer but a list, but also gives some useful information. Ucucha 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that being a problem in that some of the more stubby articles would just contain that info, but I like the thought. My plan is thus: include all the comments in another proposal, see individual approval for those, make a final thing and stick it to the TOL people, so i'll includeth this. Ironho<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Scientific names are always in italics so I want to start by recommending amending the second and third options to reflect that fact. Overall, I think the first option is the best approach and seems to be the most user-friendly among articles that adopt it.  There are taxa that have no common name (usually fossils and recently described species) and they should be merely listed by the species name.  I'm not sure I want a hard and fast rule, but a formal "suggestion" in favor of the first option would have my support.  It's a small point, but I may prefer "Common name, species name, (distribution)" over "Common name (species name) (distribution)".  That also allows for "Common name (alternate common name), species name, (distribution).  Bonobo vs. Pygmy Chimpanzee or Woodchuck vs. Groundhog are examples where that alternate common name parenthetical would be needed.  --Aranae (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion. I'm going to propose it as a guideline rather than a piece of policy; just "articles are normally set out like X for ease of usage" rather than "you must set up articles as X or we will ban you to the depths of hell". I'm only looking at implementing the first approach; the second and third are examples of how it is currently done and why I think that is unhelpful/awkward. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the primate wikiproject the genera usually have the format: Common Name, Species name while the species pages use the locality information to identify subspecies. I think it might get a bit messy if the location of every species is listed in the genera lists. Jack (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and as I said, some articles are just name/binomial name and location, so it's probably a bit too much. Is the primate wikiproject naming convention a guideline/policy or just something people generally follow? I'm thinking if other projects have the same sort of ideas we could put it to the ToL wikiproject and get it standardised across fauna pages. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this approach. I actually thought that was how we did things (other than the locations), but since I spend most of my time in Primates I guess that may be why I am used to it.  Multiple common names can be accomodated, for example, "White-faced or White-headed Capuchin, Cebus capucinus" in the Cebus page.  And in some cases there may not be a common name, so the binomial would be all there is.  I am not sure the location information would make sense in all cases.  For really long lists of sepecies it may be better to forgo it.  But I generally like the idea of providing some general location information for each species (i.e, the countries or range of countries it lives in) with more detailed information in the species article.  This could help a reader beam in on the specific species he may be looking for, rather than have to go through each species page until he finds it.
 * We could maybe increase the use of categories; rodents in South American down to Rodents in Argentinia down to Rodents in Province X? That way it links all of the animals in that location together and also prevents the genera page getting too cluttered. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use geographic groupings, since often there are taxonomic groupings involved, such as subgenera, and these should take precedence. I also think we ought to be concise in providing geographic information.  If a species occurs in just one or two locations or countries it probably makes sense to list them.  But if a species occurs in more countries a more general description of the location should be used - any detail can be addressed in the species article.  Using my previous Cebus example, and ignoring subspecies, I think the listing could look something like this:
 * Genus Cebus
 * C. capucinus group
 * White-faced or White-headed Capuchin, Cebus capucinus (Central America)
 * White-fronted Capuchin, Cebus albifrons (South America)
 * Weeper Capuchin, Cebus olivaceus (Northern South America)
 * Kaapori Capuchin, Cebus kaapori (Northern Brazil)
 * C. apella group
 * Black-capped, Brown or Tufted Capuchin, Cebus apella (South America)
 * and so on...Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So hang on, in the example is a "group" a subgenus? <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 05:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a species group. A rank lower than subgenus. --Aranae (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh Ok. I'm still kind of iffy on the idea of including geographical locations as A)it clutters the links up something rotten and B) In some articles with newer/less well known species this is the only content, making the article irrelevant. The genera pages themselves normally say "the species are found in area X", so if you have to have a general description as Rlendog has suggested it may simply repeat itself, I.E "species of the genus Cebus are found only in south america" and the location for the white-fronted capuchin then being simply "south america". I also think that "Northern South America" might confuse some people, although I understand what you mean :P. It did make me laugh, though. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 05:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the bolding part in the lead section is very inconsistent. Here are some differentiation in formatting I found in featured articles: It is time for us to address such inconsistencies, especially when there are at least 6 variations in formatting in FA alone, even more variations in stub to GA class. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 17:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Common name (Genus species) (e.g. Andean Condor)
 * Common name, Genus species, (e.g. American Black Vulture)
 * Common name, Genus species (e.g. Ocean sunfish)
 * Common name (Genus species) (e.g. Hawksbill turtle)
 * Genus species, commonly known as Common name (e.g. Amanita phalloides)
 * Genus species (Common name) (e.g. Verbascum thapsus)


 * For the lead I think should be Common name (Genus species) like the Andean Condor; nearly all the primate articles are formatted like that. The last two examples don't fall under the WikiProject Mammals banners and need to be discussed with WP:TOL. Another point of contention with the examples of featured articles is whether common names should be capitalized, although that subject has been discussed exhaustively. Jack (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Personally, I'm not all that sure much of this needs to be addressed any more that we need a standard list of headings or a standard sentence format for the lead sentence. At this point we're getting a bit too much into dictating writing style and approach of specific writers.  The point I would like to make is that a guideline for whether the usage of the scientific name in the lead should be bolded is worthwhile.  Although most articles do not bold them, I have never understood the reason.  There are redirects to the article from the scientific name and people will often look up the scientific name.  I've never understood why scientific names seem to be this unwritten exception to our standard wikipedia style.  --Aranae (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's what this is meant to create; a guideline saying "hey, you can do what you want if you really wish, but it is commonly accepted to write X like X". Personally I see no need for bolding; to me it just makes the page difficult to read. At the moment it seems to be divided between people who want common whateverspecies name (species binomial) and people who want the same but with more information/space for additional common names/location info; I'm going to tally it all up on monday, sort out a proper proposal and get a vote set up :). <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you asked for feedback, and here's mine for what it's worth. Yes to including both Common Name (preferably with initial caps) and Scientific name (always in italics), and both of them in bold in the species' article. Whether one separates the 2 names with a comma or by putting the Scientific name in parentheses is neither here nor there to me...—GRM (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is to do with how they're displayed on the genera pages, but since i'm planning to expand the proposal to other things based on how this goes, thanks for the input :). <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then on genus page, no geographic distribution should be necessary (at least for small genera, see Raphicerus), and name in list can be shortened to Common Name, G. species —GRM (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think distribution should be written, even have a map if possible to see the places there are overlaps. (E.g. Uraniinae, although not a genus). I'm more concerned with insects, that often have no common name at all, so I prefer G. species, common name, (distribution). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)