Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 4

Right then, I'll lay the options out - this applies to all bird articles, and many mammal, reptile, amphibian and fish articles. Plants and fungi are listed at their scientific names so this particular discussion does not apply to them. If you are happy with more than one option, then it'd be helpful for "first choice, second choice..." etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Common name bold (scientific name in parentheses and bold)

The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) is a passerine bird....

Support

1. 1st choice BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. 2nd choice, perfectly acceptable but not the clearest. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
3. 1st choice, Dger (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4. 2nd choice, perfectly acceptable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
5. All significant aliases for the topic of an article should be bolded upon first mention. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Exactly what Cybercobra said. I don't care whether parentheses or commas are used. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
7. 1st choice, bolding shows synonmity, italics that it is faux Latin, and parenthesis that is is an alternative on a different level than other common names - The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) or garage sparrow, as it is sometimes known, is a passerine bird.... Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
   
   • Would change this if we dumped the whole bolding synonyms thing - which was recently discussed I believe. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
     
8. 1st choice, there are cases where the scientific name is lost in lead sentence due some necessary explanation of the common name. --Reo ⁺ 10:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
9. 1st choice; it seems that this is the clearest to me, and it has the advantage of bolding what is (in many cases) likely to be a major search term for the page. Anaxial (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Obviously. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Overemphasis of scientific name. Maias (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

   Please see my comment below. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Too much bold text; I do not like this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
3. already have italics for emphasis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Minimise bolding ought to be the overriding principle. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I wouldn't see the bold italics as necessary option for scientific name if it would be like in the example above, but I see it the best option when the scientific name does not immediately follow the common name. Some argue that it would be overemphasis.. really? Is the common name really allways so much common? Scientific names are used worldwide and they are first think I will look upon, not the common name - My opinion. Reo ⁺ 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Common name bold (scientific name in parentheses and not bold)

The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) is a passerine bird....

Support

1. Looks best to me. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. 2nd choice BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Italics, like the Greek and Cyrillic characters mentioned in
   WP:UE are already distinctive. Best choice, no need to bold. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
   01:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Slick. TCO (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Best option. V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Yes. Maias (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Agree
   ^✰
   01:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Yep. MeegsC | Talk 02:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
9. 1st choice, this is the clearest. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
10. 2nd choice, Dger (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
11. 1st choice. This is the clearest. Too much bold makes bold less bold. JIMp _talk·cont 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Best match of existing guideline? see
    WP:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence the Foreign language section. This vote does not apply to the case of the name, this vote is only for bold/italic ... not for case. Suggest the policy should be clarified to include a section on animals and plants also. --Stefan ^talk
    05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
13. I'm a recent convert to parentheses, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
14. My first and only choice, however, this support accorded only for those two groups of higher vertebrates, Classes Aves and Mammalia, that do have Common Names. All other groups of organisms may, or may not have Common Names, and if they do not, then a case can be made for bolding the non- italicized scientific binomina. Steve Pryor (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
15. This is the best way when there is a well-established common name, as is true for many vertebrates and some other organisms (though probably not even for a majority of mammals). Placing the scientific name within parentheses is standard, and not bolding it makes sense for the reasons Pmanderson gives above. We'll have to do something different for the many organisms that don't have real common names, but that do have names suggested in a book or two, like most of the small mammals I work on. Ucucha 07:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Please let's ration the bold in running text—it sticks out much more than italics, and bolded italics is just so distracting. This is the most reader-friendly version and conveys all of the necessary information. Tony (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
17. Agree. This emphasises the fact that House Sparrow is the most significant, most well-known name, and that Passer domesticus is a really a subsidiary name when we're dealing with a species this well-known. SP-KP (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Minimise bolding ought to be the overriding principle. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
19. Too much emboldening can look untidy. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
20. First choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
21. I think this is the most aesthetically pleasing option. -- Yzx (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Best option ONLY when the scientific name immediately follows the common name (was that stated explicitly?) I also want to say there can be no possibility of overstating the importance of the scientific name. While scientific names can occasionally change, they are hardly ever ambiguous. The same cannot be said of common names - the same common name can apply to two or more different species depending on the locality of occurrence or publication. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
23. Support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
24. Agree with Yzx and Samsara. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
25. the best for most cases, though not sure we need a standard. Commas are too much with alt common names; there's no reason not to use parentheses; and bold is unneccessarz and in where the scientific should not be the first name generallz undesirable. --—innotata 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
26. Best. Common names are more significant in WP than scientific names; boldface should be rationed. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
27. This is the usual professional way of doing it, and also the clearest and therefore most sensible. Contrary to a comment below, I think the parenthesis should be italized--it looks better typographically. It's obvious they're not part of the actual name. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
28. Per above, no need to repeat. ZooPro 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
29. Preferred way. Regards,
    talk
    ) 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
30. Support. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
31. Support, it's what I would expect to see and it's what I indeed in see in the vast majority of articles.
    books
    } 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Comment: The brackets themselves should not be italicised as they are not part of the scientific name. Maias (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Re: Special characters. While the italics are distinctive, there are often instances of multiple taxonomic names being mentioned in the lead, and if its not a genus or below article the name will not be italicized at all. Redirected names should be bolded, and the link to the article titles guidelines are not relevent for the lead sentence. Vernacular names are not translations of the taxonomic names in many cases.--Kevmin § 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Maias. The parentheses themselves should not be italicized.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• As far as I know, general practice in typesetting is that when the parentheses enclose something that is entirely in italics, then the parentheses themselves are italicised because it looks better. Hans Adler 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think we have consensus on that as I've always had mine reverted if I accidentally italicised my brackets...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Samsara. All the examples have one flaw - the scientific names immediately follow a single common name, so that bolding both would run the risk of confusing the two. Such cases (one common name) are the exception rather than the rule.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Common name bold (scientific name in commas and bold)

The House Sparrow, Passer domesticus, is a passerine bird....

Support

1. This seems the most reasonable in most cases --Kevmin § 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Overemphasis of scientific name. Maias (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
3. This is the least clear, particularly it's difficult to see at a glance where the common name ends and the scientific name begins. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Can be a problem if a common name is derived from a foreign or native language. Dger (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Too much bold. I don't like it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Too much bold, especially if common name synonyms too 92.16.109.52 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Minimise bolding ought to be the overriding principle. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Looks cluttered. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
10. doesn't look good with multiple common names or multiple scientific names or both(
    talk
    ) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• What makes bolding a rediected name overemphasis out of curiosity? --Kevmin § 01:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe 'overprominence' is a better term; the scientific already stands out through italicisation. Maias (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We certainly don't bold every redirect; goodness! The bolding is just distracting and ugly. It's ok when it's just the main title, but beyond that it just looks funny. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Too much bolding is not attractive, however in most cases the there will only be the taxonomic name and one to two vernacular names. As such I done see how this is too much. Overprominence seem to fall into this same category. The bolding happens once in the article so I'm not sure I understand how this is reason not to bold one of the major search terms that people would be reaching the page with.--Kevmin § 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Not every redirect, but official aliases, yes. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Common name bold (scientific name in commas and not bold)

The House Sparrow, Passer domesticus, is a passerine bird....

Support

1. Acceptable, and may remind the reader that these are usually two names for one species. 2nd choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. 3rd choice, less clear but not unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. BarkingMoon (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Prefer not to enforce consensus on this

i.e. Let individual wikiprojects (or editors) discuss their own preferences.

Support

1. There will be special cases, particularly species which have no vernacular name, or several competing and ambiguous ones. Flexibility (with a recommendation of a normal solution) is best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. The correct way to utilise and write scientific names so that they impart the greatest amount of information to all readers, is set by the ICZN. WP should be following this code. Faendalimas (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
3. While I do prefer bolding both the valid scientific name and the common name(s) and would welcome at least a guideline enforcing it (loosely), I often separate them in different sentences or different paragraphs not even in the lead altogether (as they can have one or more common names).-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
4. In the sense that I prefer to allow some flexibility page-by-page—but I have no objection to having a first-choice preference (essentially as a guideline as opposed to as policy). I also think Obsidian Soul's discussion point, below, about sometimes starting with the Latin name and then listing one or more common names later on, is entirely valid in some cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
5. We don't need any more rule creep. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• If a species has no common name, then it will be listed at its scientific name anyway, and the article will start something like: Passer domesticus is a common passerine bird..." This is why I restricted the discussion to organisms whose articles are listed at their common names. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • True enough. However, there will still be special cases on the margin between the species listed under Neo-Latin names and those for which there is a natural and obvious English name. I support guidance, and have chosen one; I also oppose making it a straitjacket. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• One of my issues with this is the grammatically correct way to write a scientific name. The Brackets about a Scientific name do actually have significance, as does their absence. When writing a name if the species was originally described in another genus then its new combination is bracketed. For example: Gulf Snapping Turtle (
  Elseya lavarackorum, White et al., 1994) is correct as the species was originally described as an Emydura. Conversly: White Throated Snapping Turtle Elseya albagula, Thomson et al., 2006 is correct as in this case the species was originally described as an Elseya. By the way the correct way to write a name in full does include the author and date. I will add that scientific names are not meant to in bold (this is reserved for some higher orders), the parentheses should not be italicized when present. This information is from the Zoological Nomenclature Code. Faendalimas (talk
  ) 01:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean brackets around the authority part, but that would mean nested brackets here. Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is one reason why a taxobox is a Good Thing - I see this as the place for official full names - yes there are official names for peer-reviewed journals, but one doesn't often see authorities in guidebooks and textbooks for lay readers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the taxobox is a great tool and where the full name should be written, not in the body of the text. The short form is without the authority written, as is present in many field guides etc. For identification of usage the brackets go around the whole name written in full. This is basically why I feel a set of rigid rules here is not a good idea, but that people should be encouraged to write these names correctly. Faendalimas (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the parentheses should only be around the author plus date, not around the name itself (ICZN Art. 51.3). Ucucha 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• My view is that this should define a guideline that should be followed in most cases. It should not be rigidly enforced if there is a consensus there there is a reason for an article to do it differently (i.e. local consensus explicitly trumps central consensus). The reason why an alternative is better for a given article should be expressed somewhere logical though (on or linked from the talk page in most cases). Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I usually open with the scientific name (as the most stable and unambiguous name), then introduce the common name(s) later on. It would have been the following with me usually.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Passer domesticus, commonly known as the House Sparrow, is a passerine bird." or
• "Passer domesticus is a passerine bird. It is commonly known as the House Sparrow or Another Common Name Here."
• "Passer domesticus, commonly known as the House Sparrow, is a passerine bird of the sparrow family Passeridae. It occurs naturally in most of Europe, the Mediterranean region, and much of Asia. It has also been intentionally or accidentally introduced to many parts of the world, making it the most widely distributed wild bird. It is strongly associated with human habitations, but it is not the only sparrow species found near houses. It is a small bird, with feathers mostly different shades of brown and grey. P. domesticus is also known as Common Name#1 in Country#1, Common Name#2 in Country#2, and Common Name#3 in Country#3, among other names."

etc. And yes, I reserve authorities for lists or the taxobox, not inline.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well yeah I write in the above way (scientific name first in bold italics) for all plant, fungus and invertebrate articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've never been in favour of the bolding of every "also known as" term at the top of the main text. To me, one bolding is enough. I'm not quite sure why any bolding is necessary, but I've been hounded down before when suggesting this. If there has to be bolding, I think it should be minimised unless there's some special circumstance. Generally, I do not think clutter at the very opening of articles is appropriate. Cyrillic equivalents of Russian names, Old Style dates ... I footnote these when I see them. We have the readers' full attention at the opening, and we need to retain it to have them read on. Clutter so often obstructs the trajectory. Tony (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, it tells the reader that he is in the correct place. Unlike dates or foreign spelling equivalents (which I also think is necessary), scientific names are (in a majority of cases) the only way to tell for sure that you are reading about the correct organism. Despite being mostly unreadable to laypeople, they are (mostly) fixed, unique, and gives a lot of information readily if you know what you are looking at. They must not be trivialized in relation to the common name. Common names, in contrast, are extremely arbitrary, can change with time, can be vague and misleading, and can be shared by several other species (in a lot of cases over entire families, and even with completely unrelated taxa like daddy longlegs). Some species/taxa also have several different common names, each of which is as widely used as the other. It opens the question of global bias if you favor one common name over another just so you can stick with one bolding in the lead.

If you only bold thylacine for example, a reader quickly scanning the lead will be unaware that it's the same species as the animal he is probably more familiar as Tasmanian tiger.

If you bold blue crab in Callinectes sapidus but do not bold the scientific name, readers won't easily be able to tell that it's not the same species as at least three other species in the same genus, two others in the genus Portunus, and the land crab Cardisoma guanhumi. All of which share the common name of 'blue crab'.

The example (House Sparrow) is one of the fortunate ones - it has a common name, it has only one common name, and it is readily recognizable. That is not the case with the rest. The lead, after all, does more than grab the reader's attention, it also identifies the subject. Wikipedia is not a journal, but it's also not an exercise in creative writing, imho.

I favor flexibility, but if there is only one thing that should be in bold, it should be the scientific name.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, one thing I do more these days is list only the most important common names (for entities which have several) and leave the rest to the body of the articles (to avoid a sea of bolded writing) as generally some names are in more widespread use than others - the whole bolding thing is pretty unique to wikipedia so this is an interesting exercise in formatting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cas, a very good idea, providing smooth lift-off at the start. Tony (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what everybody creating taxonomic articles is already doing anyway? Of course only the most widespread common names are mentioned and bolded in the lead. Less used names (notably non-English local names, except in indigenous or endemic species) are then mentioned in the body but not bolded (though it might be in italics if foreign). Still doesn't change the fact that there are cases when you will need to have more than one or two bolded names, whether or not it's aesthetically pleasing.

Bolding also does not quite violate ICZN/ICBN/etc. conventions as it's simply a way highlight the word once. As the most stable and clear name of the taxon it should be relied on more to identify the subject (much much more important than the common name) and Wikipedia's policy for that is to bold it in the lead. Do we not already bold taxa which do not have common names? Why should the SN be relegated to a 'minor' status simply because it has a common name? It is not trivial, and the italics is clearly not enough for readers to quickly pick it out from surrounding text.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a little more complicated than I thought, but highlights the reason I set it up this way in that it only applies to articles where the layout is written above (i.e I probably should have added Samsara's caveat at the beginning somehow but thought it was self-explanatory) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, yes I would prefer the second type (bold common name, normal SN in parentheses), I guess, as the least confusing of the choices.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 00:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential other titles must be Bold

I don't know about any of that, but as a heavy user, all I care about is this: When the user is redirected to a page, he must see in bold all reasonable "Also Known As" names so that he/she isn't baffled about why s/he is there. The most common AKAs are always in bold. When we could easily have named an article something else, For example,

Closing debate

Okay then, option 1 = 9/4, option 2 = 31/0, option 3 = 1/10, option 4 = 2/1 - which looks like a consensus for option 2 (i.e. scientific name in brackets with no bolding). This has been open for five weeks now and I'd close it myself but maybe an uninvolved person is better? Does anyone feel strongly about this (i.e. who closes it)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems that you held back from the actual (!)voting in anticipation of possibly having to close it, I think it's fair enough that you do. With a result this clear-cut, there can hardly be a complaint. Perhaps someone that didn't favour option 2 (although I had a caveat about it) could also endorse. That would very much put it beyond reasonable doubt imo. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As a person who wasn't involved at all (and don't feel personally affected by this, since I mostly edit plant articles) I would endorse Cas' proposed closure. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)