813:, the accepted name (as determined by consensus in recent taxonomic sources) should be used as the title. In some cases, there may not be consensus in recent sources. We don't need to wait for Google page counts for a recently accepted name to overwhelm results for a long-standing name now regarded as a synonym. However, neither do we want to rely on a single primary source; we don't immediately incorporate the nomenclatural results of every phylogenetic study that comes out; we wait for those changes to be supported by some secondary sources (this is basically the same logic that applies to changing title of articles on cities or other geographical features that have had a name change; new usage doesn't need to overwhelm old usage, but recent sources should demonstrate adoption of the new usage).
85:
53:
615:
point that means moving 2194 articles (that's just for plants; animals also have monotypic genera at the genus title). That still wouldn't solve the problem for
Wikidata. And there are a couple reasons why using the genus title is preferable; it's more concise, and it harmonizes with how fossil taxa are treated (my understanding is that people working on paleontological taxa settled on not having articles on species first, and that played a role in the decision to have living monotypic genera at the genus title).
123:
213:
64:
195:
681:. Scots and English articles at the genus title that are connected to the Wikidata item for the species ought to be connected to the Wikidata item for the genus (although there's no great harm in leaving them connected to the item that holds the most interwiki links). As long as at least one Knowledge (XXG) has separate article for a monotypic genus and it's species, it won't be possible to keep all the interwiki links on one Wikidata item.
288:
22:
785:. Is this sufficient reason to move the article, if I judge that Persicaria affinis is much more commonly used? Ie, should the recommendation to use scientific names be interpreted as using the accepted name (backed by taxonomical sources), or the name which people are most likely to THINK is the "scientific name" (as indicated by the use in other sources, comparison of Google page counts etc).
157:
71:
70:
223:
63:
789:
This flower (like so many others) is known by several vernacular names... and each of these vernacular names are “the most commonly used” in different areas of the world. However, no matter which vernacular name is used in a given area, it is UNIVERSALLY known also by its scientific name. Thus, the
614:
It would certainly make the rule simpler if it was "treat monotypic taxa at the lowest rank" rather than "treat monotypic taxa at the lowest rank, but no lower than genus except when the genus name is ambiguous with another
Knowledge (XXG) article". I kind of wish we had gone that route, but at this
505:
Yes, I had noticed that
Wikidata is rigid. But today readers of Wikipedias other than English can't see some of articles because of hidding species descriptions in articles about genera. I think that most clear, natural solution would be if species and genera had separate articles. This is not the
435:
but it is impossible: "Could not save due to an error. The link enwiki:Orthilia is already used by item Q1552593." etc. Perhaps it could be fixed somehow on wikidata level, by omitting redirect template, so those articles about species hidden in articles about genera could stay. But in such
575:, about the botanical sense, since these are different in English. But they may or may not be in other languages, and certainly other Wikipedias don't all have two articles, so it's not clear which article to link to which. Restricting Wikidata to 1:1 links is just wrong.
404:
This rule generates errors in article pages, because links in the left panel point to articles in different languages about genus, not species. And vice versa. Articles in different languagest don't point to an
English article. Here is an example article about
592:
I think that much better would be have separate articles about species, not genera like currently, because description are about species. So in case of monotypic species only an article about species, no article about genus.
506:
same as Bonnie and Clyde. Because Bonnie and Clyde are Bonnie and Clyde, Bonnie is Bonnie, Clyde is Clyde, but genus is not species. And better solution would be to ommit articles about genera, not species.
701:
If using
Wikidata to do the interwiki links is causing a problem in this article... don't use Wikidata. Be creative, and find another way to do the interwiki links. Problem solved.
176:
348:
340:
332:
324:
316:
308:
451:
Indeed. Unfortunately, this is a problem with wikidata, which seems to be getting mired in various problems. I thought I could fix it by adding the
Wikidata redirect template at
673:; Wikidata must have two items for the genus and species to accommodate these Wikipedias. Arabic, Azerbaijani, Danish, and Vietnamese Wikipedias have separate articles for
642:
I had noticed this issue coincidentally a day before yesterday, wrote so many messages because of strong resistance to this information. You can do what you want.
753:
it's always a tricky issue. I would bold "major" synonyms, i.e. those widely used that have a redirect. Too much bold is distracting and unhelpful, in my view.
578:
It's completely pointless to have separate articles about monotypic taxa just because of an elementary design error in
Wikidata, and we aren't going to do it.
488:
58:
842:
837:
491:, which describes the problem and the recommended resolution. Please read at least the second link, because it contradicts your accusations.
847:
249:
170:
165:
84:
52:
567:. It's nothing to do with genera and species particularly. A different example is that the English Knowledge (XXG) has two articles,
236:
200:
147:
132:
33:
136:
97:
92:
140:
542:. But in this situation, readers of Knowledge (XXG) in other languages would not see English article about species.
736:
180:
of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
361:
436:
situation
English articles about genera would not be visible in articles about genera in different languages.
39:
758:
583:
460:
248:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
100:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
419:
in the left panel, no one is English. Because English description is hidden in the article about genus
382:
365:
808:
748:
732:
411:
135:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge (XXG)
822:
799:
762:
740:
710:
690:
651:
624:
602:
587:
551:
515:
500:
478:
464:
445:
818:
686:
620:
770:
795:
778:
754:
706:
579:
456:
367:
96:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
647:
598:
547:
511:
474:
441:
455:
but it hasn't worked yet. Not sure if it might work later, after some batch process happens.
782:
665:
The Cebuano, Dutch, Polish, Swedish, Waray and Chinese Wikipedias have separate articles on
496:
483:
The problem is on the Wikidata end: Wikidata is not able to (easily) link to redirects. See
452:
363:
287:
122:
177:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge (XXG) policies
563:
the problem is with Wikidata not any of the Wikipedias, as has been explained to you at
212:
194:
814:
682:
616:
572:
400:
Monotypic taxa: A genus with a single species is treated at the article for the genus.
831:
791:
702:
564:
228:
643:
609:
594:
558:
543:
507:
470:
437:
423:. But species is species, genus is genus. Why to hide articles in different ones ?
492:
156:
520:
218:
723:
This guideline doesn't say much about putting synonyms in bold. So I guess
164:
For information on Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to the establishment of new
724:
525:
431:
222:
245:
568:
241:
368:
281:
15:
781:
currently tells us that the accepted name for the species is
769:
Is "scientific name" equivalent to "accepted name", or does
484:
155:
121:
728:
390:
790:
scientific name is actually the most commonly used.
526:
https://www.wikidata.org/Q156153#sitelinks-wikipedia
489:
d:Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items
432:
https://www.wikidata.org/Q162501#sitelinks-wikipedia
240:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
415:It contains links to about 20 other articles about
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
150:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
469:So far this this a bug in Knowledge (XXG).
106:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manual of Style
189:
47:
90:This page falls within the scope of the
191:
49:
727:takes precedence. Accordingly, I did
146:Contributors are urged to review the
7:
143:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
109:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
21:
19:
38:It is of interest to the following
258:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Plants
14:
234:This page is within the scope of
286:
221:
211:
193:
83:
69:
62:
51:
20:
571:, about the general sense, and
93:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
1:
763:07:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
741:05:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
252:and see a list of open tasks.
843:NA-importance plant articles
838:Project-Class plant articles
823:19:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
800:16:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
848:WikiProject Plants articles
261:Template:WikiProject Plants
864:
711:17:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
691:17:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
652:01:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
625:17:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
603:13:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
588:17:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
552:17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
516:16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
501:14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
479:11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
465:01:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
380:
131:This page falls under the
446:20:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
206:
163:
129:
78:
46:
429:article (redirect) here:
328:(31 Dec 2008 – Jan 2009)
112:Manual of Style articles
528:(Menyanthes trifoliata)
336:(Feb. 2009 – Dec. 2009)
166:policies and guidelines
534:could be removed from
412:Gruszynka_jednostronna
160:
126:
679:Menyanthes trifoliata
530:So the article about
159:
141:article titles policy
125:
312:(2006 – 5 Dec. 2008)
779:Persicaria affinis
320:(most of Dec 2008)
237:WikiProject Plants
161:
148:awareness criteria
133:contentious topics
127:
34:content assessment
538:and connected to
379:
378:
353:
345:
337:
329:
321:
313:
280:
279:
276:
275:
272:
271:
188:
187:
184:
183:
855:
812:
783:Polygonum affine
752:
719:Bolding synonyms
671:Orthilia secunda
613:
562:
540:Orthilia secunda
453:Orthilia_secunda
427:Orthilia secunda
417:Orthilia secunda
407:Orthilia secunda
393:
369:
351:
343:
335:
327:
319:
311:
290:
282:
266:
265:
262:
259:
256:
231:
226:
225:
215:
208:
207:
197:
190:
174:. Additionally,
114:
113:
110:
107:
104:
87:
80:
79:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
863:
862:
858:
857:
856:
854:
853:
852:
828:
827:
806:
777:The article at
775:
773:come into play?
749:Anythingyouwant
746:
733:Anythingyouwant
721:
607:
556:
523:is connected to
425:I tried to add
402:
397:
396:
389:
385:
370:
364:
295:
263:
260:
257:
254:
253:
227:
220:
137:Manual of Style
111:
108:
105:
103:Manual of Style
102:
101:
98:Manual of Style
68:
61:
59:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
861:
859:
851:
850:
845:
840:
830:
829:
826:
825:
803:
802:
774:
767:
766:
765:
720:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
576:
573:Berry (botany)
529:
524:
518:
434:
430:
424:
414:
410:
401:
398:
395:
394:
386:
381:
377:
376:
375:
372:
371:
366:
362:
360:
357:
356:
355:
354:
346:
338:
330:
322:
314:
301:
300:
297:
296:
291:
285:
278:
277:
274:
273:
270:
269:
267:
264:plant articles
250:the discussion
233:
232:
216:
204:
203:
198:
186:
185:
182:
181:
162:
152:
151:
145:
128:
118:
117:
115:
88:
76:
75:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
860:
849:
846:
844:
841:
839:
836:
835:
833:
824:
820:
816:
810:
805:
804:
801:
797:
793:
788:
787:
786:
784:
780:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:Peter coxhead
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
718:
712:
708:
704:
700:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
626:
622:
618:
611:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
580:Peter coxhead
577:
574:
570:
566:
565:Talk:Orthilia
560:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
527:
522:
519:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
457:Sminthopsis84
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
433:
428:
422:
418:
413:
408:
399:
392:
388:
387:
384:
374:
373:
359:
358:
350:
347:
342:
339:
334:
331:
326:
323:
318:
315:
310:
307:
306:
305:
303:
302:
299:
298:
294:
289:
284:
283:
268:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
230:
229:Plants portal
224:
219:
217:
214:
210:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
192:
179:
178:
173:
172:
167:
158:
154:
153:
149:
144:
142:
138:
134:
124:
120:
119:
116:
99:
95:
94:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
809:NisJørgensen
776:
722:
678:
674:
670:
666:
641:
539:
535:
531:
426:
420:
416:
406:
403:
304:
292:
235:
175:
169:
130:
91:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
352:(2014–2016)
344:(2010–2013)
171:WP:PROPOSAL
168:, refer to
832:Categories
675:Menyanthes
521:Menyanthes
485:bug T54564
139:, and the
815:Plantdrew
771:WP:COMMON
683:Plantdrew
617:Plantdrew
349:Archive 6
341:Archive 5
333:Archive 4
325:Archive 3
317:Archive 2
309:Archive 1
792:Blueboar
731:. Okay?
725:MOS:BOLD
703:Blueboar
667:Orthilia
536:Orthilia
532:Orthilia
421:Orthilia
391:WT:FLORA
383:Shortcut
293:Archives
644:Darekk2
610:Darekk2
595:Darekk2
559:Darekk2
544:Darekk2
508:Darekk2
471:Darekk2
438:Darekk2
493:Choess
487:, and
255:Plants
246:botany
242:plants
201:Plants
36:scale.
569:Berry
28:This
819:talk
796:talk
759:talk
737:talk
729:this
707:talk
687:talk
677:and
669:and
648:talk
621:talk
599:talk
584:talk
548:talk
512:talk
497:talk
475:talk
461:talk
442:talk
244:and
834::
821:)
798:)
761:)
739:)
709:)
689:)
650:)
623:)
601:)
586:)
550:)
514:)
499:)
477:)
463:)
444:)
817:(
811::
807:@
794:(
757:(
751::
747:@
735:(
705:(
685:(
646:(
619:(
612::
608:@
597:(
582:(
561::
557:@
546:(
510:(
495:(
473:(
459:(
440:(
409::
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
