Talk:APG II system

message: The APG II system does not use italics for ranks above genus. Nor does the Wikipedia Manual of Style specify them. Therefore they should not be used on this page. - MPF 09:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

message: There are several styles in use for typesetting scientific names. Probably the most widely used style is where names at the rank of genus and below are italicized and the names at the ranks above that of genus are set in normal script.
The Nomenclature Codes do not prescribe any particular style but lead by example. The ICZN (governing names of animals) uses the style where names above the rank of genus are set in small capitals and names at the rank of genus and below are set in italics. The style promoted by the ICBN, ICNCP and ICNB (governing names of plants, fungi and bacteria) is to use italics for all scientific names (see e.g. Art 18.
In practice this style of italics for all scientific names is used by a number of publications ranging from some of the oldest botanical journals to some of the most popular.  This style is also used by a number of websites, including those of the USDA ( plants and 
GRIN), sites aimed at the general user rather than at taxonomists.  Italics at all ranks is a well-accepted style, proportionally more common than many of the various styles of English that are mentioned in the Manual of Style .
The Manual of Style is quite unambiguous as to this matter (Quote from the opening paragraphs of the wikipedia:Manual of Style).
===Disputes over style issues===
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk
:I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.
:Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.
:Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."
:I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk
:I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.
:Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.
:Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."
:I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes over style issues

message: I've reverted the latest version by KP Botany to correct errors that were introduced in part due to the erroneous reference to the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (P.F. Stevens, 2001 onward) as being the "APG companion site" that was included in an earlier version of this article; I have also removed this reference. As far as I can tell, although it is more up-to-date the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website and largely following APG II, this website does not represent the APG, and its classification certainly differs from APG II in several respects. MrDarwin 02:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion