Talk:Taxonomy (biology)

message: This article has recently passed a GA review with very few questions asked. I've had a look through it and have removed some extremely flaky sources - we obviously can't use Rhymezone (a list of Wikipedia articles that mention a topic, apparently) as a reliable source, and we shouldn't be relying on discussion forums either on a serious topic. I'm not sure why we're citing EB, certainly no better than Wikipedia, instead of going to reliable review papers of which there are many in taxonomy. I've marked up some of the most glaring cases and added some citation needed tags; no doubt more could be done in that direction.
On the more technical question of whether the use of primary sources is appropriate I will not venture an opinion: if we are simply stating that Woese introduced a new idea in 1990 or whatever, that is essentially fine; further, if we use the summary sections of such papers for basic background information, that's fine too. What would not be ok would be to use Wikipedia's voice to say Woese was correct and to cite that to his paper. I have not noticed any such usage here but a far more careful look would be required to answer that question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This article also cites phys.org and Encyclopedia Brittanica in several places, so it would be worthwhile to find more reliable sources. Jarble (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

text: When? 2600:8805:4A11:2400:18C:5D1E:B451:5491 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: I propose merging Systematics into Taxonomy (biology). I think the content in Systematics can easily be explained in the context of Taxonomy (biology), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. --Heanor (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The merging of the articles "Systematics" and "Taxonomy (biology)" was proposed many times in the last 10 years; you can see the (very long) archive of this talk page and the (very long) talk page of "Systematics". 79.32.196.252   00:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  the very long discussions were concerned with the meaning of terms, and hence whether they were different. There's a great deal to read, but the discussion does demonstrate that the boundaries are difficult to draw: if you merge the articles on systematics and taxonomy, which I agree can be done, then why is classification a separate article? How can you have taxonomy and classification without nomenclature? See also my response to Faendalimas below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can see classification is not a separate article, it is merged here be Talk:Taxonomy (biology)/Archive 1#Merge proposal. --Heanor (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

text:  a major difficulty in all attempts to explain 'higher level' biological terminology is that there are two kinds of source, often in conflict: a smaller number of expositions by theoretically minded biologists, and a much larger number of examples of actual use by non-theoreticians, who generally ignore the theoreticians. The first is easy to include as a reference in an article, the second is not. The review in a blog by Wilkins archived here makes it clear that, at least in 2011, there was no consensus as to the relationship between the two. As far as I can see, there still isn't. There are sources (such as The Kew Plant Glossary) that agree with you in making systematics a more specific term than taxonomy; there are sources (reviewed by Wilkins) that make taxonomy and systematics the same; there are sources (favoured by Wilkins) that make systematics include taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The existence of two articles make it even more confusing. --Heanor (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that it makes it , given that there's considerable confusion in sources. A major issue would be whether one article would enable WP:NPOV to be upheld, since there has to be due treatment of all positions on the relationship between the relevant concepts. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  maybe a section relationship between Systematics and Taxonomy, or something like this will make it clearer? There we can write that there are sources that make taxonomy include  systematics, there are sources that make taxonomy and systematics the same and there are sources that make systematics include taxonomy. --Heanor (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  but the problem remains that there are multiple definitions of the terms that are inconsistent, which I think is easier to discuss in separate articles. A combined article would need (1) a section on the alternative definitions of systematics (2) a section on the alternative definitions of taxonomy (3) a section on the relationships between the definitions, but I suspect this would already be covered by (1) and (2). I can't honestly see that a single article on any pair of concepts A and B that has to say that each has different definitions and that in some A includes B, in others A equals B, and in yet others B includes A, is any less confusing that the present arrangement. These just are confusing/confused/disputed concepts. But if you are really keen, you could develop a single article in draft space and ask for comments on using it to replace the existing two. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  basically Taxonomy (biology)#Definition the section itself already answers many questions that there are multiple definitions of the terms that are inconsistent. I can be extended, and we will not need 2 sections as you proposed. The alternative definitions of systematics is already in Taxonomy (biology)#Definition. As well as the alternative definitions of taxonomy. --Heanor (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  a single article at "Taxonomy" with "Systematics" redirecting to it does not seem to me to present a neutral point of view. Sure, "Taxonomy" needs to say that some sources treat it as synonymous with "Systematics", and vice versa, but two articles can properly present the views of the sources that consider them different. Anyway, I think I've made my point. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , ok, if you want the article "Systematics" to stay, I will close this proposal as "no consencus". But the article Systematics is very weak and almost empty. I moved few sentences which can enrich this article here, while leaving them also in Systematics page. The only argument to keep it is preserving NPOV, but I do not feel that that it the write way to treat WP:NPOVVIEW rule.  --Heanor (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  but that's the heart of the issue: are there two subjects or one? But I entirely agree that both articles need work, and have done for years. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  these are two related subjects which both are already treated good enough in this article. --Heanor (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes it should be merged . ScholarAjayYadav (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Systematics into Taxonomy (biology) 

message: Please update outdated paragraph on PhyloCode in Modern system of classification section (originally written on March 31, 2015) to match more up-to-date information on the implementation of PhyloCode available in the History section of the PhyloCode Wikipedia page.
Edit: I did some digging, and the information in the PhyloCode article is also out of date. I was also unaware that verbatim specifications of the edits needed were necessary; it was my first time making an edit request, and I was unaware of the exact requirements.
I'll update the PhyloCode page and return with a properly formatted request.
DidSomebodySayChaos (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've marked the request as answered for now – when you're ready, just replace answered=yes with answered=no in the template to reactivate the request. Tollens (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was indeed seriously out of date. I updated it, with reliable recent references. Some of the text gave an overly optimistic view of the satisfaction that the rank-based codes provide, even among the proponents of this system, as shown by the Linz Zoocode project, which is supported by several systematists (though a tiny proportion of the practitioners of rank-based nomenclature). But most systematists are part of a "silent majority" that did not express itself. So, I reformulated this slightly. Michel Laurin (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment on the phylocode vs Lineaen Taxonomy issue. At present those that use Phylocode are restricted by several issues. First is that they do not have any support among the primary users of taxonomy, for example IUCN, CITES and most importantly the IUBS. The reason the Lineaen System has been adopted for so long is that over the last half century or so it was promoted by the IUBS which all users and end users of taxonomy tend to follow. The IUBS will not recognise PhyloCode at present. Further to this end users such as CITES have a lot of influence in this as it is very difficult to change systems with them. Under their international treaty the changing of the nomenclatural system will require all signatory nations to agree to this. Which may or may not happen. In any case this is largely why its mostly paleontologists using phylocode as there is no endangered species issues for them. The Lineaen system has its issues for sure but it can be made to work with PhyloCode much easier than PhyloCode can be made to work with endangered species legislation. PhyloCode is too unstable for species nomenclature that must pass through government who generally take at least 2 years to change registered species acts. We recently did a survey of the worlds taxonomists, about to be published in PNAS, that showed minimal support for PhyloCode among general users of taxonomy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but some of what you write is factually wrong (not speaking about opinions, which are irrefutable). IUBS does recognise the PhyloCode because the ISPN, which develops it, is a scientific member of the ISPN! It was admitted in IUBS in 2008, although the ISPN should have communicated on this, to prevent such misconceptions. Michel Laurin (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I forgot to mention: the PhyloCode does not regulate species names, mostly because many species concepts do not imply monophyly, and many established species are not clades, so your comment about this topic shows that you did not take time to read on the basic info on the PhyloCode. This code is not "unstable" (not sure what you mean by this), although when it existed as a preliminary draft, it changed more frequently than the rank-based codes; but these were versions of the code that were not enforced. And the slow change in the rank-based codes exasperates some users (some of whom I know personaly). However, future will tell which approach is right for clades. Cheers. Michel Laurin (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: well as a secretary of a working group for the IUBS that deals with taxonomy, and a professional taxonomist, also a member of Linz Code, and part of a group that monitors and develops International CheckList metrics I would say I hear different, directly from the people concerned. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023