Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

These problematic statements in the guidance have still not been addressed:
1. In general, all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable
2. achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication.
3. All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of ... a valid name for animals and protozoa.

The ICZN does not require publication in an academic source -- or even a reliable source -- for proposed nomenclature to become available. It also does not require additional publications, of any quality, and including databases, for an available name to become "valid" (as is clear from e.g. Mollusk Base). Therefore claim #2 is plainly false and unworkable as guidance.

Even if we interpret "relevant international body of taxonomists" to be "one of the dozens of clade-specific orgs that the guideline makes zero reference to existing" rather than "the nomenclature code from the relevant international body of taxonomists that we explicitly link to", claim #2 is still totally false. As I demonstrated above, all it takes for a mollusk name to be listed as "valid" is publication to the same standards as the ICZN -- even when the name is self-published by someone with an extensive history of bogus species designations. Such names are not downgraded until other papers (again, of any quality) are published disputing them. I only checked into Mollusk Base because it was mentioned as an example of an international society that provides the alleged secondary academic RS coverage -- even though the org explicitly disclaims performing any evaluation of a proposed name, is not academic, and does not appear to be under editorial review; if this is the case for one random org, how do we know every other valid name-designating body doesn't use the same low standards?

JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That took me a few tries to read and understand. If you don't mind a few "devils advocate" questions to help understand/sort this out. Aren't you self-conflicting? It was you who said that a mere listing in ICZN qualifies as meeting the SNG requirements (paraphrasing....recognized as an extent species by the relevant international body of taxonomists) and then you go on to say that it doesn't meet those requirements because ICZN listing means merely that that name is available and an unverified claim has been made by someone. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that it doesn't meet the SNG? I'm just noting that "having a valid name" (=presumed notable) for animals requires nothing more than the name being available and unchallenged, which is utterly inconsistent with the claims made in the guidance that valid species names always correspond to significant descriptions in reputable academic publications. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from where I got it from before, you just said it again in your 22:55, 20 November 2024 post. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to analyze/sort out your OP. A premise of the approval of this SNG is that it can be evolved, and if your post sorts out into something that needs a change, we should work on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the story runs like this:

• For a small number of "extant species", there exist "names" which have (theoretically) been "accepted under the relevant nomenclature code", but that are not actually "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" because they were not "published in a reputable academic publication".
• Therefore, when the guideline says that "achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication", this statement is somewhere between utterly false (it is sometimes possible, at least temporarily, to get a name by publishing a significant description in a disreputable publication) and a Lie-to-children (what ultimately matters is acceptance of the species, rather than registration of the name, and these two have been demonstrated to diverge in – where's an envelope when you need one – less than 1 in 1,000 species; this paper, for example, reports the official rejection of 59 such problems and their accepted replacements, and no source I've yet seen speaks of more than "about 100". Since there are about two million accepted species, we would need 20,000 such problems to have this affect even 1% of species).

I therefore judge this to be immaterial, but realistically speaking, I expect the slight discrepancy, amply compensated for by editors who have consistently discouraged, deleted, and redirected all such uses, to rankle for JoelleJay unless and until the wording is changed to be 100.000% correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

amply compensated for by editors who have consistently discouraged, deleted, and redirected all such uses Indeed. Endless articles being created for non-accepted/valid synonyms was not a problem before this guideline and will continue to not be a problem now that the guideline has been adopted, and people like me will continue to validate the status of species articles we work on and move/redirect pages as appropriate. Hair-splitting over nomenclatural validity and taxonomic acceptance like this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know?? From an earlier post:

[There is] someone (with no specialized degrees, I might add) selling the shells of species they discovered, on the same website on which they sell the "journal" they created to report these species. See some of the products offered by Guido Poppe (whose Wikipedia article was created by someone who claims to own the images it uses, and has created many stubs on snail species, e.g. Homalopoma concors, which isn't even at the accepted species name (Gloriacollonia concors, which is sourced to the original publication in Visaya by Poppe and a followup pub in partner company ConchBooks by Poppe)...), like Bayerotrochus philpoppei1 ("accepted" on Molluscabase, where it is sourced to the original description by Anseeuw P, Poppe G, Goto Y and to a "personal communication" from Anseeuw P).

That's one editor who has created dozens of stubs on snails, many of which he discovered and/or were published in his pseudo-journal. We already have nearly 600 different articles citing a totally unindexed, un-peer-reviewed journal that doesn't even appear to have any editors, so it sure doesn't seem like we're doing a good job filtering out the "unreliable" sources supporting species articles. And again, that's just for one journal that apparently no editors have ever looked into more carefully. How much content that is exclusively citeable to that source will need to be removed?

(Pinging @FOARP, who upthread had asked about the reliability of the sources used to describe new species) JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy doesn't run on your standards, and your insistence that species described in non-indexed publications are automatically invalid, even when included in authoritative databases recognised by experts in the field, is frankly out of touch. These articles are not copyvio, promotional (no, the fact that the author also sells shells does not automatically make a species article with no mention of his business an advert), defamatory, or misleading in any meaningful way - they are no bigger problem than any other pages marked with maintenance templates, and this is a problem that persists across Wikipedia in every topic because we rely on editors to put in the hard work of keeping things up to date. You'll find that JoJan moved Homalopoma concors to the correct name as soon as the synonymy was noticed, by the way. Unless you would like to assist in developing a bot to automatically update articles as new taxonomic opinions roll in, Wikipedia remains a perpetual work-in-progress where perfection is not required. If you care about these outdated pages, please join us in consulting the literature and reliable databases to determine the correct names of species and update their articles to the best of our ability. You're just wasting time repeating the same arguments from the proposal discussion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My standards are the verifiability policy requirements for this website. On Wikipedia information must be sourceable to reliable sources, it does not matter what implicit sourcing standards "taxonomy runs on" (especially when they have been widely criticized in real academic publications), if such RS are not available then the information cannot be included on Wikipedia. If a guideline is saying it's acceptable to have an article that can only be verified by a hobbyist's unreliable self-published webpage and a database that uncritically scrapes its details, then the guideline is a problem. Requiring positive proof that a garbage-sourced topic is inaccurate before we can remove it is literally the opposite of our policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think that's what's actually happening? We have had no difficulty removing work from the "taxonomic vandals". We expect to have no difficulty doing so in the future.

Ethmostigmus, I'm intrigued by what you said above: Taxonomy doesn't run on your standards. It doesn't happen to run on my personal standards, either, but the field's standards are the ones that matter. If they don't have a problem with an expert marking his own work, then who am I to tell them they're wrong? In similar Wikipedia scandals, I've seen small journals publish papers written by their own editor-in-chief. Wikipedians who disagree with the content of the paper soundly denounce the publication as utterly unethical and proof of unreliability. Wikipedians who agree with the content of the paper never say a word about such scandalous behavior, probably because it's not actually scandalous in the context of the field.

I remember when astronomers started posting their findings on this new "internet" thing. It was very upsetting to some in the field. No more gatekeepers? Nobody endorsing my work? Nobody telling me which thing is worth paying attention to? However, pretty soon, the advantage of immediacy and completeness won over the field. Sure, there are mistakes and corrections and the occasional embarrassing mess, but real science can be messy. Sometimes the initial answers are wrong. Sometimes even the corrections are wrong. What matters, though, is that science corrects itself over time. That means that both they, and we, have to cope with the fact that today's "accepted" species could well be tomorrow's "invalid" one. I'm okay with that. The editors who do most of the work in this area seem to be okay with that. And it's okay if not all editors find that reality comfortable. People can live with discomfort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you understand what I'm getting at. Species descriptions, good species descriptions of new taxa, are often published in hobbyist publications, and yes, sometimes by people who are in the business of selling specimens. These people are often in the best position to discover new species - think of the times a new fish has only been described because someone saw something unusual at a fish market! As an example, Pterostylis antennifera was first described in an issue of Australian Orchid Review, a hobbyist magazine, by Australian botanist David L. Jones. Many valid Australian orchid species (and many synonyms - orchid taxonomy here is quite a topic) have been described in AOR, and experts behind the Australian Plant Census evaluate their validity. This is pretty standard. I've found taxonomy to be rather meritocratic compared to other fields - you don't necessarily need a degree or to get your work into a big-name journal to describe a new species. If your work stands up to scrutiny, others in the field will accept it, and if not, it will be placed into synonymy like all the rest. Taxonomy is an artificial construct - it is constantly shifting as new authors interpret new data and reinterpret old data in the context of new knowledge. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you work in a field for which getting a PhD and getting your work into a big-name journal is the goal of all right-thinking researchers, then the different attitude may seem quite shocking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are hosting articles on species claims that have not stood up to scrutiny yet at all. A research paper that has undergone peer review has already had far more scrutiny than a self-pub that a database curator deems meets ICZN criteria, but we don't even consider getting peer-reviewed and edited by 3+ independent experts sufficient endorsement of a paper's findings that we are confident it has the academic consensus necessary for an encyclopedia entry. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's happening? We have 600 articles sourced to a self-published magazine that regularly platforms work by taxonomic vandals. The standards for publishing in taxonomy are ludicrously low, as has been decried by many taxonomists including an ICZN commissioner on this page. You can't seriously be suggesting self-published un-peer-reviewed "journals" are actually not only RS, but equivalent to reputable academic publications just because the ICZN rules allow species nomenclature introduced in such sources to be "available" and thus "valid"...as if meeting some minimal preliminary criterion is equivalent to acceptance by the wider taxonomic community! If that's all it should take then why don't you loosen the requirements for all the other species to be merely "published somewhere"?

And come on, you know better than to compare the accuracy expectations of a tertiary reference work like WP to the publishers of primary research. And you should be well aware of our policy that Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Database curators acknowledging that a given new species name meets the ICZN availability and validity criteria does not mean they are endorsing it or its author, or that it has even been critically examined by a single independent person ever. You've decided that a "valid name" always corresponds to reputable academic SIGCOV, apparently without being aware of the ICZN's standards, and now you're trying to twist our definition of "questionable sources" and deemphasize our instruction to be cautious even when using expert SPS so that you can claim vanity publications by people like Poppe and the databases that index his output are actually reputable academic sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Databases like MolluscaBase, WoRMS, Plants of the World Online, World Spider Catalogue, etc are considered generally reliable sources by experts in their respective taxa. You are the one who doesn't consider them reliable, and your opinion does not take priority over actual taxonomists. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they were unreliable, I said they were not academic publications for the purposes of this guideline and their designation of a name as "valid" is clearly not evidence of wide taxonomic acceptance and certainly not of secondary critical analysis of a species hypothesis. A website that simply tabulates the claimed characteristics of a proposed new species and notes that its status has not been challenged yet is not the same as a review. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline doesn't say that species must be declared valid in an academic publication, because that isn't how taxon validity works. You've implied throughout this entire conversation that respectable databases like MolluscaBase are unreliable, despite the fact that they are regularly used by experts. But it's a moot point, because you are not the arbiter of reliability. Experts in the field treat it as a reliable source for taxonomy, and Wikipedia users will follow the experts, not you. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline explicitly states that all "valid" name species have significant descriptions in reputable academic publications. I am explaining that that is not a true statement if the only coverage of a species is its original self-published paper and a database that is calling it "valid". JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked into Mollusk Base because it was mentioned as an example of an international society that provides the alleged secondary academic RS coverage -- even though the org explicitly disclaims performing any evaluation of a proposed name, is not academic, and does not appear to be under editorial review This is just not accurate. I don't know why you've decided to try to discredit MolluscaBase, but what you've said about it is simply incorrect. Per its own "about" page, it is an authoritative, permanently updated account of all molluscan species. It is an offshoot (and recognised database) of the World Register of Marine Species run out of the Flanders Marine Institute and curated by professional malacologists from institutions like the Australian Museum, the Field Museum of Natural History, Harvard University, the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, etc. It is routinely cited in malacology papers. To claim that MolluscaBase (or WoRMS by extension) is "not academic" is completely ridiculous. The editors of MolluscaBase are subject matter experts who curate the database based on the most recent literature, because that is how taxonomy functions. You might not like it, but you don't know the field, and you are not the arbiter of academia. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a prior comment:
And for more evidence that for Mollusca a single publication that merely meets name availability standards is automatically sufficient for a species to have a valid name, and this lasts until specifically proven otherwise:
12345 and definitely many many more listed as valid among the 211 other taxa in the database citing that 2021 48HRBooks book and the 227 taxa citing a 2020 48HRBooks book;
109 and 147 taxa respectively citing the "June 2017" (date is apparently uncertain) and "December 2018" (date is according to a personal communication) 48HRBooks books that a) were the sources of many of the 235 taxa shredded by Pall-Gergely et al in 2020, including many 12 currently listed as accepted (valid) (they were only mentioned as "no comment" in the 2020 paper) and added to the database in August 2017 alongside many 1 of the taxa that were explicitly called out as vandalism in 2020 and subsequently had their "accepted" status changed to "uncertain", and b) species whose statuses are uncertain only because different 48HRBooks by Thach are dueling over their possible synonymy 1;
this species that was added by curator Pall-Gergely in February 2022 sourced to a February 2022 article by Pall-Gergely.

That is a tiny selection of examples related to just one malacologist whose work was eventually noticed by other researchers; how many other single-document (let alone self-published) taxa are uncritically added to and listed as having valid names on this database alone? How many other databases employ similar standards for name validation?

Mollusk Base explicitly states that they do not perform any analysis or evaluation of a given species publication, which is why they will uncritically list names as "valid" that were published through pay-to-print book companies by known taxonomic vandals. There is no apparent editorial control beyond curation, which is why its curators can personally add entries calling a species they discovered "valid" the day after they published on it. There is no secondary prose discussion of any aspect of a new species entry, and why should there be when the database is not and does not purport to be an academic publication? It's literally no different from WormBase curating data on genetics, phenotypes, reagent availability, etc. for individual C. elegans strains; it might be generally reliable, but it is not an academic publication. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your other comment. I am aware of the situation with Thach. Barna Páll-Gergely, the malacologist who rejected many of Thach's names, is himself a MolluscaBase editor. Again, following the most recent literature and applying the relevant nomenclatural code to determine the validity of a taxon is just how taxonomy works.

This is all a red herring anyway, given that under this guideline the moment a species is no longer considered valid by the relevant taxonomists, it is expected to be redirected to the valid name. This is the process Wikipedia has operated under for years and has not changed. If you have an issue with MolluscaBase, take it up with the field of malacology and all the respected authors who contribute to and cite it in their work. It is treated as a reliable source by the experts who utilise it in their research, and editors will continue to use it as such, regardless of your personal opinion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pall-Gergely is the MolluscaBase editor who created the entry for a species he discovered and listed its name as "valid" only days after he published it. That's probably fine for a simple database but it is absolutely not something that would be acceptable for any academic publication, a significant description in which this SNG claims will always exist for valid species.

Pages that are verifiable almost exclusively to singular unreliable sources should not exist on Wikipedia. We don't allow pages based wholly on reliably-published single scientific studies, even when their details have been populated into numerous official databases and are guaranteed to be the subject of further independent research. From what has been said previously it seems that a large proportion of new species are never even published on again, let alone in a reasonable timeframe or by an independent group or in a reliable source, so we don't even have a defensible expectation that any issues will ever be noted! JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by We don't allow pages based wholly on reliably-published single scientific studies, even when their details have been populated into numerous official databases and are guaranteed to be the subject of further independent research.

Is this intended as a normative or a descriptive statement? Because if it is intended to be descriptive, I dont think it can possibly be accurate unless the domain of the topic is specified. But perhaps it is intended to be a normative statement (expressing an individual preference)... Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is very clear that research papers are primary for the findings they report, and this is obviously observed by the community's removing thousands of pages on topics based on single papers. See e.g. Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics (discussed in two papers),
Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis (nom: "A couple of primary sources in the scientific literature do not show this topic meets WP:GNG"),
salt extraction process ("one specific procedure described in a 2005 research paper"; "all sourcing is primary; it has peer-reviewed articles about it, all by the same authors"),
ELKO theory ("Article based upon one source which has been cited 4 times"; "No, primary sources aren't enough. Otherwise anyone who managed to get a paper published in a journal could claim that their work deserves a Wikipedia article. And that just isn't the case."), etc. etc. JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, you appear to be citing discussions of other topics as though they were relevant for biological species. The enwiki community treats those topics differently. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?? I am talking about the fact that Wikipedia does not permit pages on any science topic that can only be sourced to one primary paper, and I think pre-RfC the broad expectation for species was that there actually are other papers discussing them; but this guideline makes it possible for an article to exist even when we know there are no other papers on the species. JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious what definition you are using for "science topics". You clearly have a personal definition in mind, but is there community consensus behind such a definition? I also suspect you are using a definition of primary/secondary that differs from high-level community consensus, as well. Strongly-held personal views are not a substitute for documented consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No topics should be based on primary papers, per "high-level community consensus" documented in policy. I mention science topics in particular because species identifications are scientific hypotheses just like the findings in research papers in every other field. And it's obviously not just my "personal view", did you not read any of those AfDs? JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I did read those AfDs, and they all appeared to me to deal with research findings, rather than species. I am not aware of any higher-level consensus on "scientific topics" that would require these two sub-topics to be treated identicaly.

You personally may believe that species identifications are scientific hypotheses just like the findings in research papers in every other field, but I am not aware of any widespread consensus on Wikipedia endorsing this view. Barring such a consensus, it isn't really effective to use such an assertion as the major premise of a syllogism. Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new species discovery is a research finding. The status of any taxon is a
scientific hypothesis, which can (and should) be subjected to
testing via new methods. This happens
in part because taxonomic names are often used as though
they are stable hypotheses, when in fact taxonomies often
have a degree of uncertainty and fux. ... Most reptile taxonomists do
not adopt a new taxonomic hypothesis unless it has been
included on a widely respected global list, the Reptile Database (one of the databases that actually needs to be listed in this guideline!) The process of describing a new species is considered to be equivalent to generating a new hypothesis in other branches of biology. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will let this go now, but not without pointing out that "stated in three published papers" - which is what you have demonstrated - is not a particularly good indicator of widespread consensus on Wikipedia, which is the threshold I had indicated. There are many, many assertions that could be supported with clear statements in three published papers, but which would never meet with widespread consensus on Wikipedia - definitions of primary vs. secondary sources, to name but one example. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have consensus that research papers are not secondary, and there's nothing to suggest that there has been any formal consideration over what a new species paper is that would constitute a Wikipedia consensus that it is somehow not an original scientific work.
And it's not just "three papers", it's the consensus of the same taxonomic community that this guideline is championing. The notion of unchanging definitions of units of biodiversity clashes with the scientific method that treats taxa as hypotheses to be tested and challenged with further evidence, revised and redefined as the science dictates (Camargo & Sites, 2013; Pante et al., 2015). Species are hypotheses: avoid connectivity assessments based on pillars of sand JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that you are arguing against a non-existent statement that only you are making/implying (that a DB listing alone fully meets the SNG standard) rather than showing any fault in the SNG standard. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, the guideline states All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a valid name for animals. These are the only ICZN criteria for a name to be considered "valid":

The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission.

[A name] that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and ... which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment

The correct name for a taxonomic taxon, i.e. the oldest potentially valid name of a name-bearing type which falls within an author's concept of the taxon

The ICZN explicitly accepts self-published, un-peer-reviewed papers for the purposes of establishing available names.

Thus, a new species actually wouldn't even need to be listed in any database; per the ICZN, a self-published article purporting to describe a new species with the correct nomenclature format is sufficient to demonstrate the name is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment.

The database listing comes into play because for every other kingdom there are authoritative committees dictating which names are valid, but for animals this is not the case, so in practice name validity is more easily ascertained by taxon-specific databases that track the literature and note any challenges or synonymy for a name. Some databases might be prescriptive and only designate a name as "valid" once it has been used in multiple publications, but others (such as the one for mollusks) apparently may mark names as "valid" as soon as they're published (as seen with the curator who gave a new species he discovered "valid" status days after he published), or whenever curators get around to it, without assessing evidence quality or author expertise or publisher legitimacy or needing the existence of any other papers using the name (let alone reliably-published ones). JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're just still fully opposed to species notability and want to continue the same arguments you made during the proposal discussion. If you have a proposal for alternate wording that still reflects existing practice, you're welcome to share it. But if you're just going to continue opposing species notability on principle, you're wasting your time. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are not acknowledging or responding to my main point. I'll try it another way and then not try again. If you will forgive the blunt wording which might be useful. Your are arguing against a statement (implicity) created by you which is "merely having an ICZN listing categorically satisfies the SNG" and then arguing that this false statement is false and that somehow this shows that there is a problem with the SNG. Maybe we could move this along by agreeing with what you said about the non-existent statement. I agree that merely having a ICZN listing does not categorically satisfy the SNG criteria. And restating that another way: The SNG criteria is so tough that merely having an ICZN listing does not satisfy it. So how does that show a problem with the SNG criteria? Sounds like the opposite. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all, I think that we should just acknowledge that she rationally believes that there is a potentially serious problem with the wording at the moment and that it could be read the way she's describing. (If you happen to think this reading requires maliciously misreading it, that's fine; you can keep those beliefs to yourself, and I'll only say that out of the 800K registered accounts last year, at least a couple of them actually were malicious wikilawyers.)

While we have clearly agreed upon some things (e.g., this guideline should not be interpreted as supporting creation of articles about alleged species described by Raymond Hoser), there doesn't seem to be any clear idea about how to address this concern, and there seems to be little interest in doing so, but we don't need to "make her be wrong" or keep arguing with her. Shifting our attention to extinct species or to nothospecies would probably be more immediately productive, and we can always come back to this later if one of you wakes up in the middle of the night with a brilliant idea about how to clarify the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally nothing in this guideline that suggests a new publication by Hoser would not satisfy the "proof of taxonomic acceptance" afforded by the "existence of a valid name". The ICZN defines a valid name as an available name that an author believes is correct in its taxonomy. Per the ICZN, that can be satisfied by self-publications. Why are you so opposed to requiring that species must be documented in reputable peer-reviewed academic publications? JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle, the vast majority of Hosers names (all but <5ish of the hundreds of "new species" he claims to have described, if my memory serves) are considered synonyms for other taxa, and are not independently notable under this guideline, which is why you'll find that the few names of his that do have a presence on Wikipedia are almost entirely redirects to the valid name of that taxon. Hoser's work is almost universally rejected by the herpetological community and thus fails the part of the guideline that states notability is presumed for taxa that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists. The ICZN accepting a name as available does not mean the name is considered valid by the relevant taxonomists, which is why the ICZN is not mentioned in that section. This is a total strawman argument. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works for the names where other researchers have already published on them, but for any new name he publishes there is nothing in this guideline that would prohibit considering it "valid". The guideline does not state that "acceptance by the relevant international body of taxonomists" means "acceptance by certain authoritative databases"; in fact, the only "relevant international bod[ies] of taxonomists" ever referenced on this page are the nomenclatural committees, and we state concordance with their definitions of "valid name" directly satisfies the SNG. So how is it at all intuitive for NPP, AfC, etc. to read this guidance and conclude that "this new animal species description in SPS meets the criteria for a valid name as dictated by the ICZN, thus meeting the SNG section on eukaryotes, but actually we can't use those rules that we link to and instead we should check whichever taxon-specific database requires positive, reliably-published community acceptance before it designates a name as "valid", even though the SNG doesn't even hint at mentioning such databases"? JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "merely having an ICZN listing categorically satisfies the SNG"??

I have shown you that this SNG is 100% satisfied by a species meeting the ICZN criteria for name validity. Are you disputing that?

I have also shown you that the ICZN criteria for name validity require nothing beyond the name being available and not currently invalidated. Are you disputing that? JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, you asked "Where did I say "merely having an ICZN listing categorically satisfies the SNG"?" and then you went on to answer your own question by saying "I have shown you that this SNG is 100% satisfied by a species meeting the ICZN criteria for name validity" which is saying exactly that. This exchange is going in circles. I'm bowing out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, there is no such thing as an "ICZN listing". The ICZN supplies a guideline on the requirements for a new species name to become available and to become valid. Unlike some other nomenclature committees, it does not list any species itself. In the absence of any list, deciding whether a name is "valid" is left up to individual researchers, but by default any name that meets the criteria of "published (in any form)", "purports to be a new species", and "correct nomenclature format" is valid per ICZN rules until challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination for the next steps are:

1. Archive the huge discussion to get the page size back under control.
2. Write up something about extinct species based on what's in the archives (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 1#Fossil taxa).
3. (When we're satisfied that we've got the question right) run an RFC on extinct species. The likely options will be: Treat them like any other species, prefer merging up to the genus if there are no extant species in that genus, and say nothing.

Alternatively, we could postpone this and work on the question about Nothospecies instead. If you have preferences or objections, please share them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is there a way to quantify the number of existing articles on extinct species vs. nothospecies? I would suggest that we try to pursue the larger group first if possible, but I'm certainly not at all opposed to addressing them in the order they were brought up and starting with fossil taxa. We'll want to bring the paleo WikiProject and the the extinction WikiProject in to consult on this, and determine where we draw the line for more recently extinct species. I can't say I have much of a personal opinion on how to handle fossil taxa, so I'm looking forward to reading the discussion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never tried to quantify either group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we go purely by categories, which is obviously a very flawed method, extinct taxa are far more numerous on enwiki. Looking at just one category for "modern" extinct taxa, so entirely excluding everything prior to the Holocene, Category:IUCN Red List extinct species alone has over 900 articles, while Category:Plant nothospecies only has about a hundred (it's very underutilised IMO). I'm not sure how actually representative of the real numbers this is, but I would guess that paleo articles (especially dinosaurs) are more well represented as charismatic megafauna. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need to come up with some way to indicate that charismatic megafauna will always get an article. Like: If we choose A, then T. Rex gets an article; if we choose B, then T. Rex gets an article; if we choose neither, then T. Rex still gets an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this is an interesting example for how WP:Paleo has handled extinct taxa, T. rex does NOT have an article, all the Tyrannosaurus specie are all lumped at Tyrannosaurus.--Kevmin § 20:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In botany, nothospecies (i.e., sterile hybrids between species) have to meet the same nomenclatural requirements as orthospecies (including a description). In practice, they are less commonly encountered than orthospecies, and even those encountered are sometimes not given a formal description, so they have no name and are simply referred to as "the hybrid between parent 1 and parent 2". While Plants of the World Online catalogs the ones that have been properly named (so that they do tend to slide by under the criteria adopted here), they generally receive less attention in other secondary sources. Regional floras may mention them in passing, even if they have a name, and not include them in keys; they are assumed to have morphology intermediate between the two parents, so are not always explicitly described separately from either (in floras that describe the covered taxa). They usually don't get conservation protection, since they don't represent an ongoing lineage. On the other hand, that also means they're more likely to be omitted from lists that some editors have used as the basis for mass creation. (The lack of conservation status means we shouldn't, theoretically, have old PolBot stubs on hybrids.)

I'm happy to hear the zoological perspective, but from the botanical side, I'm not sure we have enough data yet to warrant a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, guideline dealing specifically with nothospecies as distinct from orthospecies. Choess (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the main options for a nothospecies decision are:

• We should encourage articles on (some? named?) nothospecies.
• We should discourage articles on nothospecies unless they meet GNG.
• We should add a little educational blurb about nothospecies, so folks know what it is and know this guideline doesn't cover it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up, and if I understand the zoological code of nomenclature correctly, it explicitly excludes the naming of hybrids. So plant nothospecies can be given a binomial name (with an "×" in it to designate hybridity) with a description; animal nothospecies cannot. Some plant nothospecies would qualify under this guideline (if they have a legitimate binomial name and hence a description, and are also recognized by taxonomists). Those that do not have a legitimate binomial, like animal nothospecies, would not meet the guideline (since there's no guarantee of a description) and would be evaluated as usual per GNG. So I guess I'd lean a bit towards option 1. (I'd point at one of my own articles, Asplenium × boydstoniae, to see what can be done with a comparatively obscure named hybrid.)

Qian et al. (2022) estimate about 369,000 vascular plant orthospecies and 7,300 nothospecies accepted by scientists, so about 1.9% of vascular plant species diversity is nothospecies, to give an idea of the scale of what we're discussing. It isn't a huge number of articles relative to total vascular plant diversity, and vascular plants themselves aren't the major driver of total species numbers. (There are roughly as many described, accepted vascular plant species as there are beetle species; beetles are notoriously diverse but still not a majority even for insects.) Choess (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any significant number of (named/accepted) nothospecies that aren't vascular plants? I'm not sure whether that 7,300 is likely most of them, or if it's only a small portion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the Code gave you the idea that hybrid animal species are excluded? Hybrid origin should have no bearing on the validity of a name under the ICZN, to my knowledge. Though not as common in animals as in plants, there are named hybrid species - in the previous discussion on nothospecies, Kodiak Blackjack mentioned the Clymene dolphin, Amazon molly, and Papilio appalachiensis as examples. Functionally, I don't think there should be much difference between our handling of naturally occurring named animal and plant hybrids. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art. 1.3.3 of the ICZN. I mean, ask someone who knows it better—the Codes are remarkably different in so many aspects—but it seems that the examples you've given are all cases where the species was named before it was known or confirmed to be hybridogenous, and that you can't set out to give a binomial to something you believe to be an F1 hybrid under the ICZN (a big difference from the ICNafp). I guess we could say that nothospecies that have been scientifically named fall under this guideline, and those that have not don't and are evaluated as usual; non-taxonomic editors applying the guideline don't need to know that hybrids can be named & described deliberately under the ICNafp but only accidentally under the ICZN. Choess (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1.3.3 is referring to hybrid specimens (for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2)) not considered taxa/representative of a population. Article 17(.2) states The availability of a name is not affected even if [...] it is applied to a taxon known, or later found, to be of hybrid origin, and the ICZN's FAQ page says this (emphasis mine): The ICZN does not cover names for hypothetical concepts (e.g. the Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusc or the Loch Ness Monster), teratological specimens (monstrosities), or hybrid specimens (although taxa of hybrid origin are covered). Here's an example: as I understand it, mules are not covered under the ICZN and lack a binomial name because they are (usually) sterile hybrids not considered representative of a self-sustaining population - they are considered hybrid specimens, not a hybrid taxon.

Going to go ahead and ping @Dyanega (I hope you don't mind!) to clarify, just in case I'm off base here: have I interpreted the Code correctly in my paragraph above? I would love to get your opinion on if/how this guideline should address hybrid taxa. I'm much more familiar with the botany side of this than the zoology side, so I would really appreciate your insight. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is accurate; hybrid individuals (whose parents are of two species) cannot have a binomial, but a lineage that arose from a hybridization event and now reproduces on its own DOES get a binomial. There is obviously a little bit of a gray area there in terms of evidence for one versus the other, but that's the principle. Dyanega (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly lean towards option one, with the caveat that it only covers named, naturally occurring hybrids (eg. Thelymitra irregularis) - so as to exclude the endless amount of obscure hybrids made by plant breeders and found only in captivity (eg. cultivated Euphorbia or orchid hybrids), which should fall under GNG in my opinion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are a long way from needing to express a preference on which one. The first task is to decide whether it's dinosaurs or the nothospecies. The second task is to write a good description for each.

Whenever the latter happens, I'd like some familiar examples of what is as well as what isn't. Are hybrid tea roses nothospecies, or does that designation apply more specifically, e.g., to Rosa 'Peace' or to none of the above? Is a mule a nothospecies? Would the suggestion of "naturally occurring" exclude Triticale? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were asking us to provide our opinions on the three options you outlined. But to answer your question, yes, for the purposes of this guideline I would exclude hybrid tea roses, Rosa 'Peace', mules, and Triticale - they are all man-made, and all but the Triticale species lack binomials. I don't know of any hybrid roses that are considered nothospecies (there may be a few, I'm not very into Rosaceae, but cultivated hybrids are typically just considered cultivars and not given hybrid names). "Nothospecies" is a plant term, so doesn't directly apply to mules, but they are in a similar situation as hybrid roses - they aren't considered named hybrid species. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing whether you could choose one of the options is very valuable. It suggests that at least one of the options isn't illogical/inappropriate/etc.

Thanks for this information. I am, as you can see, heavily reliant on other editors to help me grope my way through this material. I'm sure I will have more questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 1#Fossil taxa and other comments. We appear to have three options.

(This is too long to shove in the table, so I'm putting it here. —User:WhatamIdoing)

If all species in a genus are known only from fossils, then the species are not presumed to be notable and should be merged to the article about the genus.  However, some extinct species in extinct genera, such as the Woolly mammoth, qualify for separate, stand-alone articles under the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. If two or more species in a fossil-only genus are especially well-described, then those well-described species may be split for size reasons, with less extensively described species remain merged to the genus; however, when only a single fossil species qualifies for splitting, then a split is not recommended.

If some species in a genus are known only from fossils and others are still extant or are extinctions in modern history (becoming extinct after about 1500 CE, such as the Dodo bird), then all species in that genus should be treated equally, which means that the extinct species is also presumed notable.  An example of a genus with some extant and some extinct species is the Metasequoia genus of redwood trees.

(Now back to the ordinary content.)

What have I got wrong so far? What's missing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the usual practice when there is a genus with fossil species and a single extant species is to have an article for the extant species and the genus. However, if editors aren't making a specific effort to consult paleontological literature, the fossil species often get overlooked. Since bird articles use the "official" vernacular name as the title for species, genera with a single extant species were often created as redirects ca. 2005-2007, and have only been given articles in the last few years (see Category:Bird genera with one living species). Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the multispecific genus with a single extant species: in the prior discussion here with A Cynical Idealist and Larrayal, I thought we had agreed that a genus with four species – fossil1 + fossil2 + fossil3 + extant1 – usually resulted in a single article on the genus, with voluntary/consensus-based exceptions to split out particularly well known ones like Ginkgo biloba. Do you think that would normally result in separate articles on Genus and Extant1 instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a reasonable default, yes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So would this mean that Tremarctos floridanus (extinct) and Spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus, extant) should be merged into Tremarctos? The genus and floridanus articles are short, so size isn't a problem, and neither species is "famous". Donald Albury 21:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this suggests that those would get merged up. However, (a) Consensus! and (b) I think the Spectacled bear, if not technically a case of Charismatic megafauna, is close enough (maybe a case of "animals that appear in children's edutainment television shows") that I'd expect editors to prefer splitting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! Donald Albury 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a majority paleontology editor who concentrates on "non-charismatic" taxa (plants and insects), I usually go with an approach of all species talked about at the genus IF the genus is also extinct. If the genus is extant, I will always create a separate article for the fossil taxon, as the geology, chronology, known elements, repository, paleoecology, etc are all highly distinct features of the fossil only and provide enough information to generate an A-B level article. I would NOT support merging of fossil species into extant genera articles. Additionally since Tremarctos is not monotypic it is not beholden to wp:monotypic guidelines, so the extant and extinct species are all considerable as species level notable.--Kevmin § 15:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point with Tremarctos is not that it's monotypic, but that there's only two species. However, you're right: Since one of those two is extant, then my comment above is wrong: It wouldn't get merged up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A monotypic taxon is a taxonomy group with only one member, such as a genus that has only one species in it. Examples of monotypic genera include the Beluga whale and the platypus. The rule appears to be:

"In the case of a monotypic genus (i.e., there is only one known species in the genus, counting both fossil and extant species), it is usual to merge the lone species article into the genus article."

Should we add this sentence to the guideline? It could be put in the third paragraph, which currently says only "Consider making appropriate redirects for synonyms and non-notable organisms."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MONOTYPICFLORA might be relevant here (to make sure we don't conflict). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more nuanced than that, but I think something along those lines should be added. The nuance is that bird and mammal articles (and some other vertebrates and very little of any other organisms) use vernacular name titles for species, so the monotypic genus redirects to the species article at the vernacular name title. Where scientific name titles are used, the species redirects to the genus. There is some inconsistency to that (i.e. genus redirects to species), but overall species redirect to genus is the usual practice (and there is also an explicit exception in WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA to use the species title if the genus name is ambiguous with another topic on Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be enough to add something like See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for advice on how to name the article? (Otherwise, we should plan a short ==Monotypic taxons== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson, @Plantdrew, anyone else: Does this work?

"In the case of a monotypic genus (i.e., there is only one known species in the genus, counting both fossil and extant species), it is usual to merge the lone species article into the genus article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for advice on how to name these articles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects to monotypic guidelines. Firstly, there is locating the article at the genus name if there is no common name, which is the part most widely applicable. The second aspect, on merging, I get the impression mostly comes up when there is taxonomic revision and the articles in question are poorly developed. That said, this seems to be about naming rather than notability? CMD (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The part this guideline cares about is the bit that says "it is usual to merge". If it's too confusing to deal with "merge the lone species to the genus, except if there's a common name, in which case merge the genus into the lone species", we could re-write it to be vaguer. Perhaps "it is usual to merge the species and genus into a single article", with no hint about whether one merges "up" or "down"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a decent idea, maybe "In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice." Probably no need to mention monotypic families etc., rare enough cases. I went and had a look yesterday and we do have the monotypic Toxoplasma gondii not in line, but the rest I checked were. CMD (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I understand that we do it and has been my experience. The paragraph you wrote covers it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we add this text:

In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice.

to the lead of this notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging up in this case is the long-standing community practice, and I think it should be documented here. I'm inclined to add it to the very end of the lead.

For those who are struggling to remember how this works, when you get down to the end of King Philip Came Over For Great Spaghetti, sometimes there is only one "spaghetti noodle" (species) in a given genus. The community has long said that it makes more sense to have a single article about the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) than to have one article about Ornithorhynchus, that says the platypus is the only one of them plus a separate article at Ornithorhynchus anatinus that says the platypus is the only Ornithorhynchus ever found. So we merge the two into a single article. Of course, Wikipedia:Consensus is king and can overrule this general rule, but I'm not aware of any exceptions or any desire for exceptions.

(Apologies to any who believe an RFC is overkill for this change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's the default process. Exceptions could of course be allowed per local consensus, such as in cases where taxonomy may be unclear and some authorities suggest monotypic and others do not, it may be best to keep separate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is simple, describes the current practice, does not repeat what is in WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (important for maintenance), and directs the reader to the appropriate guidelines. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Current practice pretty much everywhere, and avoids duplicate articles. However, it should be clarified that "monotypic" also counts extinct species in its definition (which isn't always the case), otherwise we would have things like Homo and Homo sapiens being merged. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is very much useful to specify what is already obvious to many editors because you never know if there is an editor somewhere out there that is not aware of this. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as common practice, with known exceptions for cases where monotypicity isn't guaranteed or there is a debate about it in the scientific literature. But that's also current practice anyways, so I think we're fine. Silverseren^C 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both common practice and very sensible (which is not always the case). - Donald Albury 00:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Keep a system that has worked very well in practice. Every so often a taxonomist does complain that in such cases we are shifting the focus from the only taxonomic unit that "matters" (YMMV) - the species - to a more arbitrary higher category, which is a valid point, but it does make sense in terms of encyclopedic organization. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sensible, current practice, and not entirely obvious to new editors. Pagliaccious (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the notability guideline should summarize and link to relevant policy. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 13:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as noted already this is the default practice for monotypic taxa and as a linking of monoflora and monofauna to Nspecies.--Kevmin § 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the caveat that genera with extinct species and one living one aren’t considered monotypic, per Chaotic Enby. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: default practice. _ZZ^Z'S 05:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]