Talk:Brassica rapa subsp. narinosa

RFD discussion: February–April 2016
Subspecies are not standardly catalogued thus; would be correct (but perhaps  suffices; I don't know what the consensus on the taxonomy of these is). The reason that one sees this format so often is that a variety (see Variety (botany)) can also be listed as the third part of a trinomen, but in that case var. (not italicised) must precede it. To disambiguate in lists of subspecies and varieties, subsp. can be used in the same position as var. to positively indicate that it is being treated as a subspecies rather than implying that one is not passing taxonomic judgement on it. All the same, I think it should be no more than a soft redirect to. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We aren't so much trying to comply with their rules, but rather to include terms that are used. This is used]. This notation does seem more prevalent among botanists than among zoologists. Sources such as Wikispecies and The Plant List use it. I will be happy to let others sort it out as long as the result can be implemented practically and no distinct attestable content is lost. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that, insofar as a dictionary can catalogue taxa, this is not a lexical item. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to use ssp. instead of subsp. and so do some floras. Also, botanical sources tend to disagree on whether such taxa are subspecies, varieties, cultivar groups, etc. Leaving the abbreviation out avoids the issue somewhat (though, technically speaking, a trinomial with no abbreviation could only be read as a subspecies, according to the code, IIRC). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a lexical item because it meets our standards for inclusion, principally that it is attestably in use and is not SoP. Moreover, in this case it is a good definiens for tatsoi, as well as other words in other languages. Meeting the rules of the Codes is suggestive that a term is in use, but is not conclusive one way or the other about inclusion. I use this format for convenience as Wikispecies entriesand use it. DCDuring TALK 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Metaknowledge is correct in that a subspecies is properly referred to as . It may be common in textbooks to use various abbreviations to indicate a subspecies, variant, or hybrid, but these aren't standardized, and often the status of a subspecies is debated within the biological community.  So it would make more sense at Brassica rapa narinosa, where it would be easily found by the greatest number of readers.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do Wikispecies, WP, Commons, The Plant List, EoL, NCBI, and Tropicos all use the subsp. notation? Are they in error? Are they trying to make it harder for users to find the main entries? DCDuring TALK 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At IPNI a search for "Brassica rapa narinosa" yields nothing but for "Brassica rapa subsp. narinosa" yields two hits one for the subsp. form and another for var. There are probably other databases that use other notations, but they are not the global standard ones. Can anyone produce contrary evidence.
 * I'd be happy enough to use redirects as finding aids to the extent that the failed search for the three substantive terms does not put "B. r. subsp. narinosa" at the top of the list. DCDuring TALK 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably they're all trying to be helpful by telling people that something is a subspecies. But as you've already seen, the word can be abbreviated multiple ways, and isn't universally used.  And this is just one subspecies.  However, a check at subspecies indicates that taxonomic forms for animals and plants differ.  My answer, originally suggested by Metaknowledge, would have been correct if this were a duck, or a marmot, or a fish; the trinomen would have been the correct form.  But in botany, there are several ranks after species: subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, and subform.  Since no more than three names can be used, it's necessary to identify which of these is intended, hence the abbreviations subsp., ssp., and var.  Unfortunately, there's no standard to follow as to which abbreviation is correct, and evidently also some disagreement as to whether this is a subspecies or a variety.  So I think redirects might be the best option in this case.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to RFV and keep if cited. Ƿidsiþ 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, moving to RFV is a very silly thing to do (we only do that if something isn't obviously citable). I will just interpret your comment as a vote in favour of keeping. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – as far as I can tell, no one is disputing that this is attested and idiomatic, so it should not be deleted. Making it a soft redirect to Brassica rapa narinosa seems fine to me, though, assuming that Brassica rapa narinosa can be cited. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess, per DCDuring and Mr. Granger. Attested and not semantic sum of parts, also not a misspelling. Note that does not seem to be more common than . --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Kept. For Ƿidsiþ's benefit, I also added a citation. bd2412 T 03:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)