Wiktionary talk:Taxonomic names

Earlier discussions mentioning taxonomic names

 * in Wiktionary space
 * User talk:DCDuring/Taxonomic entries

Some discussion topics
Wiktionary does not have very good coverage of taxonomic names ("taxa"): only about 10,000. If Wiktionary is to cover a large portion of such names, it would be desirable to resolve some of the unresolved questions about their presentation.

Some unresolved issues are how WT:CFI should apply, inclusion of subspecies and varieties, general structure of definitions, placement of species epithets (L2), placement of vernacular names, content of any pronunciation section, and treatment of synonyms and obsolete taxa. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

 * RfDO of Category:Requests_for_pronunciation (Translingual)

Special Headers

 * Scientific names

Inclusion

 * Why have 'em?
 * WT:TR

Presentation of vernacular names

 * BP discussion 2009

Species epithets

 * Etymology_scriptorium/2011/March

Templates
Several templates are relevant:


 * 1)  See also Category:Entries using missing taxonomic names and its subcategories
 * 1)  See also Category:Entries using missing taxonomic names and its subcategories

Automatic generation of species-level articles
It is being done at Swedish WP: LSJBot for species articles ... example entry at Polycheria mixillae

Thoughts on entry content
Taxon entries are of different vintages and the information available and appropriate differs greatly by type of taxon (rank, etc), acceptance of the name by major databases, existence of each type of information for individual taxa. Furthermore my sense of what is important, interesting, or practical to add to stub or incomplete entries changes.

My own sense of what is desirable and worthwhile for various types of entries has evolved greatly over time.

Genus and species entries are both numerous and of relatively high interest, particularly if the organism is spoken or written about widely. They (and all virus taxa) should have the headword in italics and a gender indication.

For species entries, it is particularly useful to have an image. Species entries have Hypernyms sections only if there are intermediate hypernyms between family and genus (subfamily, tribe, subtribe) or genus and species (subgenus, section). Hyponyms often don't exist and may not be worth including even when they do. Species entries do not have etymology sections because the genus name and epithet are better locations.

For genus entries, images of the type species or, where different, the basionym are desirable, especially if they give indication of why the genus name was selected. Genus names warrant a fairly complete Hypernyms section. I am no longer convinced of the desirability of having complete species lists under Hyponyms, preferring the type species, any species for which we have or should have entries, and referring users to external databases for more complete lists.

For higher taxa, the taxon name should not be in italics, nor need it have a gender. All such taxa are plural in form. I would like to have the most complete entries for the taxa (only order and above) included in Ruggiero et al., which is intended to be a modern classification structure stable for 5 or more years. I use to indicate that the entry for such a taxon has as much information as is practically available and appropriate.

Family names are the most important type for which I have no explicit content standards, except for the desirability of both Hypernyms and Hyponyms sections.

Names above genus would benefit from image montages or galleries to show the range of morphologies included. DCDuring TALK 13:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)