Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mass creation

I still think it's important to have "automated or semi-automated" in the mass creation section. Otherwise it doesn't accurately summarise what that policy says. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've no objections. @Cremastra, do you object? All the relevant policies, including MEATBOT, apply to all article creations, so I don't think that including or excluding it changes anything, but perhaps it would be clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the addition now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Too complicated?

Saw this on my watchlist via an edit to WP:OUTCOMES. This seems a bit complicated. I think the de facto standard is if it's a species and it's not a hoax (i.e. it appears in Catalogue of Life or has citations to reliable sources supporting it), then it's automatically notable. I am not sure we need to burden patrollers with this additional flowchart of "is it a prokaryote/eukaryote/virus?" "Does it show up in ICNP/ICTV?" "Is it a correct name or a valid name?"

If this were to be RFC'd today, I'd probably oppose it due to this complexity, but would support a simpler version. It is silly that species are not an official SNG even though they are a de facto SNG, so I support the idea of promoting species to SNG in general. We might not even need a subpage for it. It could be as simple as adding a bullet or sentence to WP:N.

Do you have plans to eventually RFC this? Honestly I don't know if any new SNGs can be created in today's climate that leans slightly deletionist, but I guess it doesn't hurt to try. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I plan a full WP:PROPOSAL, @Novem Linguae.

The stuff about ICNP/ICTV is the definition of "is it a species?" for these areas. We don't care whether someone with a website has declared themselves to be a taxonomist and said they accept it; we care specifically whether these specific authorities accept it. I have thought about adding links to the best databases for the convenience of editors who don't already know what they are.

Would you prefer that the Prokaryote and Virus sections were combined into a single section under a heading like "Microbes" or "Microorganisms"? There are eukaryotic microbes (e.g., baker's yeast), so that section wouldn't, strictly speaking, cover all microbes, but perhaps it would feel simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this entire proposal can be simplified down to "Species that can be verified to a reliable source such as a respected taxonomic database or published academic journal are automatically notable." I would hesitate to include more detail than that.

Mentioning ICNP/ICTV is a red flag for me because I've never heard of those or used them in my species work. The databases I am familiar with are:

Catalogue of Life is the database I check first because it is both broad and reliable, but any respected database should work. There's lots of them: WoRMS for marine animals, NCBI and LPSN for bacteria, MycoBank and Index Fungorum for fungi, Mindat.org for protozoa and parasites, etc. I used to use iNaturalist, but I discovered that was self-published so I no longer use that one.

cc Plantdrew –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, the second sentence of the draft says:

In general, all species, extinct or extant, that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable, and all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority) are notable only if they meet other guidelines, such as the general notability guideline.

Does that cover what you're after?

I've included more detail because I think that will help non-specialist editors figure out that they need to be looking at MycoBank database (which follows the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) and not looking at Bob's Big Database of Crytozoological Organisms, which doesn't.

As for ICNP/ICTV, I think they're the correct organizations. For example, if you read the first sentence of our article on the LPSN article, it says that LPSN follows the ICNP's rules. I agree that any database/book/list/source that follows the relevant nomenclature code should work (and any that doesn't probably isn't respected). Nomenclature codes#Codification of Scientific Names appears to have the list of codes. I don't think there is a consolidated list of databases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking more broadly, I feel GNG is too short, and SNGs are too long. I feel that adding a 7 paragraph document to the SNGs when we can cover it in 1 sentence would not move toward solving this problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So you agree with it in principle, but you want fewer details provided? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see whether the opposition leans more towards "I support the principle, but this version has problems" or "I oppose the principle, because we need to change our approach". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Every nomenclatural code has an organization that publishes it and considers amendments to the code (as well as petitions to set aside a normal rule for a particular name). ICTV is an abbreviation for the organization that deals with virus nomenclature. ICVCN is an abbreviation for the viral code of nomenclature. The ICTV is unusual in that the organization also maintains a database of accepted species names (I guess we could refer to the database as e.g. "2023 ICTV Taxonomy Release", but it may also be called (ambiguously) ICTV).

ICNP is an abbreviation for the code for prokaryotes. "International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes" (abbreviated ICSP) is the organization. LPSN is a database that is specifically endorsed by the prokaryote code, but it is not maintained by the organization itself.

Most species databases aren't specifically endorsed by any code or code-governing organization. Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The current proposal, if passed, would be the shortest of all of the SNG's so I don't think that it's too complicated from a length standpoint. I think that there is a genuine risk of people trying to use Wikipedia to establish a name and with that the risk of multiple articles with multiple names for the same species. So I think that some stringency in that areas is warranted. Also, keep in mind that this is a criteria on what is required to bypass GNG not a criteria/restriction for existence of an article. So IMO some stringency in important area is not a problem. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Now I'm curious what the second-shortest SNG is.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Support

Since I specialize in eukaryotes I fully endorse this draft. I firmly believe all eukaryotic species are notable. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snoteleks, is there anything that you think should be changed before the WP:PROPOSAL process begins? For example, is there anything unclear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should specify that the "valid name" applies to protozoa as well as true animals, since protozoa are also governed by the ICZN code just as algae are regulated by the ICBN code. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Unaccepted species

I think this needs to do more to address the concept of species (or names for species) that are not accepted. Every species is accepted by the person(s) who described it. But most species that have been ever been described (i.e. that have a "significant description [...] published in a reputable academic publication") are not "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists". For example, FishBase has records for 33,230 species (and subspecies) and 94,647 records for synonyms.

Practically speaking, we rely on taxonomic databases themselves to filter out the accepted species from the non-accepted "species" (i.e. names that are judged by the relevant international body of taxonomists not be worth considering as corresponding to distinct species). The original description of a species can provide the basis for writing an informative article. The original description can not provide evidence that a species is "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists". An additional source is needed for that.

A couple nuances of current practice that aren't addressed here (and perhaps don't need to be):

• Subspecies aren't afforded an assumption of notability, but they still must have a "significant description [...] published in a reputable academic publication" (but many taxa now accepted as species were first described as subspecies, and vice versa).

• Fossil species aren't presumed to deserve stand-alone articles in the way that extant species are (documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Which articles should be created)

• An assumption of notability for accepted species is part of the WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES observation that species articles don't get deleted. But the other part of that is that there always is somewhere to redirect any articles that exist for a named species that is not an accepted species. Articles for species that are regarded as synonyms (according to e.g. a taxonomic database) are routinely unilaterally redirected by experienced editors without opening any kind of discussion about it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, thanks for your advice. That suggests these changes to the opening paragraph:

• Add subspecies to the exclusion line: all remaining species (i.e., the vast majority) and subspecies are notable only if they meet other guidelines
• Restrict to extant species: In general, all extant species, extinct or extant, that are accepted
• Add something like "Consider making redirects for synonyms and other non-accepted species."

I have also wondered whether hybrids (e.g., Category:Hybrid plants and the List of plant hybrids) need a specific mention. I don't know what to write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I support all three changes you've outlined. I would suggest we treat hybrids, cultivars, morphs, etc the same as subspecies, ie. only notable if they meet WP:GNG. The amount of cultivated hybrids etc is staggering, and most will never receive any coverage beyond a listing on the breeder's website - not enough to write even a start class article. While some are definitely independently notable according to GNG, most are best redirected and discussed within their respective species/genus article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've made these suggested changes. Please check them and let us know whether they seem appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fossil taxa

Not to bog down the process, but it should be noted that the paleontology guideline is nuanced, with the starting point that no species articles be created all extinct lineages generally stop at the genus level. But there is a standing caveat to the guideline, in that extinct species in extant genera are afforded articles, as they are always differing from the living members of the genus via age/preservation/location etc.--Kevmin § 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin, please, bog down the process as much as you need to! This is the best possible time to get it right. It is more important to get it right than to get it done right away.

Would you like to see a specific section for extinct species? Do the usual existing rules apply equally to eukaryotes and prokaryotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If I've understood the system, the rule is:

• If all species in the genera are extinct: Normally merge everything to the genera article. However, when the level of detail for any given species is significant, that individual species could be split, Wikipedia:Summary style, to a separate article. (This could theoretically result in all species being split, if they are all very long/detailed, but it could also result in a genera article that has some species merged up and others split off.)
• If this species is extinct, but other species in the genera are extant: Create separate articles for each species.

Does that sound right? What have I missed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That covers it very well, and a section would definitely be warranted as Wp:Palaeontology does diverge from base Nspecies. The closer you get to modern, especially post 66 MYA/End Cretaceous event, the more frequently you get species attributed to living genera, and we avoid forcing those onto the genus pages. Conversely large sexy vertebrates of the Ice age tend to be information rich with enough nuance to allow for separate species articles at times, like some Mammoths, and so species level articles are allowed at times.--Kevmin § 20:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. How does something like this sound? It would presumably go after the virus section and before ==Mass creation==.

Fossil species

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 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.

What would you recommend changing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Say "fossil", not "extinct"; "if a genus is known only from fossils, then the species are...". Or alternatively "extinct before 1500". 1500 is the usual cutoff for modern extinctions; it represents a time when species could have been documented by European naturalists, and is after the time that most anthropogenic extinctions occurred in land masses that weren't settled by humans until relatively recently (Madagascar, Hawaii, New Zealand).

But I think fossil works better since it excludes some of the edge cases where there are articles for extinct species; e.g. bird species known from subfossil remains in extant genera from Hawaii et al., or mammoths known from full body specimens frozen in permafrost. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think I'll need new examples, then, as both bird examples are post-1500. Do you have any favorite mixed-survival plant genera? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A good example of mixed status plant would be Metasequoia, which covers the spectrum. The still living Metasequoia glyptostroboides, the fossil Metasequoia foxii known from "Whole plant reconstructions" based on seedlings though adult wood, and the fossil Metasequoia occidentalis from dispersed compression fossils across Asia and North America.--Kevmin § 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that example, Kevmin. I am swapping that in for the example, and re-written to include the advice from Plantdrew about fossil rather than extinct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am a member of Wikiproject Paleontology who strongly disagrees with the standard that fossil species articles should be considered non-notable. I have previously proposed that merging stub species articles into their parent genus article makes sense, but that fossil species adequately known to sustain a longer-than-stub article should generally be presumed notable. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, @Ornithopsis. I appreciate it particularly because sometimes it's hard for people to speak up when they see multiple other editors going in a different direction.

With this draft WP:PROPOSAL, my goal is to represent the existing practices. If some editors think that the existing practice around fossil species is bad, then it might be best to leave this subject out entirely, and handle it as a later addition. That could mean, e.g., coming back in a couple of months and offering editors one option that says "fossils are presumed non-notable (except when they are)" and another proposal that says "treat fossils just like any other species", and letting them vote on which one they prefer.

I'd value hearing from several editors about what you think would be best. If there is a substantial diversity of opinion on this point, even if it's a minority opinion, it might be best to postpone decisions about fossils until later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not quite as enthusiastic as Ornithopsis regarding species level articles, but I do also disagree with the status quo that they are all but universally considered non-notable. I think it's a case by case issue and in instances where this is significant individual information on a given species, or especially multiple within a genus, it may make sense to cover the information in multiple articles. It's been a very long standing quiet point of disagreement within palaeo editing circles so having a proper discussion and resulting policy may not be a bad idea. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One important thing to precise would be "The genus has to include at least two species notable enough to fit the criteria", as most multispecific genera are known from only one well-preserved and well-studied species, whose description will necessarily be more or less synonymous with the genus description since it's the only good material available. Not all species have to meet the notablity criteria, but two should be a bare minimum to warrant a species article. Larrayal (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Larrayal, is this specific to extinct species? I'm not sure what's normally done with an extant monospecific genus, though I notice that Ginkgo biloba is separate from Ginkgo, so splitting the monotypic genus and species happens at least occasionally.

Is the rule supposed to be:

• Genus has exactly one fossil species: merge up.
• Genus has 2+ species, all of which are fossils and none of which qualify for separate articles: merge up.
• Genus has 2+ species, all of which are fossils and 1+ of which qualify for separate articles:  ???
• Genus has both fossil and extant species: separate articles.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this standard only insofar as I believe that most, if not all, valid species should qualify for separate articles. It certainly is not true that most multi-species genera have only one well-known species; most multi-species non-avian dinosaur genera I can think of (for instance) have at least two well-known species. In any case, there are many fossil species in multi-species genera that are much better known than many genera, so the argument that most fossil species are too poorly known to merit standalone articles doesn't really hold water. I can't think offhand of any circumstances in which it would be justified to have separate articles for a monotypic taxon and its only member, though (note that Ginkgo is not monotypic when fossil species are taken into account). Ornithopsis (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Continuation of my previous comment: Perhaps I should clarify my stance on species articles. My view is that editors should feel free to work on species-level articles if they choose and that species-level articles of reasonable quality should generally be allowed to stand. I feel that the status quo (which effectively prohibits articles on fossil species unless they are in extant genera or the parent genus article is forced to be split due to length) is arbitrary and needlessly restrictive, especially since Wikipedia has expanded so much since that status quo was established well over a decade ago. I do not see what harm exists in allowing species-level articles to be created on fossil taxa that justifies such a restriction. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In the case of genera with 2+ species (all of which are fossils), but for which only one is notable, the current practice is to merge up. For examples, see Tyrannosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, and Torosaurus. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @A Cynical Idealist. So should that be two bullet points?

• Genus has 2+ species, all of which are fossils and only one of which qualifies for a separate article:  (usually) merge up
• Genus has 2+ species, all of which are fossils and 2+ of which qualify for separate articles:  split out the separate ones

Is the "qualifies for a separate article" based either on WP:SIZE (if the genus article gets too big) and GNG (if you have lots of sources about the one or two species)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct, examples of the second bullet point can be found under Edmontosaurus (Edmontosaurus annectens and Edmontosaurus regalis) and Camarasaurus. Notability of species in the case of multispecific genera, as far as I know, is more-or-less solely based on the number of publications in the literature. Genera with many species but for which none are particularly notable (Mamenchisaurus, Omeisaurus, Psittacosaurus), WP:SIZE does not appear to be a deciding criterion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for those examples. Could we fairly/accurately describe that as a "larger than usual number of sources"? Or would it be better to just say "if it meets GNG"?

My goal is to have something practical, that two editors on 'opposing sides' will both be able to read and come to the same conclusion. That can be tricky for notability, but we can usually get something that covers most cases. So if you all have formed a rule of thumb like "usually needs four publications", then please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If any such rule of thumb is created, it would need to be phrased "usually needs 4+ publications predominantly about a single species to the exclusion of other species in the genus". Often a publication will treat multiple species within a genus as part of some kind of wider analysis and therefore don't necessarily confer any additional notability onto any of the species in particular. As far as I know, such a rule doesn't exist as of yet, and I would personally suggest that it be higher than 4, but that's just my opinion. One indirect criterion may also be the number of specimens assigned to a particular taxon. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be imposing a much higher standard of notability for species than is otherwise considered necessary for fossil taxa. For example, why should Mamenchisaurus youngi and Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis (both known from nearly complete material, with at least four and at least three publications specifically about each in particular respectively, and numerous other references not specifically focused on them in particular besides) be considered non-notable, while stuff like Jiutaisaurus and Rugocaudia (fragmentary, dubious taxa with a single source on each of them in particular and only a few mentions in the literature) are considered notable? In what way is only one of the species of Torosaurus notable? As far as I know, each species of Torosaurus has a few different publications on each of them in particular. Ornithopsis (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that there is no established quick/simple/easy rule of thumb for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's right. Certainly, there doesn't seem to be any rule of thumb that I would agree with most other WP:PALEO editors on, nor can I figure out what rule of thumb other editors are applying. The funny thing about A Cynical Idealist providing Camarasaurus as an example of a genus for which the species qualify for separate articles and Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus as genera for which the species do not is that the only reason the various Camarasaurus species have articles is that I created the species articles and apparently nobody felt it was worth arguing with me over at the time. I've felt for years that the species of Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus merit separate articles just as much as the species of Camarasaurus, but haven't yet tried to create such articles because I don't want to waste my effort on something other editors will just want to redirect back to the genus. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have alerted both WP:PALEO and WP:DINO of this specific section of the talk page, aswell as sharing it to the WP:PALEO Discord server. Hopefully this will provide some more input and opinions on how to best format this guideline. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @The Morrison Man. I really appreciate it. Would you mind adding links to the Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Prior discussion section? No need to sign; we're just trying to keep a list as we go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course! I'll also leave some notes here at a later time, as I need to think on the proposal for a bit. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That'd be great. The first question is whether we want fossils to be mentioned at all in the initial WP:PROPOSAL. The second question is what we want to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also a structural problem. This is a proposed SNG, which merely sets up a 2nd route to bypass GNG. The wording for something which doesn't pass the SNG is "not presumed notable" which means that it can still be found to be wp:notable by passing GNG. So a declaration of "non-notable" in an SNG is structurally wrong. The word change to "not presumed notable" would also probably solve the other objection which was raised. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

I'm changing the wording in the first sentence to "then the species are not presumed to be notable".

I think it might be better to hold this for a subsequent RFC. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"not presumed notable" seems like a happy medium in my eyes. Does not drag along the whole of palaeontology into the standard of species-level articles, while leaving open flexibility where applicable. Perhaps it won't solve longer standing disagreements within palaeo projects, but I at least don't think this wording is going to make anything worse or leave anybody overly unhappy. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am also inclined to agree that this is the best course of action. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Now or later?

Kevmin, Plantdrew, Ornithopsis, LittleLazyLass, Larrayal, A Cynical Idealist, The Morrison Man,North8000, anyone else who's interested:

My inclination at this moment is to exclude fossil species from the WP:PROPOSAL and to have a separate RFC/PROPOSAL specifically for fossil species later (e.g., two months from now, assuming the initial proposal is adopted). If you accept my recommendation to delay, then I will suggest an RFC that directly addresses the question of whether separate rules are wanted for fossil species. That could look something like this:

What should this SNG say about fossil species?

Treat fossil species the same	Separate rules for fossil species
Add a sentence that says "All species, extinct and extant, are treated the same".	[That long thing that we're working out above]
All species should be treated equally! Editors would retain the right to merge up individual articles with consensus.	This is the long-standing practice of the community. Longer articles are better anyway.

Does anyone object to delaying a fossil proposal? Now (i.e., this week?) is the time to speak up if you think it would be better to address this all at once. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The main reason I, and other paleo folks, have chimed in is because genera are the default operational taxon for most of paleontology and in the cases where species are sufficiently different from the type to warrant being named, most have very little information published about them. Applying the "all species are equally notable" would require the creation of hundreds or thousands of articles with functionally no information to add. I have no strong opinions about when or how this is implemented (i.e. now or in a later proposal), just so long as the exceptions are made for paleontology subjects at some point. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure something like that is really necessary - nobody from within the palaeo project seems to want the same rules as extant species (something that would be a very unprecedented overturn of all existing precedent), so why drag it through unnecessary bureaucracy? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am firmly of the opinion that fossil and extant species should be treated the same (i.e. that all valid species are presumed notable). I think it is completely arbitrary that Wikiproject Paleontology has decided to be at odds with the rest of Wikipedia's taxonomic coverage in this regard. I see no reason that a poorly-known extant species should be seen as more notable than a well-known fossil species. Saying that it is permissible for standalone species-level articles to be created does not impose a burden on editors that they all need to be created now, and in any case most of the groups WP:PALEO has very good coverage of already are heavy in monotypic genera, so the overall proportion of new articles that would be created in those groups is low. Ornithopsis (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that now is not the time to introduce new guidelines (on fossils, mass creation, unaccepted species, or anything else). First we should focus on getting the currently-accepted practice represented by WP:NSPECIES established as its own guideline. Then we can try and build consensus for expanded guidance. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we have a currently accepted practice for unaccepted species: They don't have a correct/valid name, and therefore they are not covered by the existing NSPECIES rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. What Joe Roe said. This will keep the proposal from dying under it's own weight. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Theres to much dissent among the paleo editors for any consensus to be reached at this point, and i tend to lean towards Ornithopsis POV given my editing scope in the early Cenozoic. I concur that we should not include fossils in this process at this time.--Kevmin § 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm amicable to this conclusion for now only so long as it consists of fossils being excluded from the current guidelines rather than merely being denied a written exception. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea with a delay is that the proposed guideline, in its initial form, will mention "extant species" (in the second sentence) and will not mention fossils (at all).

At some point in the future, a new section could get its own WP:PROPOSAL exclusively for fossil species. What exactly that proposal should say would be worked out before then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, then. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that. I still think it's arbitrary to treat fossil and extant species by different standards and would prefer a unified standard for both, but my main reason for raising objections here is that I don't want this proposal to further codify what I feel is an overly restrictive standard that I would like to see reconsidered, and that I don't think was even originally intended to be as restrictive as some editors now treat it. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Joe. Keep it simple, and keep the slightly stickier question of extinct species out of it for now. We can deal with that if and when the baseline proposal passes. Rome was not built in a day; I think it is better to get the foundations built first before trying to get extinct species involved. Cremastra (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Should I start voting now?

No, this is not open for a vote yet.

But please do put this page on your watchlist.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove the mass creation section?

While I think that avoiding mass creation is essential, to the same extent as with any other area it is implicit and already covered. I think that trying to detail it here would plunge us into what has (here and elsewhere) proven to be an unsolvable discussion and thus be a poison pill for any proposal.

As an example, the proposal refers to a section in the BOT guidance. Also there will be concern it can be interpreted to green light mass creation of <= 24 articles. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The goal here is to inform editors that WP:MASSCREATION exists. The problem to be solved is:

• Alice reads this guideline.
• Alice sees that hundreds of notable species are missing from Wikipedia.
• Alice decides to help Wikipedia by writing hundreds of decent, properly sourced, 100% verifiable, absolutely notable articles.
• Alice writes the articles offline, and then posts them all on the same day. NPP and/or AFC collapses under the weight.

What we would like to see instead is:

• Alice reads this guideline.
• Alice sees that hundreds of notable species are missing from Wikipedia.
• Alice decides to help Wikipedia by posting hundreds of decent, properly sourced, 100% verifiable, absolutely notable articles.
• Alice learns about MASSCREATE restrictions and complies with the rules. Everybody is happy.

If you can think of better wording, so that Alice neither believes that it applies only to the creation of 5,000+ articles, nor to the creation of merely 5 articles, then please feel free to suggest it.

Also, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How about: "Editors should follow WP:MASSCREATION and other Wikipedia guidance and practices to avoid mass creation of articles" North8000 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How will the editor know what constitutes MASSCREATION? The present text gives them some idea: "The WP:MASSCREATION policy requires editors to obtain permission before engaging in the automated or semi-automated creation of more than about 25 to 50 articles at a time, no matter what the subject is."

BTW, MASSCREATION isn't actually trying to avoid mass creation of articles. It's trying to avoid "large-scale automated or semi-automated" article creations that have not been pre-approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose editors should be aware of MASSCREATION. The mass creation guidance was specifically created (at least in part) due to concerns about AWB creation of species sub-stubs. The thing is, it went completely unenforced from 2009 until 2022. I mean, I guess it curtailed semi-automated creation via AWB, but nobody considered it to apply to creation via boiler plate text and nobody asked permission to mass create via boiler plate text until 2022. Nobody raised a peep about MASSCREATION in determining the 5 millionth article in 2015, even though there was clearly a lot of boiler plate mass creation going on then.

I would (now) consider boiler plate to be a form of semi-automated mass creation, but I was either completely unaware of MASSCREATION, or didn't consider it could be taken to apply to boiler plate as recently as 2021 when I was completely burned out from trying to keep up with new articles created for plants that were running into the hundreds per day between two editors (see [1]). One of those editors was using boiler plate with an error of fact and I wasted an enormous amount of time fixing their articles only for them to be deleted under WP:DENY.

But there hasn't been any instances of mass creation of taxon articles that rise to a level I would consider a problem since May 2021. Plantdrew (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Casliber started Persoonia terminalis, which is now a featured article. That's a pretty significant counter-argument to the "nobody ever expands those boilerplate creations" claim.

BTW, MASSCREATE doesn't say anything about boilerplate. That's a just an interpretation that's been laid on top of it, on the erroneous assumption that automated or semi-automated page creation has to use a boilerplate, and that manual editing doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing We're debating on two different topics. The main two reasons I suggest taking it out or want just turned into a general reference to guidance elsewhere per my idea are:

1. It's trying to summarize that other guidance and so at best it would be an imperfect attempt at either duplicating the guidance elsewhere or creating a new masscreate guideline
2. #1 is a herculean task which will never get settled here and would cause this proposal to fail.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So:

• If we mention MASSCREATE but don't say what it is, then WP:Nobody reads the directions, so we'll risk preventable problems (on both ends: "My 55 articles aren't enough to matter' and 'You horrible spammer, you created five articles today!') for years to come.
• If we mention MASSCREATE and accurately say what it is, then some editors will oppose the proposal because they want MASSCREATE to say something different (e.g., that boilerplate articles are prohibited, or that very short articles are unacceptable, or that non-database sources must be cited).
• If we don't mention MASSCREATE, then some other editors will oppose the proposal because they believe that this SNG (if adopted) would create an exemption from MASSCREATE and MEATBOT.

Which of these problems do you choose to have? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Of your 3 choices, my idea inherently avoids #3. IMO respectfully there are some false premises in your #2 but the main idea is still answerable. Which is that the rest of the proposal (and discussions related to it) should probably decide whether we want to discourage "that boilerplate articles are prohibited, or that very short articles are unacceptable, or that non-database sources must be cited". But that even if we don't resolve/clarify those that the objections would probably not be enough to sink the proposal, particularly if we communicate that this is merely codifying the status quo. So I'd rather pick #1; first it's because the only issue is people who don't read what the guideline pointed them to, and this also makes the IMO false presumption that a lame attempt to duplicate MASSCREATE here is an appropriate or effective way to avoid that problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If we choose #1, then it could be fulfilled with a ==See also== section that includes WP:MASSCREATE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by #1 but that sounds like a good idea. In short, anything that refers to mass create guidance elsewhere rather than trying to recreate or replace it would be good. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

When I said #1, I meant the "mention MASSCREATE but don't say what it is" option. It is the first it my list of three options. Of course, that leaves us with the predictable problem of it not appearing relevant to someone who "only" wants to write a few dozen articles – or who wants to stop someone who is only writing a few – but unless we write three paragraphs about this, we're going to have problems one way or the other, so the question is really just which problem you want to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The main problem that I'm worried about is getting this proposal actually passed and thinking that attempting to (re)define mass creation here would be a poison pill regarding that. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you thinking that because some editors have very strongly held beliefs about mass creation, some of which are distinctly unrelated to what the text of MASSCREATE says (e.g., "mass creation is when you write WP:UGLY little stubs, not when you create a lot of articles all at once"), that if we provide an accurate definition, the whole will be opposed by them for being accurate (but not aligning with their own beliefs), and if we don't provide an accurate definition, then the whole thing will be opposed by others for being inaccurate (according to the more dominant view of the policy).

And, of course, if we don't provide anything, then we will have people say that this proposal is meant to and/or will actually exempt species from the MASSCREATE rules. This is nonsense, of course – you know that if I meant to create an exemption (and I don't), it would involve clear and direct language like "This subject area is exempt from MASSCREATE" – but I believe that if you look at the prior discussion at WT:N, you'll find at least two editors who have already expressed fears about exactly that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I just meant that it is a near-impossible task to create and pass something specific regarding mass creation, and that if we attempt to put that impossible task into this proposal it will cause this proposal to fail. Hence my suggestion to just refer to mass creation guidance in general. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, this is just my suggestion. I have no objection to proceeding without following my suggestion. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick poll on mass creation

Before we can start an RFC on the guideline, we need to decide whether/how to include MASSCREATE. The main options are:

1. Don't mention WP:MASSCREATE at all.
   • Pro: Nobody can accuse us of mis-describing the policy if it's not mentioned at all.
   • Con: Somebody will claim that the failure to mention the policy means that the guideline creates an exemption from that policy. Editors who don't know about the policy will be less likely to find the policy.
2. Mention WP:MASSCREATE only as a link in ==See also==.
   • Pro: Nobody can accuse us of mis-describing the policy if we only link to it and don't describe it.
   • Con: Some editors who don't know what the policy says will be less likely to realize that the policy is relevant to their editing.
3. Have a separate section on WP:MASSCREATE. The current draft says The WP:MASSCREATION policy requires editors to obtain permission before engaging in the automated or semi-automated creation of more than about 25 to 50 articles at a time, no matter what the subject is.
   • Pro: Editors who don't know the policy will have a pretty good idea about whether they need to look into the details.
   • Con: No matter what we write about MASSCREATE, somebody will claim that that we have mis-described the policy.

IMO none of the options are ideal. Pinging @North8000, Ornithopsis, LittleLazyLass, Novem Linguae, A Cynical Idealist, The Morrison Man, Kevmin, Plantdrew, Joe Roe, Snoteleks, Larrayal, Ethmostigmus, and Cremastra: I'm happy to do whatever you all think is best, so I hope that you have an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• 1 is my preference, but I'm ok with 2. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• (Disclaimer: I have never automated or semiautomated article creation, nor known how to even do it) I'm torn. On one hand, I believe every taxon article should contain more information than what automatically created articles do. On the other hand, those automated articles would be stub-level articles, which have a right to exist. Then again, do they really fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia if they're only a taxobox and a sentence? I personally try to keep track of the number of species articles for various eukaryotic groups, and including automatically created articles feels detrimental or at least unreliable to me. Right now I tentatively vote 3 but I also would like to know in which ways can the policy be mis-described. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  An automated article could be much longer than a taxobox and a sentence. See User:WhatamIdoing/Database article for an example of what could be done from a single species database entry: 225 words, fully cited, with five short sections. See this article for an example (of a town, rather than a species) of what has actually been done, with community approval, from a single database entry: 357 words, with two sections. But even if you could produce FA-quality articles this way, MASSCREATE requires that you obtain permission in advance, because the sheer volume a bot can produce (and has produced, in the case of those early US census-based articles) can be disruptive to reviewing processes even if you know in advance that all the articles are going to be excellent.

  As for mis-describing the policy: MASSCREATE currently says "Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved...While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed...Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches...". So:

  • It says "large-scale", and defines that term, and links to the discussion, which clarifies that this is 25–50 "per day" or "at a time", but we have a couple of editors who claim that it applies to 25+ articles per year, too, under some circumstances (e.g., that they don't like the resulting article quality).
  • It says "automated or semi-automated content page creation", but we have at least one editor who claims that it applies to strictly manual page creation (which might be WP:MEATBOT but isn't MASSCREATE).
  • It says that "creating the pages in small batches" is an alternative, but we have a couple of editors who think that this is not an acceptable alternative.
  • It says nothing about "boilerplates" or "very short articles" or "substubs" or "unreferenced" or "citing databases" or "containing only information that can be found in a database" or "citing only academic papers", and we have some editors who believe that MASSCREATE covers these factors.

  From the POV of this proposal, if you write something about MASSCREATE (e.g., the draft text in #3), then an editor who believes that MASSCREATE actually covers, say, small-scale creation of articles very similar two-sentence articles citing only a database, will claim that the proposal "misrepresents" the policy, even though the proposal is just quoting the policy.

  I want to be clear that this is unavoidable and common. See also every time you've seen someone saying that you "have to" follow WP:BRD, even though the very first sentence of BRD itself says that BRD is optional. See also every time you've seen someone claiming that WP:NOTNEWS prefers out-of-date articles to citing today's newspaper, even though the first sentence of that section says the opposite. Editors mis-cite the rules all the time, because the way to "win" a fight on Wikipedia is to sprinkle a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE through your arguments, until the other editors agree to do whatever you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• IMO #2 is best. IMO avoiding mass creation is important on this so it should be mentioned. But trying to go deeper into it on our own here (per #3) would make a big mess and make the proposal much more likely to fail. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just clarifying, I don't have an objection to any of the choices. I do think that #3 would likely cause this whole proposal to fail but otherwise have no objection to it. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• 2 as my primary leaning, We can not at any point force someone to read something they don't want to. Having the see also takes you to a "MAYBE?" relevant policy (depending on who you ask). 3 is the second best bet, as its acting as a prescriptive summary of MASS for taxonomy article creation and AGAIN there's the link to MASS in the sentence. KISS is more likely to gain traction then CRYSTALBALLing allll the possible "but what if..." scenarios that might ever in any universe be brought up.--Kevmin § 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think both #2 and #3 are acceptable, but I don't have an especially strong opinion about which of those options we should go with - as long as WP:MASSCREATE is mentioned somehow, I'm happy. While we can't force editors to read and follow MASSCREATE, we should provide the opportunity to do so. In addition, given that a not insignificant number of editors seem very concerned by the prospect of mass-created (sub)stubs, I think failing to mention MASSCREATE will be seen as objectionable (especially by editors outside of this topic) and make it harder to get this proposal through. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 are my preference. Editors summarize policy all the time; someone will certainly complain but I think it's pretty standard and shouldn't be a major point of contention. The potential problem with #2 is that it seems a bit off-hand; new editors are unlikely to follow links to a policy they aren't aware is relevent if the links are just stuffed in a "See also" section. I have a slight leaning to option 3 because of this, but fundamentally I don't care especially either way. Cremastra (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning 1. Are there any other SNGs that mention mass creation? WP:NGEO doesn't, and it's been to locus of most mass creation disputes in recent years. It seems redundant to summarise one policy in another; WP:MASSCREATE already applies to all subjects, mentioned or not. I do take the point about heading off inevitable objections, but honestly I don't believe that the subset of editors who hang out at WT:N and are very upset about stubs are at all representative of the wider community. Most editors, asked whether to approve a split and expanded version of WP:NSPECIES, are not going to even think about mass creation. Someone will mention it but I worry putting it up front will turn a side-discussion that most people don't care about into the main event. I also highly doubt that the added section is going to stop the diehard anti-stub crew from trying to obstruct it anyway. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• 2: Put it in See also with a brief description of what the link is for (e.g. "Policy on mass-creating articles"). It should be mentioned somewhere as it has consistently been a topic in previous discussions. Policy pages are supposed to reflect consensus and what the community has previously discussed. I agree that writing too much is getting ahead of ourselves and will overcomplicate the proposal. C F A 💬 15:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• 2 is my preference, but I'm ok with 1. Duplicating detail and definitions from another policy or guideline is both unnecessary and may potentially lead to confusion caused by discrepancies resulting from changes made on another page. Loopy30 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, folks, option 2 appears to be the overall preference. Anyone who would like more content about this can propose that later (assuming that this gets adopted at all). I'll make the change, and then see about archiving some of this so we can start the RFC soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Question drafting

@WhatamIdoing: Cool. We should make sure that we know exactly when it's coming. We should be ready with initial responses that summarize the rationale, describe that it seeks to merely codify existing practice, and emphasize that it's just a step forward which the intentions are that it can then be modified to address other questions. Sincerely,. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How's this for a draft 'question'?

"Shall we adopt Wikipedia:Notability (species) as a subject-specific notability guideline for species? This proposed notability guideline codifies the community's long-standing practice, currently documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species. It only applies to extant (non-fossil) species and does not change any of the rules about mass creation of articles."

If you want it to sound like a California voter guide, we could add that "A reply of Yes means that this page will be designated a notability guideline. A reply of No means that the advice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species will continue."

As for pages and groups to notify, I think that every active group in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Scope and related projects is a candidate, plus Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. The RFC itself will trigger Wikipedia:Feedback request service notifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This proposed codifies the community's long-standing practice, currently documented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species. It only applies to extant (non-fossil) species and does not change any of the rules about mass creation of articles.

This section doesn’t comply with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Whether it codifies long standing practice, and whether it changes the mass creation rules that would apply, is debatable and a statement expressing your position on that shouldn’t be in the RFC question. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to specific places in which the proposal deviates from long-standing practice, or suggest any changes that would make it more closely resemble the long-standing practice?

Can you point to anything specific in it that changes the WP:MASSCREATE rules?

I know that this proposal is very different from your own proposal, and I expect you to oppose this proposal because you don't think the existing system is a good one, but this proposal is actually intended to match the long-standing practice as closely as possible. If you could point out something like "Here, it says species with a correct name are presumed notable, but over at WP:NSPECIES it says you should merge them up into the genera articles instead", or "NSPECIES has been accepted for only the last 12.5 years, and documents a practice that dates back to years before then, but we have a policy that defines long-standing as only those things that have been written in a high-traffic page since at least 2006", then I would find that very valuable information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This changes what articles can be mass created, as parts of that guideline only apply to articles not covered by an SNG. To ensure this changes nothing in that regard, you would need to add a requirement that all articles covered by the SNG must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG. This would also make it far more likely for this proposal to pass, as it would remove concerns about people churning out millions of sub-stubs.

I don’t this codifies existing consensus because I’m not convinced it is existing consensus - recent AFD’s have closed as "no consensus". BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WWhich AfDs have closed as no consensus? Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms/archive, the last species "no consensus" close was in November of last year. Species that exist have always been kept, often speedily, citing WP:NSPECIES. C F A 💬 05:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are all (four) of the "no consensus" outcomes for species from that page during the last decade:

• 2023: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyxicephalus cordofanus was for an article about a species without a valid/correct name, and which would not be presumed notable if this proposal is adopted.
• 2023: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helianthus annuus 'Russian Giant' is about a cultivar instead of a species, and would not be presumed notable if this proposal is adopted.
• 2016: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunapee golden trout is about a subspecies instead of a species, and would not be presumed notable if this proposal is adopted.
• 2015: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunzea sp. Wadbilliga turned out to be a synonym instead of a validly/correctly named species, and would not be presumed notable if this proposal is adopted.

To put it another way, there actually haven't been any "no consensus" closes for a species that has a valid/correct name at any point during the last 10 years, and all four of the close-but-not-quite "no consensus" closes align with these proposal.

For comparison, during the last year (12 months), I count nine AFDs for validly/correctly named species that closed as "speedy keep", three as "keep", and zero that were deleted (though several subjects without valid/correct names were deleted). I did not notice a single AFD outcome that differed from this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since early 2019, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Article alerts has had a more complete list of AfDs than the organism deletion sorting page. There are three archive pages, with the most recent being Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Article alerts/Archive 3. This does include AfDs that aren't for species (or higher taxa), such as dog breeds and individual cats, but so does the deletion sorting page.

Some species AfDs do get closed as no consensus or delete, but it's invariably because a valid/correct name can not be determined (or the name doesn't even meet the requirements to being considered published). Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by you saying that this will change what articles may be mass created. This proposal does not undermine the fact that automated mass article creation must go through an approval process. WP:MASSCREATE (and WP:MEATBOT) stands independently of this proposed guideline and will continue to apply if this proposal is successful.

Given that this is a proposal about notability, not the process of article creation, we must also keep WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST in mind: notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. While no one wants to see masses of unreferenced substubs being created by bots, this proposal is about notability, not about article content. Given that MASSCREATE still applies, it seems very unlikely that this proposal will lead to substubs being created at any greater rate than they are currently. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Part of WP:MASSCREATE only applies to articles that are not covered by an SNG. Implementing this will result in that not longer applying.

@WhatamIdoing: thoughts on implementing the change I proposed to address that? BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to the section of MASSCREATE that says "all mass-created articles (except those not required to meet WP:GNG) must cite at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG": I don't think that this will be an issue - SNG or no, attempts at mass creation of articles are still required to go through the approval process, and the likelihood of a proposal to mass-create unsourced taxon articles passing this approval process seems lows even if a SNG applies. While it frees articles not subject to GNG from providing a source that would contribute to GNG, it doesn't say that articles not subject to GNG can be made en masse with no oversight or quality control whatsoever. If we want to have particular sourcing requirements for mass creation of taxon articles (which I don't personally think is necessary given that I think attempts to mass create unsourced substubs will get shot down at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, SNG or no), I think that would be an issue to raise at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy instead. Ultimately, I see what you're getting at and understand your concerns, but I think discussions about sourcing/article creation are somewhat beside the point. Sourcing requirements are a matter of article creation policy, not notability policy - a subject remains notable regardless of the quality of its article. The point of this proposal is to contend that validly published taxa are inherently notable, regardless of the level of coverage they receive beyond their description, which is why we propose that they be (formally) excluded from WP:GNG. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The concern (shared, to my knowledge, by two editors) is not that the MASSCREATE process will agree to the mass creation of articles that cite "no sources" – we all know that will never happen again – but they might agree to the mass creation of articles cited to "sources I don't value".

User:WhatamIdoing/Database article is an example of such an article, as it cites only Fishbase and the original/authoritative academic paper. If you are personally convinced that all databases and all original academic papers are primary sources, then you would be convinced that such sources do not "plausibly contribute to GNG", which wants secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. Ultimately, this is a concern that is outside the scope of this proposed SNG. If we are to agree that all valid taxa are presumed notable, they are notable regardless of the quality of their respective article, and concerns about sourcing should be set aside during this discussion. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I understand that there have been very few inquiries and zero approvals (for any subject) since MASSCREATION was adopted in 2010, so the actual likelihood of any interpretation of any rule making any practical difference appears to be zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: User:Ganeshbot was approved in 2012 to make stubs for gastropod species and most recently made stubs in 2019. User:Qbugbot was first approved in 2018 to make stubs for arthropod species (primarily from North America), and was approved in late 2019 to turn some arthropod species redirects into stubs. That's fully automated MASSCREATION (there may be some other approvals for fully automated creation, but these are the species related ones).

There have been few inquiries and zero approvals for semi/non-automated MASSCREATION, although some of the inquiries have gotten bogged down in discussion about whether permission is even required. The first inquiry for non-fully-automated mass creation was in July 2022. Other inquiries occurred in August 2022, February 2023 and April 2023. All of the inquiries were prompted by BilledMammal leaving a message on the editor's talk page. BilledMammal messaged quite a few other editors who had created 50+ articles EVER in a subject area, but most of the editors didn't engage (most of the messaged editors had created more than 1000 articles in a subject area, but at a rate of less than 25/day). Plantdrew (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, based on the prior discussions, I don't think that there is community support for your suggested change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as background, I want this to pass. You don't want to getting complaints that it isn't neutral. I agree that as drafted it is not neutral. IMO the RFC description should be very brief (other then the proposed guideline itself) IMO when proposing you should immediately follow with your "support" post and that's the place to put the rationale and the "codifies the community's long-standing practice," stuff. I'll do the same. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Would changing the second sentence to something along the lines of "This proposed notability guideline is intended to reflect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species" be better? If that's not neutral enough, I'm not opposed to cutting the bit about long-standing practice from the question itself and instead presenting this fact as an argument in favour/as part of the FAQ above. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to simply say "Shall xxxxx become a subject-specific notability guideline and be recognized at wp:notability as such?" With the stated intent that it be evolved after it is created. And then have your "support" post ready and immediately put it in. And put all of the goal (= match existing practice) and rationale material into your support post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that when an RFC seems likely to have the "wrong" outcome, editors who feel themselves to be on the "losing" side may look for a way to obstruct the decision bureaucratically. For RFCs, the most common methods for doing that are to complain that the question is allegedly non-neutral, that it was allegedly advertised to the wrong editors, that it wasn't adequately discussed in advance, and that the question is confusing (usually combined with WP:RFCNEUTRAL and claimed to be an WP:RFCBRIEF violation). In the mind of the person complaining, all of these are proven by the fact that editors are voting the "wrong" way. Seeing these IMO should generally be considered evidence that the complainant knows there is a consensus (albeit a consensus for the "wrong" result). Of the RFCNEUTRAL complaints we see at WT:RFC, I'd estimate that less than 10% of them are significant enough to warrant intervention.

I think that a statement such as "This proposed notability guideline is intended to reflect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species" is important as it tells editors who are unfamiliar with the subject area what we're trying to do. Otherwise, they might believe that the goal is to make significant changes to existing practice.

I think that "and be recognized at wp:notability as such" is unnecessary. All SNGs are "recognized at wp:notability as such". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome to put that in your !vote, but not in the statement - whether it reflects that essay, and whether that essay is relevant, is a matter of opinion and is unsuited for the statement.

To put this another way, you appear to believe that including it will make the proposal more acceptable to uncommitted editors - that it will make it more likely to pass. Given that the proposal is the same regardless of whether it is included or excluded, this demonstrates why including it is not neutral.

I agree with the question proposed by North8000; it’s neutral and concise. For the record, I don’t think this will pass, given results like NSPORTS. BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass, what do you propose? Should the current WP:NSPECIES advice be removed? If not, then hasn't it essentially passed anyways? Editors will continue to cite that in deletions if it is kept. C F A 💬 23:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal has a proposal at User:BilledMammal/NSPECIES that would essentially declare all species non-notable (exceptions allowed by consensus, of course), and merge everything up to the genera level. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's no chance that passes, so if this doesn't, then we're back to how it is now. Which is essentially how it would be if did pass. That's why I'm wondering if BilledMammal were to oppose this, would they recommend we also remove the advice at WP:OUTCOMES (i.e. if this doesn't pass, is the "de facto" consensus overruled by the RfC)? C F A 💬 23:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has misrepresented my proposal. It declares them all notable (are presumed notable and due for inclusion in Wikipedia), but gives advice regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE to allow the creation of standalone articles only when there is enough information available to warrant such an article.

As for what we do if this fails, I think we should add a line along the lines of "the community rejected this in a 2024 RfC", and I will continue working on my proposal, in collaboration with the applicable Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of what your proposal says. I can read too. If you think this proposal isn't going to pass, then there is zero chance yours ever does. This proposal is officially codifying the longstanding consensus that editors have held: that all species with a correct/valid name are eligible for their own article. Yours is both much more complicated and actively changing that longstanding consensus. Good luck.

As to adding "the community rejected this" to WP:OUTCOMES, wouldn't that put us back to where we are now? Editors will continue to cite WP:NSPECIES and claim that all species are inherently notable in deletion discussions, unless there is consensus here against species being inherently notable. That's why, if you're to oppose this, the only logical way would be to also oppose the advice at WP:OUTCOMES. C F A 💬 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason I wrote this is because his proposal got so much pushback at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology. I'm not normally interested in species articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I think that including it will make the question more informative to editors who aren't familiar with the subject area. Whether they think the existing status is good or bad is not the (my) point. I am trying to avoid nonsensical responses like "Support because our old practice was bad and this new practice will be much better" or "Oppose because we should keep existing rules and this is totally different". I'd rather have an honest "Oppose because the existing system sucks" than a support that has no rational basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And I think it presents your interpretation - in particular, I don’t think that essay is relevant or accurate.

Plus, if they aren’t familiar with the subject area then they won’t be familiar with existing practice anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As WhatamIdoing wrote this, her interpretation is not exactly irrelevant. I don't think there's anything non-neutral about stating the intention of the proposed change (to codify existing practice w.r.t. to species) and indeed it would be hard to understand the purpose of the RfC if this was missing. Participants are free to agree or disagree whether it achieves that intention and, knowing Wikipedians, making a claim like "codifies existing practice" up front will make people more likely to scrutinise that claim, not less.

And look, you've made your opposition to this proposal crystal clear by now. Why not just keep your powder dry until the actual RfC? – Joe (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been staying out of it, until WhatamIdoing proposed a non-neutral RFC statement. Once they abandon that idea, I’ll go back to not participating until the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "and be recognized at wp:notability as such?" in my proposal is unneeded/ superfluous. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding putting in something about intention to match current practice, the argument against it is that it might be biased (to promote the changes), or that it might be giving an interpretation of the change or that people might complain that it is biased. The argument for is that besides being information on the the reality of the intentions, the statement of the intention could be considered to be an actual part of the proposal itself. I'm near neutral on that but lean a bit towards leaving it out. When you put up the RFC, you can immediately weigh in with a "support" post which includes that rationale and analysis. I'd plan to do the same. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with folks that have mentioned the pattern of keeping the RFC question dead simple, then adding details to the first support !vote. With that in mind, I'd recommend the RFC question be Shall Wikipedia:Notability (species) be promoted to a subject-specific notability guideline?

By the way, I have changed my mind since I first posted on this page and I would support this proposal in general as an incremental step towards codifying current practices. Species are almost never deleted at AFD and are therefore a de facto, unwritten SNG already. This disconnect between what happens at AFD and what is written in our SNGs is confusing to editors, and we should always seek to make the two match. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. RfC questions are supposed to be concise. It's not like people are going to vote without at least reading a few other votes. C F A 💬 14:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is very relevant to the proposal, and that including it does serve a valid informative purpose, but given that there's disagreement on the neutrality of its inclusion I support cutting the RFC question down to the bare essentials. This background information is included in the FAQ and will no doubt be brought up in the discussion many times. Better to just remove it and keep the question as non-controversial as possible. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaea

Should the line "No prokaryotic species (e.g., bacteria)" be changed to "No prokaryotic species (e.g., bacteria or archaea)"? Donald Albury 14:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection, but I suspect that people who know what archaea are already know that they're prokaryotes, and that people who don't already know that will not be enlightened by it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It occurred to me that someone who does know the difference might take the sentence too literally and claim archaea aren't included. Perhaps it will be enough to just state in this talk thread that "bacteria" sensu lato, including "eubacteria" and "archaebacteria", is meant. Donald Albury 19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps more relevantly, that when it says "No prokaryotic species (e.g., bacteria)", it means what it literally says: No prokaryotic species (of which bacteria are only an example). E.g. means "for example", not "complete list of all synonyms". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)