Talk:Isoetopsida
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Peter coxhead in topic Isoetopsida vs Selaginellopsida
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the Isoetopsida page were merged into Lycopodiopsida on 19 October 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Isoetopsida vs Selaginellopsida
editThe name Isoetopsida was published first in 1885, but Selaginellopsida was published in 1874, so has priority. jaknouse (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant original research. Priority does not apply to names above the rank of family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not original research. That's referential research. There's a difference. jaknouse (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Using information that you synthesized to make a decision about preferred name is original research. You found a date on a name, you knew from elsewhere that priority is given to older names, so you concluded that the older name should be used here despite the fact that no source said this. That's original research by WP standards. You should familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, priority is not required, but it is recommended:
- ICNB 16B.1. In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority.
- jaknouse (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes generally, but making that choice constitutes original research, especially when the most recent and influential publications on the issue have chosen otherwise (see Cantino et al. and Cronquist, e.g.). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. So do you think that I should no longer post maps on Wikipedia? That certainly involved original research, by your definition. jaknouse (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is not "my" definition, but Wikipedia's. If you had familiarized yourself with Wikipedia's NOR policy, as I suggested, then you would not need to make facetious comments. The issue of maps and original illustrations is covered in Wikipedia's policy. Read the policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. So do you think that I should no longer post maps on Wikipedia? That certainly involved original research, by your definition. jaknouse (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes generally, but making that choice constitutes original research, especially when the most recent and influential publications on the issue have chosen otherwise (see Cantino et al. and Cronquist, e.g.). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- We should follow Cantino et al. and Cronquist, unless there are recent and influential publications to the contrary. I haven't seen any cited. Kingdon (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, priority is not required, but it is recommended:
- Using information that you synthesized to make a decision about preferred name is original research. You found a date on a name, you knew from elsewhere that priority is given to older names, so you concluded that the older name should be used here despite the fact that no source said this. That's original research by WP standards. You should familiarize yourself with WP:NOR. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not original research. That's referential research. There's a difference. jaknouse (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification of 2016 (PPG I) now offers a consensus approach supported by a large number of botanists, so I have moved relevant material and redirected this article to the taxon it uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)