Template talk:R from alternative scientific name

IMO

The companion, Template:R to alternative scientific name needs to be created.--Auric talk 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? The redirect page can always be tagged with this template. The name to which it is redirected should be the one currently considered correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Peter coxhead – unlike {{R to plural}} & {{R from plural}}, this is the type of Rcat where "to" and "from" mean essentially the same thing in terms of the object, "alternative scientific name", of the redirect. The only distinction would be which is the correct or more commonly used term, and that should be the term that the redirect targets. The redirect itself should be the title of a less commonly used or incorrect alternative scientific name. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Subcategorization

In response to a suggestion at WT:PLANTS#Redirects and categorization, I have modified this template to allow an unnamed parameter which can be set to the type of organism involved and will then place the redirect tagged with this template into a subcategory.

Currently I've coded this somewhat redundantly, to make it easier to undo or alter. As of now, {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}} will categorize the redirect into Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants; values other than "Plant" or "plant" are ignored. Further subcategories can be added if this approach is thought to be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Has to target a scientific name?

The documentation says that this template is to be used on a redirect that "targets the scientific name that is correct". In practice that correct scientific name is often a redirect to a common name, to which the alternate name must also direct. An example is Gerbilliscus kempi and Gerbilliscus gambiana both redirecting to Kemp's gerbil. Is my understanding correct? I just came across Caprimulgus vociferus and Antrostomus vociferus. I suppose one could think of it as conceptually targeting the correct name, then being adjusted to avoid a double redirect. William Avery (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As the templates are currently intended to be used, all redirects from a scientific name to a non-scientific name should be tagged as "R from scientific name". This template is only for directs from one scientific name to another. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've changed the ones I did. This approach loses, or fails to capture, the valuable information that a name is deprecated. William Avery (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The documentation for "R from alternative scientific name" over-stresses "correct", I think. Here's my analysis. Suppose a species with vernacular name A has two synonymous scientific names X and Y. If the names correspond to placements in different genera, for example, which is correct is a matter of taxonomic opinion. However, we have to choose a single article title in Wikipedia, so there two cases:

1. Article at scientific name X. Y and A redirect to X. All that tagging Y as "R from alternative scientific name" actually does is tag it as redirecting to the name chosen in Wikipedia – hopefully the one with the best support. A is tagged as "R to scientific name".
2. Article at vernacular name A. X and Y redirect to A. Both are tagged as "R from scientific name" – a simple matter of fact verifiable by inspection. If the two had different R templates, then really there should be a source to support the tagging of one as "correct" and the other as "deprecated", but redirects don't have references.

If there was a consensus for it, "R from scientific name" could have an extra parameter, like "accepted=yes/no", which caused the name to be placed into different categories. But I would be concerned about the sourcing issue noted above, and whether the R template would be updated if scientific opinion changed as to the accepted name. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide the detailed rationale. I'll be very happy to leave things as they are now! William Avery (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What category link

This template puts this text on the redirect's (or synonym's) page:

"This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link."

But there is no category link on any of the pages I opened that have this, what does it mean? MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I just tested this template both individually, {{R from alternative scientific name}}, and in the {{Redr}} template, and both yield category links in bold. If you mean the category links at the bottom of a redirect page, remember that they are "hidden" categories. Editors have to enable their ability to see hidden categories in their user preferences. If that is the case, you can make this choice very easily:

1. Go to Preferences → Appearance
2. Scroll down to Advanced options
3. Check the box Show hidden categories
4. Click Save

You may need to purge your browser cache to ensure that you can see hidden cats in the future. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 06:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is on the redirect page, in other words, It is to readers of the encyclopedia, there is not any indication it is about editing the article. The articles I clicked on had no categories. I picked a few dozen others in the category, not a single one had categories. What articles did you look at, so I can see?

Wait, it says it is a hidden category, maybe I do not see the note if I am not logged in? MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)06:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what I see:

Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page

Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link. Categories (++): (+)

And, logged out, I see this:

Acrocercops rhombiferella From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page

Acrocercops rhombiferellum This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link.

I already have hidden categories selected in my preferences. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The bold link, "alternative scientific name of an organism" is a link to that category. You can only see hidden categories if you are logged in and have set your preferences as I described above. If you are logged in, have set your preferences to see hidden categories, but you still do not see the categories at the bottom of the page, then you may need to purge your browser cache. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 07:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said I have see hidden categories in my preferences and demonstrated it by pasting the hidden category. Browser cache is purged, Maybe someone else can explain it by showing an example of what category links they see. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the category of thousands of redirects, this does not belong in what is called article space as a link,

"This is an administration category. It is used for administration of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories. This is a hidden category. It is not shown on its member pages, unless the corresponding user preference 'Show hidden categories' is set. This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. Pages are added to tracking categories through templates."

It should just be a hidden category, but the text implies there is some additional information about the organism at topic by clicking a category link, yet there is no visible "category" for the reader, just hidden editor categories. If the editor is savvy enough to have hidden categories, why tell them a link is the hidden category, instead o a category. You don't put notes in the middle of articles abou editing it, "John Smith was a farmer, if you disagree with his profession, follow this link, which is secretly an edit tab, in order to change the information." MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: I don't quite understand the point that you are making. Is your objection to the penultimate word "category" in the message "This is a redirect from an alternative scientific name of an organism to the accepted scientific name. For more information follow the category link."? If so, I have some sympathy, because it's not immediately obvious that "category link" refers to the emboldened words "alternative scientific name of an organism". On the other hand, this is the standard wording for redirect templates, so if this is your point, it applies more widely. If on the other hand your point is that there should not be such a link at all, then I don't agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I state the problem in my initial post, there is no category link. Categories are on almost all articles, at the bottom of the page, even the light reader of Wikipedia knows where they are and navigates them for related topics. There also is no more information, other than to inform you that this isn't really a topic category at all. Why say that the bold text is a category link, when it doesn't look like one, why all this artifice to make it not look like one, then call it one, why call it one, when it is not a reader category at all? Why say there is more information about "alternative scientific names of an organism" all bolded out, when there is no more information on the bolded topic? I don't know what you mean about there should not be such a link at all or you think I think there should not be but you think there should be. No idea what you mean, but since you are speculating on what I mean, maybe quote from my posts, and I can clear it up. MicroPaLeo (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I state the problem in my initial post, there is no category link – but there is a category link, i.e. a link to a category. It just doesn't look like one – on that we agree. There also is no more information – but there is more information at the link: there's a fuller explanation of what the category is, how to use it, what its subcategory is, plus lists of what articles are in the category and subcategory, etc. So I can only repeat that if your concern is that the message isn't clear, because it's not obvious what the "category link" is, I agree with you. But if you are saying that the link should be removed, then I don't agree with you. Ordinary readers won't be looking at the redirect page, because the redirect is automatically followed. Information on redirect pages is for editors creating and amending redirects, and the link is important to them. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the most difficult things about Wikipedia is how convoluted everything is with no purpose. I keep saying the problem is there is no category link, category links look a specific way, why all of a sudden make one look completely different, it seems to me unnecessary to keep speculating on something else, do I actually mean something different. That is why I asked you to clear up why you think I am saying that something should be removed, so I can clear it up for others. If there is nothing I say for speculating that, we can drop it.

Ordinary readers click on links all the time. A number of articles I corrected before registering an account were from entering a redirect, getting taken to the wrong organism, clicking on the very obvious link at the top of the page to what was originally intended, verifying everything, and going back and correcting the misinformed species or organism redirect. Synonymy appears to be a problem area, or tricky area, on Wikipedia.

Yet, does it really matter who it is for, why is there any purpose in saying there is a category, making some bold link to the category, instead of making it a category? The person above also edited the one I said, so it appears different again, implying maybe they are supposed to look yet another way. If there is some purpose in making this category different looking from all the rest, not a category at the bottom of the page, what is it, if not, then why do it? Editors can't figure out how to click on a category link, unless it is not called a category and made into bolded text, that is doubtful thinking. Even if you have to click on the link to go back to it, this is in what Wikipedia calls "article space," and that is for readers, not confined to editors. Making it a regular category link is for editors, this added step appears to be accommodating regular readers, not editors who know that you find information about category usage on the category page. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MicroPaLeo, for all the edits you've made and for the ones you describe above. We'd like to help you, but I for one am still unclear about the problem(s) you describe. As you have been told, there most certainly is a category link, at least one, for every redirect template (rcat) that is used to tag redirects. The fact that it is a bolded link with descriptive wording, which may seem to some to be not so intuitive, has for all these years never been an expressed problem until now. There may be other ways to do it, but it seems to me that there would be little benefit to change all of the many rcats to make all their category links more intuitive. Then you say that you have "Show hidden categories" checked in your user preferences, but you still cannot see hidden categories at the bottoms of redirect pages. You are not the first editor to have this problem, and it's usually the browser you use that somehow disables this feature. You may try using a different browser, or try running your browser with no add-ons. If that does not work, then you may ask technical questions at Wikipedia's Village pump. I sincerely hope that this helps and that you will reach a level of understanding that helps you to better edit this encyclopedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on Wikipedia are difficult. Peter says it is the bolded text that is the category, you keep saying it is a hidden category, even though I showed above that I see the hidden cats when logged in, and never said I couldn't, again, i I dif, quote me, and I will correct it. So what hidden categories in ths one am I missing? Please just list them. And, since Peter said it is the bolded text, why are you discussing the hidden categories? Well, if you tell me what they are, it might be obvious to me, too. So, what am I not seeing? MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll get used to the discussions as you get to know other editors better. Hidden categories: these are categories that have been designated as hidden on their pages. They are maintenance categories and will show at the bottoms of Wikipedia pages they tag and be marked as "Hidden categories". Rcats always link to their categories, which are usually defined as "hidden" even though they are linked within the rcat text. If this seems confusing, please forgive because it has only been about a year since text was first allowed on redirects, so some things are still works in progress. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 04:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What seems confusing is why you can't just tell me what hidden categories you see. Well, what ones do you see for that article? I said I had it in my preferences, demonstrated that they show, said they did, and you keep describing what they are and why I can't see what I can see. Well, what ones do you see on the page I used above, since you keep saying I don't see them? Is there a preferences or level two super hidden categories? MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In the article, Acrocercops rhombiferellum, I see two hidden categories:

• Category:Articles with 'species' microformats
• Category:All stub articles

On the redirect page, Acrocercops rhombiferella, I see two hidden categories:

• Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names
• Category:Printworthy redirects

There is only one level that I know of for hidden categories. Hope this helps. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 13:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of this template

This template was designed to be used for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the accepted scientific name, i.e. from one scientific name to another. {{R to alternative scientific name}} is an alias, although not ideal as a template name because it doesn't clarify the directionality, namely from what is currently a synonym to the accepted name.

The current pattern is:

• common name → scientific name – {{R to scientific name}}
• scientific name → common name – {{R from scientific name}}
• scientific name → scientific name – {{R from alternative scientific name}}

Three clear cases; three templates and corresponding categories.

A change to the auxiliary template, which I've reverted, would have changed the wording to allow its use for a redirect from an alternative scientific name to the common name. At present {{R from scientific name}} is used for all redirects from scientific names. I don't support this change.

Most importantly, the change would mess up the pattern above. "Scientific name → common name" cases would be mixed with "scientific name → scientific name" cases.

There would also be updating problems. If an article is at the accepted scientific name, then if this changes and the article is moved, redirects to it will be updated as well in the normal course of events. But if the article is at the common name, and the accepted scientific name changes, although the article may be updated, it seems to me much less likely that redirects to it will have their categorization changed to show which is now the accepted name and which a synonym. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns, Peter. As regards your recent revert, I was not at all happy with my change, so thank you. It was the result of a conversation on the project talk page about double redirects. While many cases fit your third example above, there are still others that are like your second example, scientific to common name, for which there is also a redirect from an alternative scientific name. If Wikipedia tolerated double redirects, then the alt name could just redirect to the scientific-name redirect. However, as it is, the alt name must also redirect to the common name. It seems your thought would be to tag such alt names only with {{R from scientific name}}? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We did discuss this issue some time ago at WP:PLANTS, documenting the conclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Categorization. Your original concern has a sound basis, but you have independently reached the same point that we did, namely that if double redirects were allowed, then it could be done more logically. As they aren't, and as the common/scientific name distinction is more important than the accepted scientific/alternative scientific name distinction, the best we could come up with was the table as per the last wikilink.

So the answer to your question, is "yes". It seems to be the best compromise. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, that does sound like a better, if not perfect, way to go, and thank you again, Peter, for your input and help in these matters of science! – Paine  17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

During the discussion at WP:PLANTS, I'd intended to raise the issue at WikiProject Redirect, but didn't do so til several months later (and now it's been several months since I did bring it up at WP:REDIRECT). Tagging alternative scientific name redirects to common names as "R from scientific name" may be the best choice (though I find it counter intuitive). For the most part, I've been refraining from tagging redirects of that sort at all. There are plenty of other redirects in need of tagging where the category is clearer (and among plants, there are only number of alternative scientific name redirect to common names is relatively tiny). It is a little problematic that the redirect categories pertaining to organisms largely assume that the scientific name will almost always be the article title (redirects to/from monotypic taxa also get messy when common name article titles are involved). There doesn't seem to be any perfect solution though. Plantdrew (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there's a bias against long names for the R templates, so they aren't named "R from X to Y" but either "R from X" or "R to Y", which leaves open the type of the missing bit. Consider the table:

From\To	Accepted sci. name	Common name
Accepted sci. name	–	"R from accepted scientific name to common name" {{R from scientific name}}
Alt. sci. name	"R from alternative scientific name to accepted scientific name" {{R from alternative scientific name}}	"R from alternative scientific name to common name" {{R from scientific name}}
Common name	"R from common name to accepted scientific name" {{R to scientific name}}	???

At present we merge the rightmost top two cells. Paine's change would instead have merged the cells in the middle row, which we seem to agree is less good. We could create {{R from alternative scientific name to common name}}, but is this worthwhile?

There's also the issue of the cell marked "???". At present we just use 'standard' R templates, like {{R from modification}} and {{R from alternative capitalization}}, relying on the Talk page to mark them as involving some kind of organism. It would be possible to have optional parameters like |plant for these templates, but again, is this worthwhile? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile? Probably not. For plants in particular, with so few at common name, it's almost certainly not worthwhile. I'm just not very interested in categorizing those redirects that (in my opinion) don't fall neatly into the existing categories. If somebody else wants to categorize these, more power to them. I'm slightly more interested in creating lowercase redirects for BSBI names (no, I'm probably not really going to work on that, but it's more appealing to me than tagging alt sci name to common name). Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, Plantdrew, truly; it is my belief that anytime one comes across a redirect that needs to be categorized, yet one hesitates to tag the redirect and goes forward leaving a bare redirect behind, one has missed an opportunity. At the very least, a questionable mainspace redirect should be tagged as follows:

#REDIRECT [[(target article title)]]

{{Redr||printworthy}}

...(or unprintworthy as the case may be). Note that the first parameter has been left empty. In so doing, the redirect will be sorted to Category:Miscellaneous redirects, which is monitored by editors who have experience sorting redirects. All mainspace redirects should be at the very least sorted for printworthiness. Redirects in other namespaces should sport at the very least:

#REDIRECT [[(target page name)]]

{{Redr}}

Again, the use of {{Redr}} (This is a redirect) with no parameters default sorts to the Miscellaneous redirects category.

In a case where an alt sci name redirects to the common name, I suggest the use of {{R to common name}}, an alias of {{R from scientific name}}, in the following manner:

#REDIRECT [[(common name)]]

{{Redr|to common name|p1=plant|printworthy}}

You see, one important consideration for me is how other editors will perceive the categorization. Suppose a fairly new editor takes some time to learn about redirect sorts and sortings. That editor happens upon a redirect that is an alt sci name that is sorted to Category:Redirects from scientific names. Upon opening the redirect's edit screen, that editor will see what is the obvious and salient sort tag. Perhaps one day those code wizards, the devs who care for the underlying software and hardware, will come up with a way to allow double redirects and be confident that neither a vandal nor a new good-faith editor would cause an infinite page loop and server crash. Until then we should continue to do our best with the tools we have. Joys! – Paine  01:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

I spend quite a bit of time making redirects from alternate scientific names for fungal taxa. I'd appreciate it if this template could be expanded so that {{R from alternative scientific name|fungus}} would place these in a separate category, similar to what is already done for plants and fish. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Please create Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of fungi as needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged for your assistance! Sasata (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2017

This template supports several switches for more specific groups of organisms. I'd like to see it support {{R from alternative scientific name|crustacean}}. I've mocked up the needed changes at Template:R_from_alternative_scientific_name/sandbox.

This pertains to discussion at Template_talk:R_from_synonym about the purpose of that template. Many of redirects using "R from synonym" are "alternative scientific names", and many of those are crustaceans. If Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that when extra switches are added, the new category must also be created: in this case Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of crustaceans.

I've updated the documentation, putting it into a form that makes it easier to add new switches. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ and Peter. I was planning on creating the new category once my requested edit went through. Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request 30 May 2017

I've mocked up adding insects as a group in the sandbox, and checked testcases. There are a ton of insects in the main category, and a lot more that have likely never been tagged. I've created the category for the pages to be sorted in to already. M. A. Broussard (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@M. A. Broussard: (I can't edit this template, but...) Should insects be broken down further? I'm inclined to think that switches for subgroups should mostly correspond to the various WikiProjects. Should insects be broken down further to Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera (all of which have are subprojects or task forces of the Insects project?) I previously requested adding a switch for crustaceans while working on converting Category:Redirects_from_synonyms over to this template. WikiProject Arthropods is effectively (by talk page banner placement) mostly focused on crustaceans (spiders and insects have their own projects). While converting Category:Redirects_from_synonyms I found a large number of Diptera redirects that I ended up apply the nonfunctional switch |fly to. I'm not sure that all the large insect orders should have their own switches, but if an insect switch is being discussed, potential refinements should be part of the discussion.

Please note that I'm not objecting to this edit request at all. I think a switch for insects is badly needed. I'm just not sure that it ultimately produces a sufficiently refined category. Plantdrew (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I'm not sure how many switches we'd want to add. If you break it down by diversity, you'd want one for insects, and then specifically for the "big five" orders: Hymenoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Hemiptera. I've been putting the articles I've been tagging with a nonfunctional pipe to |insect so far. I mostly wanted to clear the category of insects for other groups/wikiprojects and have a more specific label on the redirects for future editors' information. What sort of administrative functionality do you get from these categories for WP plants? What would be the advantage of breaking them up further for insects? M. A. Broussard (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@M. A. Broussard and Plantdrew: I can edit this template, but I'm concerned about ad hoc additions.

• There are several redirect-tracking templates that have some switches: {{R from alternative scientific name}}, {{R to scientific name}}, {{R from scientific name}}, {{R to monotypic taxon}} and {{R from monotypic taxon}} (have I missed any?). It seems sensible for them to have the same set of switches; certainly this would be less confusing to editors. So any case for a new switch should be acceptable for all these templates.

• I've harmonized the sandboxes of those five templates so that they all take the same switches ({{R from alternative scientific name/sandbox}}, {{R to scientific name/sandbox}}, {{R from scientific name/sandbox}}, {{R to monotypic taxon/sandbox}} and {{R from monotypic taxon/sandbox}}). If there's consensus I can copy the sandboxes over to the live templates. Going forward, the easier solution would be to replace these with a single Lua template so we don't have to worry about them getting out of sync. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 01:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: There shouldn't be any problem with harmonizing the templates with the existing sandwiches. I don't know anything about Lua, but it sounds like a good idea to have everything in one place in the future. M. A. Broussard (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: yes, I agree; go ahead and make the sandbox versions live.

I'm not sure that Lua is needed – it makes it more difficult for many editors to update templates if they are written in Lua – but having a single auxilliary template underlying all of the five would be a good idea. This would handle the switch parameter and the necessary categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I created a simple Lua module as a backend at Module:Science redirect. Modifying it is pretty simple, and is done entirely in a separate module at Module:Science redirect/conf. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ahecht: ah, it was a good idea to separate the configuration into a separate module. Definitely the right approach. The redlinked categories need to be created when it goes live. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• The prime justification for a switch has been that it is of value to WikiProjects in maintaining 'their' articles. So there seems little point in adding a switch unless there is an active WikiProject for that kind of organism. I have been editing spider articles recently, so I found the tracking categories useful at times, but I have to admit that WP:SPIDERS is pretty inactive, so the case for a 'spider' switch isn't really strong. My point is that simply because there are a large number of articles about a particular group doesn't justify a switch for that group – what should matter is whether the resulting categories are of use to an active WikiProject. Remember these are hidden categories, not seen by ordinary readers nor intended for them.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@M. A. Broussard: Just as the main category is currently overwhelmed by insects, an insect category would be overwhelmed by Lepidoptera. That may not necessarily be a problem, but there is a fairly active group of editors working on Lepidoptera. If the rationale for having |insect is based on the parent category being too large and overwhelmed by one subgroup, that rationale could also apply to insects with respect to Lepidoptera.

There isn't a lot of administrative functionality to the categories. Theoretically category contents could be compared against an authoritative checklist to catch certain errors (e.g. cases where Wikipedia lumps and the checklist splits). As far as I'm aware, there aren't any authoritative biodiversity databases for insects as a whole; what does exist is at the level of order at best.

@Peter coxhead:. It would be good to have the same set of switch for all the relevant templates. The 5 you mention are the ones I know about. {{R from alternative name}} does see some use for redirects from one vernacular name to an article titled by a different vernacular name, but is used for many things aside from taxonomy related redirects. And I made {{R plant with possibilities}} to account for plants redirecting to (non-monotypic) higher taxa; at the time I didn't know about {{R from species to genus}}; if I had know about it, I might have looked at adding switches to that template. Plantdrew (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I did put in a request for insects to be added as a switch for {{R from alternative scientific name}}, {{R to scientific name}}, {{R from scientific name}} and {{R to monotypic taxon}}, but seem to have missed the monotypic taxon templates. The existing templates have different numbers of switches as well.

@Plantdrew: The template {{R from species to genus}} redirects to {{R from subtopic}} at the present time, so it may be a moot point? I have to say that {{R plant with possibilities}} doesn't tell me much by its name, and it was only by looking at the text on the redirects that I understood what it was for. I feel that the species to genus template would be a better one if it were still its own entity. Since there are less than 50 articles using this template (all species redirects linking to the genus-level article), could this template be resurrected?

@M. A. Broussard and Plantdrew: the point about redirects from species to genus is that they should not exist unless the genus is monospecific. Otherwise they just make it look as though a species article exists when a red link would show that it does not. They also prevent lists of species in genus articles having species links, since these are just circular. The correct approach is to ask for a redirect from an species to a non-monotypic genus to be deleted, which I've done regularly. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't much administrative advantage to chopping the pipes into smaller subunits, I feel that "insect" may be fine enough--the other categories (eg fungi) cover a similarly massive group of taxa. I've been tagging the important redirects (eg the scientific name of a species with the article at the common name) with WP insects plus the Hymenoptera task force. That division + the redirect category would allow me to view the relevant pages (although it is more complicated dealing with the task force versus the project). However, if either of you feel it would be better to separate it into finer subgroups, I would be fine with that, particularly as insects far and away have the most described species than the presently included taxa (though fungi would very likely have more if all species were described). M. A. Broussard (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Done I switched this template over to use Module:Science redirect, which also supports the insect category. If any weirdness shows up as a results of this switch, let me know and I'll switch it back. I'll wait to switch the other four templates over to the module until we have some time to make sure that this one is working correctly. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been going through Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names using unknown values for parameter 1 now that the Lua-based script is in place, and it looks like most of the 400 or so articles that remain in that category are categorized as mammals (or a sub-category such as rodents), amphibians (or a sub-category such as frogs), mollusks (or a sub-category such as gastropods or bivalves), and arthropods. Any thoughts on adding mammals, amphibians, mollusks, and arthropods? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Italics

I tried this in the sandbox, but the preview keeps redirecting. Anyway, theoretically any page using this template should be in italics, so i thought it should just be in the template. I’m not sure on the placement. And ideally, there would be a parameter to turn it off in those rare exceptions, but I am not sure how to code that. Input? --awkwafaba (📥) 04:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Redirect asn" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Redirect asn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23 § Template:Redirect asn until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Name

Why is this template called what it is, as opposed to "r from taxonomic synonym" or "r from unaccepted scientific name"? It seems like an odd phrasing. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow:, I think it's partly to match "R from/to scientific name" but also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive63#Redirects_and_categorization, where Peter coxhead said: "I'm not keen on {{R from taxonomic synonym}} because its name implies the alternative name is a valid synonym. For example, plants of horticultural importance have often been known by names which aren't taxonomically valid. There are also widespread orthographic errors. I wouldn't want to have to use different "R templates" for these cases."

I'm not entirely convinced by that, but I use the canonical template name ({{R from taxonomic synonym}} exists, and was used earlier, as was {{R from synonym}}, which originally populated a category labelled as being for taxonomic synonyms, but which has now been polluted with many general-use synonyms). Plantdrew (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A major reason not to use "taxonomic synonym" is that it is another name for "heterotypic synonym" in the ICNafp (see e.g. here and the entry for "heterotypic synonym" in the ICNafp Glossary.) I assume we aren't wanting to distinguish between homo- and heterotypic synonyms, aka nomenclatural and taxonomic synonyms. The ICZN doesn't use "taxonomic synonym" in this way, so in this code the adjective "taxonomic" just has its general meaning, and "taxonomic synonym" and "synonym" are (non-taxonomic) synonyms.

The objection to "unaccepted scientific name" is that some authorities may well accept a name that we treat as an alternative. Plants of the World Online (PoWO), for example, lumps fern species that we separate according to PPG I. So Blechnum colensoi is placed in Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants. But for PoWO it is the accepted name. Putting it in a category "Redirects from unaccepted scientific names of plants" would simply be wrong. (See also how Tropicos treats "accepted names".)

Wikidata uses the term "taxon synonym" – see P1420. The German and Spanish descriptions of the property are even clearer than the English that the accepted/recognized name is not a synonym in this sense, although this is contrary to both the ICZN and ICNafp. I suppose we could use "R from taxon synonym" rather than "R from alternative scientific name", but this does mean using "synonym" in a way contrary to the codes.

Avoiding the word "synonym" still seems to me the only way to avoid multiple problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Another reason not to use "taxonomic synonym" that I just remembered is that Wikipedia doesn't always redirect pages in the ways that would be considered synonyms under the codes. Technically (under the rules of the botanical code), the family name Asclepiadaceae is a synonym of the family Apocynaceae. However, the subfamily Asclepiadoideae includes all the genera that Asclepiadaceae did, so Asclepiadaceae redirects there. Asclepiadaceae is an alternative scientific name that referred to the same collection of genera that Asclepiadoideae does, but it is not a taxonomic synonym of Asclepiadoideae. Plantdrew (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)