Talk:Kretania sephirus

Requested move 9 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Shyamal (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Plebejus sephirus → Kretania sephirus – This species was moved to the genus Kretania in 2013 following some molecular studies, see e.g. Funet, Wikispecies, and the primary source: Talavera et al., 2013. LamBoet (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Boldly moved. These are sound and overdue changes following systematics based on large scale sampling and molecular phylogeny studies of Talavera et al. Shyamal (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bold article move incompatible with fauna naming policy

@LamBoet:, @Shyamal:

As per WP:FAUNA: "The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:Article titles § Common names."

Plebejus sephirus is overwhelmingly more commonly used, with 5050 results on google versus Kertania sephirus' significantly smaller number of 76 results. From what I've seen, it seems that scientific literature from recent times still uses Plebejus sephirus (e.g. (2018), (2016), (2013), (2014), among many others).

I also found this British book from 2019 that, according to its index of scientific names, Plebejus sephirus and Kretania sephirus are possibly different butterflies (I am unsure of this, as the preview is incomplete).

Regardless, I don't think a correct title for this article can be determined without a proper discussion, so I'm waiting for your responses. Hecseur (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As the phylogenetic analysis is new - searching for Kretania (not Kertania) will certainly produce less Google hits - it certainly would be factually inappropriate to keep it in Plebejus given that a former taxonomic placement has been refined by modern approaches. In any case, neither of these are "common names" - these are binomials, the trivial English or colloquial names (aka "common name") may not exist in some cases (I see zephyr blue being used in some places but I am not sure how widespread that usage is - ie how commonly used it is). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lepidoptera does not indicate English name standards for leps to use so I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles would be applicable. So if you are for use of the "common name" as per the WP:AT link you posted - it would be for "Zephyr blue" and that would be a different issue altogether - that would probably need an RFC at WP:LEPIDOPTERA Shyamal (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. As per WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." My bad for mistakenly assuming that WP:FAUNA's English common name section applies for binomial names. However, from how commonly used the name Plebejus sephirus is, I believe it should be mentioned in the lead. Maybe something like: "Kretania sephirus, commonly known as Plebejus sephirus is a species of butterfly..."

What do you think?

P.S. while I typoed Kertania in my first comment here, the link is, in actuality, a search for Kretania sephirus. Hecseur (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

On well-developed organism-pages, there is usually a taxonomy and systematics section that deals with history and changes. The synonyms are also noted in the taxobox - it is not normal style on projects like WP:BIRD to list older combinations - I think the lepidoptera project has not matured to the point to have any prescribed styles. Shyamal (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's abnormal, but a modern taxonomy name change to an established species due to new discoveries is abnormal as well. Regardless, not mentioning Plebejus sephirus in the lead is problematic due to the fact that, as of right now, Plebejus sephirus is a way more commonly used name than Kretania sephirus. When someone will look for this butterfly, they will very likely search "Plebejus sephirus", and be confused when Wikipedia redirects them to an article with a different name. I'm pretty adamant about this, but since there is no guideline on how such a situation should be handled, I don't want to make changes without consensus. Hecseur (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this kind of edit is also compliant with WP:OTHERNAMES. Hecseur (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hecseur; I concur with Shyamal that scientific names are to be handled in a different way than English common names. The renaming of the page was a no-brainer, even if the taxonomy update is relatively recent. I am surprised you say that such updates are "abnormal", they have actually been quite frequent in recent years as a result of the advances of molecular phylogeny. Then, I don't have a problem with adding such a phrase as "previously known as Plebejus sephirus" (but not "commonly known", and I would not use bold font for the old name). BTW, you two links to Google results give very different numbers for me: 3620 for Plebejus sephirus and 2110 for Kretania sephirus. I am not sure how this works and why it varies this much.

One last remark peculiar to this butterfly: it is not a well-known species, it has often been treated as a subspecies (of K. pylaon), and it's not yet perfectly clear which Kretania populations it should now encompass. So, let's do our best, but there will be a little confusion anyway :-) --LamBoet (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As per your advice, I added the line "previously known as Plebejus sephirus". I agree that this is the best way to both avoid confusion, and primarily use correct terminology. I'm no taxonomy expert, so my assumption of this being abnormal was based on the lack of policy for cases like this. Someone should definitely get on enacting some policy for these name changes before Wikipedia has 20 articles with the same problem, all handled differently, that cause confusion or misinformation. Hecseur (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The current text will be found to be rather odd (esp. " Its former placement in the genus Plebejus is part of a species complex") by the biologically literate but given the stubby state of the article and the millions of others that need attention, it is unlikely that any of us are going to worry about it. The existence of binomial synonyms is not limited to this species - for a sample of entries please see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R_from_alternative_scientific_name. Shyamal (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote that line, I thought that was what was implied previously since the 2 sentences were connected even though they addressed independent subjects. Let me know if the current version is better. Hecseur (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks very good to me now :-) --LamBoet (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)