Talk:International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The correct name for the codeEdit

We have confirmed with John McNeill, the Rapporteur Général of the Nomenclature Section of the International Botanical Congress, that the correct name for the code is "International Code of Nomenclature FOR algae, fungi, and plants", although it has been reported differently elsewhere. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

HistoryEdit

If this page is to deal with the history of the codes, then it should include the pre-1905 history, and also the American Code of Botanical Nomenclature that was so important to the Type Concept. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For that reason, I'd like to reinstate the ICBN page, so that the history information can grow there without cluttering this page. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
See below, where I've started a new section so that it's clear that we are discussing the page move. Peter coxhead (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

I'm not at all clear that the page move was the correct thing to do; it should have been discussed first. Yes, the ICBN has become the ICN, but that didn't automatically mean that there should be only one article. I think there are two options:

  1. Have a single article, as now, which has a major section covering the entire history which led to the ICN. I quite agree with Nadiatalent that it should include the pre-1905 history. All I did was to make a very preliminary start on expanding the history section, which should probably have at least three subsections: pre-ICBN, ICBN and ICN (which will get expanded in future years).
  2. Go back to two articles. The ICBN article will become historical only, but not until the text of the ICN is available, when the ICN article can be where there is an outline of the current principles and rules.

Ultimately, either solution appears to be workable. At present, the single article solution is problematic, because the referencing has to be to the Vienna Code, so that significant content which appears in the article is technically WP:SYNTH – it says things about the Melbourne Code which are sourced to the Vienna Code.

One argument for ultimately preferring the single article solution is that most existing wikilinks to the ICBN seem to be related to the rules themselves rather than to the history. However, wikilinks can be changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For that reason, placing the history on a separate page seems to be helpful. I don't know what that page should be called, though. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
In my view the core problem is that there are too many pages with no properly thought out overall structure. The principles and rules of the Botanical Code are discussed in at least the following articles (I've probably missed some).
It's difficult if not impossible to make all of these (a) correct (b) consistent (c) up-to-date. Personally I'd like to see one article which covered the principles and rules and one which covered the history (i.e. about the Code as a code, not an explanation of what is in the latest version). I suspect that this is too radical to get consensus, but I really can't see the need for articles on specific issues in the Code like "correct name" or "author citation" when these are in fact all connected. I'm afraid that (as with Synonym (taxonomy)) I sometimes have a fit of enthusiasm and try to sort something, but get discouraged and go back to simpler tasks such as writing about individual genera and species. I fear that readers are not well served at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That looks like a very useful list. Some of the problem is just verbosity, but as with the synonym page, cleaning that up probably has to proceed very slowly in case of opposition. I'm currently working on understanding the American Code, i.e., how and when the principle of types was incorporated, and how that might have messed people up who were publishing new combinations around 1910 to 1935 (or 1947). Perhaps I should make a separate section in this page that has a more-detailed history, to avoid pushing all that material into what is currently a very short overview. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you should. (Ulimately there could be a subsection on every version.) The history of the Code and how rule changes affected names, etc. is an important topic. I've found that when I've had to look at older taxonomic sources while researching specific genera or species (Hippeastrum and Schlumbergera are two examples) then in order to understand them properly it would have been great to have a reliable (but not too long!) summary of rule changes around that time and since. This article could become an extremely useful resource in this respect – for plant editors if not perhaps for many general readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that I'm adding more pages to the list above as I find them. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll do that too (!) Nadiatalent (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Italicisation of titleEdit

Is this really a title that should be italicised? International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (a C-class article) forgoes such formatting, but from my cursory glance at the WP:MOS it seems to be a bit of an edge case Bawb131 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is an edge case. If "International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants" refers explicitly to the publication itself (as in a citation), then it should be italicized as normal. But if it refers to the code rather than a particular publication, then I see no reason to italicize it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)