[Taxacom] Wikipedia classification

[Una Smith]

Kleo Pullin wrote:
>Oh, left the years off: also included with the names on the disambiguation pages of many things besides taxa, this is where the years or simply listing that one is a senior synonym, or listing, beside the junior synonym, its currently accepted name would be the equivalent.

In the case of Latreillia, both homonyms were published in 1830.  In
any case, as often happens on Wikipedia, while we have been talking
the page has changed, and a discussion and meta-discussion have been
started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latreillia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Latreillia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Homonyms

Better?


>There are many ways to go that would make a taxa disambiguation page more useful than a shot in the dark, particularly when what you don't know is what type of organism it is.

Sure, but recall that this disambiguation page has no incoming links,
and one point of having a disambiguation page is to capture and fix
incoming links so that they go to the relevant article.  (After I made
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latreillia a disambiguation page, I fixed
the incoming links.)  So the only way a reader will find the page is
via a search.  A search on the species name or on the homonym and
authority will send the reader directly to the relevant article, not
to the disambiguation page.

One problem we have is that Wikipedia has no concept of a "taxon
disambiguation page";  we barely manage to have a plant common names
disambiguation page.

	Una Smith