Talk:Main Page

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

References[edit]

Global biodiversity estimation[edit]

  • Appeltans, W. et al. (in press, 2012): The magnitude of global marine species diversity. Current biology, doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036
  • Bacher, S. 2012: Still not enough taxonomists: reply to Joppa et al. Trends in ecology & evolution, 27(2): 65-66. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.003
  • Bebber, D.P. et al. 2007: Predicting unknown species numbers using discovery curves. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B), 274(1618): 1651-1658. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0464
  • Caley, M.J.; Fisher, R.; Mengersen, K. 2014: Global species richness estimates have not converged. Trends in ecology & evolution, doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.02.002
  • Carvalho, M.R. de et al. 2013: Does counting species count as taxonomy? On misrepresenting systematics, yet again. Cladistics, doi: 10.1111/cla.12045 reference page 
  • Costello, M.J.; May, R.M.; Stork, N.E. 2013: Can we name Earth's species before they go extinct? Science, 339(6118): 413-416. doi: 10.1126/science.1230318
  • Costello, M.J.; May, R.M.; Stork, N.E. 2013: Response to comments on “Can We Name Earth’s Species Before They Go Extinct?” Science, 341(6143): 237 doi: 10.1126/science.1237381
  • Costello, M.J. et al. 2013: Biodiversity data should be published, cited, and peer reviewed. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(8): 454-461. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002 reference page 
  • Costello, M.J. et al. 2013: Global coordination and standardisation in marine biodiversity through the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and related databases. PLoS One, 8(1): e51629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051629 reference page 
  • Costello, M.J.; Wilson, S.; Houlding, B. 2012: Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Systematic biology, 61(5): 871-883. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syr080
  • Costello, M.J.; Wilson, S.; Houlding, B. 2013: More taxonomists describing significantly fewer species per unit effort may indicate that most species have been discovered. Systematic biology, 62(4): 616-624. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syt024
  • Fontaine, B. et al. 2012: New species in the Old World: Europe as a frontier in biodiversity exploration, a test bed for 21st Century taxonomy. PLoS ONE, 7(5): e36881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036881
  • Joppa, L.N.; Roberts, D.L.; Pimm, S.L. 2011: The population ecology and social behaviour of taxonomists. Trends in ecology & evolution, 26(11): 551-553. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.010
  • Hamilton, A.J. et al. 2010: Quantifying uncertainty in estimation of tropical arthropod species richness. American naturalist, 176(1): 90-95. doi: 10.1086/652998
  • Mora, C. et al. 2011: How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol, 9(8): e1001127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
  • Samyn, Y.; De Clerck, O. 2012: No name, no game. European journal of taxonomy, (10): 1-3. doi: 10.5852/ejt.2012.10

other[edit]

links[edit]

Talk[edit]

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Which animal does not drink water?

Why Linnaean taxonomy?[edit]

There needs to be an explanation on the Wikispecies FAQ at Meta Wikimedia. See comment at meta:Talk:Wikispecies/FAQ #Why Linnaean taxonomy? --Chriswaterguy 11:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Classification[edit]

If the current classification system is not the best, I recommend using both systems, and let people add in the pages.

Also, on the main page, please include a link that explains terms used in the Taxonavigation Fulldecent 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this recommendation. --ThatNateGuy (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Navigation[edit]

I tried taxonavigating to Homo_sapiens, but there were several breaks that made this impossible. Fulldecent 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikispecies is a great idea but I miss complet descriptions. It may have an thinked structure for a lot of languages.

HI[edit]

To whom it may concern, I would find it better if the pages were linked to any sort of content or description of the species, etc. Thank you, Melara... 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of them ARE so linked, via the references section (doi and PDF links). Example: Doxozilora punctata Thank you ... Stho002 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages should have the kind of info shown in the current species of the week Thermorules123 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Regna and links[edit]

Could a link to "Regnum Chromalveolata" be added to the Main Page? I cannot for the life of me figure out how to navigate to it from either Protista or "Eukarya". Please also note that the "Eukarya" link goes to Eukaryota, so that link text should also be corrected on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've eliminated the piped link for Eukaryota, but am still waiting on opinions concerning the addition of Regnum Chromalveolata to the MP, or at least a way to make it easier to navigate to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So confusing![edit]

Why is this classification system so complex? In my opinion it would be much better if we could just use the seven rank system that Linnaeus used. The Zebra doesn't need to be 23 pages down from the top! --Thermorules123 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely Aristotle's system would be even easier. Then, we wouldn't need to include microorganisms. Much nicer to only include plants and animals known to ancient Europeans, since it would greatly reduce the clutter of the site.
Unfortunately, scientific classification does not exist for the purpose of internet navigation. It serves to summarize hypotheses about interrelationships among the diversity of life on Earth. If Wikispecies discards current taxonomy in favor of a 250-year old system, we would be serving no one's needs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Species Count?[edit]

I have an idea for taxonavigating in Wikispecies. There could be a species count for each level of taxonomy. For example, on the page Animalia, there would be a section of the page that reads Animalia: 1,250,000 species. And it will continue as you go down the levels of classification: Aves: 9,800 species. Piciformes: 400 species. I think that this would help give people an idea of the enormous amount of species on this Earth. Stripey the crab (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC) This is basically what I came here to find. Great idea!

Vector rollout issues[edit]

I fixed the problem with the Main page tab in Common.js. I've also filed a bug for the logo problem. Let me know if you notice anything else. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the logo. Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please correct spelling in Dingo description[edit]

The word "weened" in the current featured species is incorrect - please substitute with "weaned". Many thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the lizard classification system up to date???[edit]

It differs a lot more than Wikipedia's classification. Is it still valid and up-to-date? --TangoFett (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Searching[edit]

While viewing this site I noticed something odd. If you search for "spirulina" it takes you directly to the main page of Spirulina. The problem with this is that I was actually looking to the common(Vernacular) name of Arthrospira.

The question I pose here: Is it desired to refrain from showing search results if the search string exists as a page itself? 99.156.230.52 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lizards[edit]

hey, sorry to interrupt, but I'm starting a lizard kiosk at my high school and I'm using this site as a reference. Will lizards be able to live in a non-swamp environment? if anyone can answer, thanks. Tragic serenity (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a site about scientific names, and not about ecology. That sort of information won't be presented here. You might try looking at the Lizard article on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing (third level?) pages[edit]

For the main (third level?) pages that head the sections for Fungi and Protozoa, showing the word in different languages, editing is possible. I managed to add the respective word in Cymraeg (that's Welsh, in case you didn't know). But for the 20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Those pages are vandalized so often that they are now protected. While your edits may be trustoworthy, there are many others whose edits are not only untrustworthy but detrimental. You acted correctly in posting the corrections to the talk pages, and I have put the changes in place for you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tamarind typo correction[edit]

Hi all. I feel bad for the poor Tamarind, this week's featured species. Apparently, The pet trade is posing a treat to their survival. Can someone change the emboldened word to "threat"? Many thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Enormous butterfly![edit]

This week's featured species (Heath Fritillary) is listed as ranging in size from 39 to 47cm. This is huge! I live in Britain and I certainly don't remember the skies ever being darkened by this monster. Clearly this should be millimetres (mm) - please could an Admin edit this? Many thanks. Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ark (talk page) 10:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling errors in Featured Species[edit]

Hello. The blurb below features two spelling mistakes which I have emboldened:

Canis simensis is the world's rarest canid. Territorial packs consist of 2 to 12 members. They congregate during the day and cooperate to guard and provide food for the dominant feamale's pups. They have a blood-chilling hawl, which reaches up to five kilometers and is used as long-distance communication. The arrival of high-altitude farms and domesticated dogs to their range make life difficult for this species.

These words should be spelt female and howl respectively. Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're seeing that information. The current "Species of the Week" is Attwater's Prairie Chicken, and not Canis simensis. You may need to clear your browser's cache to see the current species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Look at the datestamp and you'll figure out that it was related to a past (not a current) issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Species of the Week: Dung Beetle[edit]

"It rolls dung balls using its scooper-like head and paddle-shaped antennae..."?

It is an insect. It therefore has six legs, not four. Those large paddles are its front legs. The antennae are the pair of small projections from the head, and are too small and sensitive to be used as paddles.

Would you please correct this?

Done Stho002 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't seem very paddle-shaped to me...
Actually, their front legs don't seem very paddle-shaped at all. Looking at a picture of a dung beetle, their antennae (which is what it looks like) do seem to be paddle-shaped. I'm no entomologist, but I've handled beetles firsthand and they are very strong. --72.197.35.238 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a gecko[edit]

Agamidae (zoo Tashkent).jpg

UGH. This is a baby bearded dragon. Delete this please. --72.197.35.238 13:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are correct, the image needs to be relabeled at Commons. You would seem, however, to disagree with the zoo where the picture was taken. Koumz (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I would. This is a picture of Cyrtopodion here:

http://www.geckolist.com/photos/263_Cyrtopodion_scabrum-Rough-tailed_Gecko.jpg

As you can see, it is a gecko. More specifically, a gecko without eyelids. I sincerely hope it's just a mistake of the photographer and not the zoo. --72.197.35.238 13:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy conflict[edit]

From the Lamprophiidae article, its subfamily appears to be Lamprophiinae. However, looking at the latter article, it lists its family as Colubridae. Which is right? --72.197.35.238 13:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chromista and Protozoa[edit]

Please replace Protista with Chromista and Protozoa.

Sorry, can't do that without solid literature support...Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith (1998) A revised six-kingdom system of life[1]

  1. Thomas Cavalier-Smith: A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, Band 73, 1998, S. 203-266. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.x
yes, but that is one view, and 1998 is actually a bit dated now...Stho002 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right it is bit out dated. So what do you think of: http://www.itis.gov/itis_phy.html

That site's taxonomy is often more than 30 years out of date; they still group the bryophytes as a monophyletic division. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Language[edit]

is a pity that English is prioritized

Why? The largest language in the world should be prioritized. Not to mention the fact that classification is in Latin, and therefore universally acceptable. Other languages would be a waste of everyone's time, and precious server space, which is quite limited at a free and open organization such as the Wikimedia foundation. And also, Wikispecies is a Simple English website.

Protip: don't forget the dummy subject "it". You should have said: "It is a pity that English is prioritized". John Holmes II (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Other languages would be a waste of everyone's time". A waste of English speakers' time, you mean. You don't see the need for change as you are benefiting from the status quo, but others clearly see the need. Wikispecies should at least make a multilingual effort, like Commons does. Pikolas (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"The largest language in the world should be prioritized" - a disgusting attitude. Remember that the majority of the planet's inhabitants don't speak English, and large percentages are monolingual in Spanish and Chinese. The Wikimedia movement is an international movement, which by extension and by necessity also means it's multilingual. So monoglot English speakers who get off on imagining their language is king of the world don't help anyone by enshrining their linguistic supremacy in official policies. --68.227.243.244 07:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No.1 species directory with no floral representation? Help wikispecies to make it perfect.[edit]

The only thing that we acquire from this site is the taxonomic name, synonym and vernacular names. Got tired about names. Does mere study of classification become something scientific?

  • In angiosperm and gymnosperm topics like vegetative characters, floral characters etc can be given along with the names and mere photos. It will improve this site.
  • Why don't we start a project, PROJECT: FLORAL FORMULA and include the floral formula of each plant belonging to angiosperm class?. Then the site will be useful. Wikispecies doesn't discuss the use, cultivation etc. of an organism (I stress more on plants) and there is no need for it; I agree. But doesn't the morphology of it be given for this. It is very required for the improvement of our wiki.

Visit http://www.iasexams.com/NCERT-Books/NCERTBooksforClass11/FreedownloadClass11BiologyNCERTBook/Class11_Biology_Unit05_NCERT_TextBook_EnglishEdition.pdf to see how this is done.(NCERT textbook for class 11.) Valchemishnu (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it really be that hard?[edit]

Would it really be that hard/bad/whatever to put the language box at the top of the page? This is a Wikimedia project, isn't it? Isn't Wikimedia an international movement? Then why isn't this project more multilingual? --68.227.243.244 07:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The scientific community primarily uses English as official language of communication and Latin for describing species. Meta and Commons both have their language boxes at the bottom of the page so I don't think there is any concern for its placement location. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
...yet another example of Wikispecies privileging English, thereby limiting its use and scope as an international project...
...yet another example of missing the point ...
Missing whose point? I was unaware that Wikispecies was meant to only be used by academics (OhanaUnited stated that English is the "official language of communication" of the scientific community, which = academics)... what a pity. I guess the WMF has given up on its mission of making free knowledge available to the whole world and decided that it only wants to make free knowledge available to academics who speak English.
User:Node ue, please try take a look at our FAQ for explanation. While we do cater towards general audience, we provide a more professional atmosphere for the scientific community. And when I mean scientific community, it does not necessarily mean academics. A good example of individuals in scientific community and not an academic would be science students in high school or university undergraduate level. They learned the proper format of a species name, its language (Latin), and its medium of communication (English) through their biology classes. It is a fait accompli (aka accomplished fact) and any language changes towards how a species is described is extremely unlikely. Also, the species' page names in Wikispecies are in Latin because this approach provides and guarantees that one species only has one official name. Anything which deviates from it (i.e. a common name, name in other languages) will bring dispute and disagreement over which one is the "preferred page title" (note that it is only "preferred", not "official" since the official name will always be in Latin). Without even going into another language, I have an example in English that everyone will understand. If I create a disambig page called White Pine, it actually means five different pine tree species (three from North America, one from China, one from New Zealand). People will argue which species should be listed first in this disambig page. Then if a Chinese editor came and made a common name page with everything from title to content in Chinese, he might list the Chinese species in the top spot. You see how confusing it will become if we go multilingual? We will be fixing something that isn't broke. Since this issue is raised multiple times recently, I'll amend the FAQ to provide more clarity on why we decide not to go multilingual beyond main page and vernacular names. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a really poor explanation and does not change the fact that you are privileging one language over all others. Scientific naming conventions are one thing and I am not disagreeing with the practice of species' pages being located at their binomial names in Latin. What I am disagreeing with is the use of English (again, not Latin) to the exclusion of all other languages, which you have yet to provide a satisfactory justification for. I'm still waiting for that. --Node ue (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where did we "exclude" other languages? We have main page in 66 languages and we have village pump in 6 languages. On top of that, each species page contains, to the best of our abilities, common name(s) in each language. Could you provide us an actual example of your allegations rather than just pointing us to that direction without a specific example? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikispecies follows international standards. The International Botanical Congress publishes its taxonomic code in English, and the latest edition (in press) allows new species to be decribed in either Latin (as is traditional) or in English. English is the international language of botanical nomenclature by international agreement. If you disagree with this decision, you will need to take the issue up with the International Botanical Congress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FAQ candidate: how do you identify a member of a species?[edit]

This project seems exceedingly strange to a new user like me. You have a purely theoretical structure describing a logical hierarchy of objects alleged to be in the physical universe, but there seems to be no systematic information given to how to link theory to physical reality, and (equivalently) no definitions given of the atomic objects in the hierarchy. Have I missed something? If not why doesn't each bottom level entry contain a link to a source that describes the entity and/or gives a location where a prototypical specimen is housed?

[quote]why doesn't each bottom level entry contain a link to a source that describes the entity and/or gives a location where a prototypical specimen is housed?[unquote]
It does! Or at least it will do, but it takes time. Here is an example of a finished page: Lagynodes gastroleius ... Stho002 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing ?[edit]

I used to think Wikispecies is completed. I was just surfing through some of the pages and surprised that it is still missing a lot in term of Vernacular names of all the languages in the world. Some of the articles haven't update the links to Wikipedia. I suggest that all the bot-master should run their bots more often in updating links to Wikipedia and searching for Vernacular names in all languages of the world. There is also need to update Vernacular names section too. Some of the Vernacular names are in the links to Wikipedia but haven't been written in Vernacular names section. I guess we have long way to go until this is complete and actually useful for 7 billions people on this planet.Trongphu (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Language: An Idea[edit]

Unlike Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, Wikispecies is basically a structured list of scientific names with supporting data. While the other two are designed to define and explain things- both very language-dependent tasks- Wikispecies mostly just presents a highly-structured and language-independent system, which is defined and explained elsewhere. That means the substance of the site is best not replicated from scratch for each language, but the presentation can be made adaptable.

It looks to me like most of the language-specific content on the main pages is in a very standardized and predictable format- i.e. in section headers. Would it be possible to have a system whereby "skins" using other languages could display the pages with phrases in the specific language replacing the English phrases, and translated versions of all the navigational verbiage on the page? The taxa and the data would be in a single central database, but the expression of them on the pages would depend on which language-specific version was used. This would be not unlike use of alt captions to accommodate page readers for the visually-impaired, but much more basic to the system and more evenly-applied.

To make a skin, you would start with a list of existing header names and navigation labels, providing a translation for each. The system would substitute the skin's versions when drawing the page to be viewed in a specific language.

The main obstacles I can see would be non-standard header names, proliferation of references to cover multiple languages, and communication problems on the talk pages. There would no doubt also be page-design issues from differences in physical size and shape of the words in different languages (Watchlist [English] vs 监视列表 [Chinese] vs Beobachtungsliste [German], for example). Much of this could be alleviated with good system design. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I just had the odd experience of finding a page I had bookmarked coming up in Polish. I went to my user settings and saw an item I hadn't noticed before for "internationalisation". Either someone just enabled a feature in the software that hadn't been applied to this wiki, or it was there all along and I was going on like an idiot about reinventing what was already in place. Either way, I like it. I should have figured my idea was too obvious for someone not to have already thought of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikispecies" link[edit]

Currently "Welcome to Wikispecies" is linked, but to Wikispecies which is a pointless redirect back to Main Page. Could someone change the link to [[Wikispecies:About|Wikispecies]] therefore? - 91.1.29.173 10:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, the link has been updated. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Death Stalker scorpion - error?[edit]

Argh, apparently the current featured species, a rather aggressive scorpion, hides out in "Desserts"?! Put me right off my blancmange. Could someone change this to the more likely desert? Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Koumz (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Include Wikispecies into Wikidata[edit]

If we included Wikispecies into Wikidata one could automatically create the boxes in the wikipedia articles for animals and one could store things in different languages side by side.--92.193.47.177 09:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC) i would like to say that kangaroos ancenstors lived in trees.lions are the animals who belong in cat family and that lioness are the ones that hunt for food.

Proposal to merge Wikispecies into another project[edit]

At the risk of upsetting the entire Wikispecies community (and this certainly isn't my intention), I am preparing to write up a proposal to close Wikispecies to editing and have its contents added to a different project where appropriate. It has occurred to me (and many others, I dare say) that this project represents a very large redundancy of specialized information that is also included on multiple other sites, including possibly hundreds of languages of Wikipedia, the Commons, and most recently, WikiData. Once I have written up my full proposal, I will provide a link here.

Link to proposal: (coming soon, stay tuned)

Cordially, Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL! What part of "fuck off!" don't you understand?? Stho002 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Bob, you are not the first (nor the last) to suggest closure/merge. However, just like all previous proposals, individuals never read the FAQ which would have answered all their questions. If you have not read that, I would recommend you to read the FAQ. In terms of WikiData, I have highlighted all the pitfalls if a merge happens, once on Wikispecies mailing list in January and once more on Wikidata in February so I won't be repeating myself. In terms of quality, we actually subdivide some taxonomy in details (such as sub-tribe, sub-genus, variations, hybrids) that no other Wikipedia, Commons or Wikidata covered to this date. Furthermore, we do have some policies which make it almost incompatible with English Wikipedia's policies. An example would be conflict of interest. We have a number of scientists who edit pages that they contribute directly in the scientific community. If a merge takes place, these experts are pretty much barred from making meaningful contributions to their area of knowledge. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking me seriously and for the information, Ohana. I wasn't aware that original research happens here. Actually, the English Wikipedia does now use all the ranks (though the taxoboxes are generally formatted such that minor ranks are more difficult to access), the original research bit would make this a unique project. If this proposal has been closed before with opposition based on that reasoning, I'll respect that. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify something, NOR applies just as much here as to WP. However, the issues involved with taxonomy are so complex, that it usually takes "experts" to make sense of the data from the sources. General Wikipedia contributors tend to make a mess, as in fact you did here: http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anisomorphini&action=history, so please check that you and WP have got your facts right before claiming that WS is "redundant" ... Stho002 (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: If anything, the redundancy lies with WP. They insist on trying to incorporate everything, when in fact they should concentrate on significant information about species, and not try to account for every species, because this is the task of WS. Also, WS should be viewed as that part of WP which accounts for all species ... Stho002 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, this just got more interesting; if in fact NOR is a policy here, then that nullifies the reason I retracted my proposal. Also, I'm not your "general Wikipedia editor"; I'm heavily involved with taxonomy on Wikipedia and have a much deeper understanding of it than most biology editors and as well as a long history with Wikipedia's taxonomy template system.
In talking with my co-editors who also back this proposal, we decided it would be best to put this proposal on hold until we see Wikidata come out of the testing and development stages. It's difficult to assess this situation very well until we know exactly what it will be capable of, but from what I've heard so far, it should even be an effectively transcludable replacement for the taxonomy system that appears on all the flavors of Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Umm, which part of my reply mentioned "original research"? Bob, it seems like you're the one that brought up this point. I talked about COI, not OR. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That was an inference on my part, since I haven't seen this barring from editing you speak of. I understand your point, but I guess I'm not convinced it's been an issue. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best place to store the taxonomies, either...I'd like to wait and see how Wikidata turns out before continuing this conversation. It looks like it will probably be a great way to eliminate redundancies across the entirety of Wikimedia in taxonomic trees, but that really will depend on the "end" product. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Redundancy is just a negative spin on variety (and from a biological perspective, variety/variation is a very good thing!) The trouble with only doing something once is that you only get one view on it (things are rarely perfectly objective). It would be like saying, well we already have one love song, so why write any others ... redundancy! Stho002 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If I may be pedantic, redundancy occurs when the same information is provided more than once, as is the case with some information appearing on both Wikispecies and Wikipedia. WS is clearly the better resource on taxonomy. I, personally, would very much disagree with Bob on closing WS, but, having read the FAQ, I still think that there is some use to glean from a Wikidata (or wikidata-esque) approach here.
For example, it is eventually hoped that chemboxes would have their info stored in Wikidata, as scientific properties do not change with language. While I know Wikispecies is not language dependant, Wikipedia is, and is lacking because of it. Perhaps the taxonomic information could be provided by WS for WP? The issues raised above with expert knowledge and OR seem to point to a larger problem that WP (and quite possibly Wikidata too, who knows?) faces. Another wikipedian: 134.226.254.178 01:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Biological taxonomy is complex, and there are a million different ways of building the tree of life, but each project can really only cope with 1 way, so we need the "redundancy" ... Stho002 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion 134.226.254.178. Wikidata is intended for things that don't change (or things that change its identify very infrequently), such as names of individuals, building names, etc. Wikispecies appear to fall into that category, but systematic updates to taxonomy will cause a range of articles to be modified. So in a sense, it falls into the middle of Wikipedia (where things are at a breaking-news speed) and Wikidata (where things barely, if ever, change). OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect sister-project link[edit]

Please see Template talk:Sisterprojects#False Link. Thanks. (Posting here since that page doesn't seem heavily watched.) PinkAmpersand (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sloths" misspelled on 3rd line of the description[edit]

The main page is protected & cannot be directly edited, so this is my next best attempt to correct a misspelling.

The word "sloths" is misspelled as "slots" in the third line of the description: "The slots come in two variants: ...". It should be: "The sloths come in two variants:...".

LIFE SUBDIVISION: SHOULD BE THIS[edit]

Domain Bacteria

Kingdom Bacteria

Domain Archaea

Kingdom Archaea

Domain Eukarya

Kingdom Metazoa
Kingdom Plantae
Kingdom Fungi
Kingdom Protozoa
Kingdom Chromista

Kingdom Virus (Classification still unclear)

Errors in Species of the week? (Black Crazy Ant)[edit]

What is "efuse" in this sentence?

"It is considered a pest, nesting in apartments and other buildings, as well among others in trash, efuse, plant and tree cavities, and rotten wood."

Should it be "refuse"?

Also, I'm new so maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but why isn't the descriptive paragraph from the Template:Species of the week box anywhere in the article which it's about (currently Paratrechina_longicornis)?

Lastly, is this the correct place to mention these things, or should I post at Template:Species of the week or somewhere else? ZeniffMartineau (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Typo corrected. As for why there is no description, see meta:Wikispecies/FAQ for detailed explanation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)