Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 5

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mammillaria sensu Reppenhagen

I would appreciate some comments on this format. Thanks, GerardM 20:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

@@@@@From en:wikipedia@@@@@
Hoi, Two things, there is a Wikispecies mailinglist, because of the subjectmatter largely being like ToL, it could be used for ToL stuff as well. When it is made clear that ToL people of all nationalities are welcome on this list, it would converge things, which would be welcome.

It would. In general my preference would be to keep discussion on the wiki itself, so that it will be open to the entire community. This is possibly a minority view, though, and in this case there will be people interested in coordinating standards but not in the new project. Either way I think it is extremely important to make sure everyone knows what is going on and that they are welcome to contribute, since there has been very little communication so far.

Have you had a look at the article Mammillaria sensu Reppenhagen on Wikispecies ? I really welcome comments. There would be similare pages like Mammillaria sensu Luthy.. Thanks, GerardM 16:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's the first worthwhile suggestion on how wikispecies might work, but as it stands probably isn't something we can follow in general. I can see two main problems.

The first is duplication. The entries on Mammalia carnea will have to mention that Reppenhagen included the former species Mammalia subtetragona, so this information shouldn't be repeated in entries on the genus. Many large groups have been subdivided in radically different ways, and listing all the correspondences between them will be much more difficult if we insist in doing it in the higher level entries. Similarly, when some minor group is transferred between pre-existing animal phyla, there's no reason the entries on the kingdom need to pont this out.

Second, there needs to be a way to relate different versions of the same group. A classification of the insects will typically include the family Formicidae, but rarely attach itself to a particular version of their subdivision. For the Euglenozoa test entry I simply listed all the different versions together, but this can quickly become impractical. It would be nice if there were a way of moving around within a single system. I'm not really sure how to make this work, though. Incidentally, anything sensu so-and-so should definitely include a date, since authors often make multiple revisions, and probably a citation of the original publication when possible.

By the way, this discussion should probably be moved to the wikispecies community page, so everyone can offer their opinion. Or possibly it should go on the mailing list?

Thanks, Josh 08:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
@@@@@@@@@@

The problem then would be which wiki. Not everyone frequents the en:wikipedia and not everyone is involved in the en:ToL. The point is that we need a place which is usable to all. We need some communication going not only for WikiSpecies but also for more collaboration between the wikipedia. GerardM 09:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The en:ToL has been the de facto center, but I was actually thinking of wikispecies, meta, or possibly commons. After all any common standard will have to be recorded in some place, so the discussion may as well go there as well. I know not everyone is interested in checking some other wiki, but lists may have the same problem.

I know there are problems with the list as is. What I presented is a straight copy out of my Access database. You can have it if it is any use to you. Missing are data like the author, the publication etc.
The way I envision the relation to the Genus is (mind you that is ONE description of the Genus), is that relevant publications/ systems are noted with the genus. There are several relations; one to the old and one to new entity. One to the system and one to the taxon immediately above/below. GerardM 09:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds generally good. Maybe old entries won't be a problem if we only list those mentioned by the revision in question. In that case, I would argue Mammalia sensu Reppenhagen simply need to be given a date and split up - species lists moved to subgenus entries, and species revisions moved to species entries. Once we decide exactly how to format things, the database could be adjusted and uploaded via a script. Is there someone who is reasonably good at writing such things?

--Josh

Commons

Where wikispecies is intended to describe the taxonomy (or better: taxonomies) of the Tree of Life, I have suggested a wikiproject Tree of Life at commons to photograph, draw and record in video and sound all forms of Life. In my view the Commons project would draw on the taxonomy of wikispecies, while wikispecies could use the media of the commons project.

I would welcome your thoughts on this, preferably at the vilagepump of commons to keep the discussion centralized. TeunSpaans 08:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


IRC channel

Do wikispecies have official irc channel in freenode? I have notice there are some channels, but don't know what should be used. – linnea (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets use irc://freenode/#wikispecies :D

Why is everything in English?

As I started watching the wikispecies I recognized that everything is in English. I still have changed the languge in my preferences in to German, but I cannot work if there is everything in English. All sections are in English (Help, Village Pump ...). Is there any possibility to change it into German and of course in other languges? I would try to help to complete it into German.


My guess would be that the somewhat universal language of science is English. Just like how the scientific community uses metric.

I agree, we should be allowed to work in our own language. That is what the Wikimedia Foundation is all about. --Fulup 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree - en:user:ggonnell --145.254.33.159 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the language adopted for air travel communication is english, banking and finance are in english throughout the world... however as you say there is no reason for this site to be in english... except maybe idioms and phrases often do not translate... so you would need the same information in every language for every page and then to continually update every page for everylanguage - this is tautology - just repetative. I believe one of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that people can ammend information and the information grows with every submission... creating a separate wiki in every language would detract from the greatness of Wiki as a whole. I guess I'm just lucky to speak english - maybe a babel fish programme which really works will fix this for you.

I'm not a Wikispecies regular, so I'm not really in a position to comment, but from what I have seen there isn't any text at all other than classification types and classes, which are all in Latin (/Pseudolatin/Greeky-Latin). So I don't think there is much of a problem. If you mean the meta-pages (like this), it's in English because the writers write in English. I have no doubt that if you wrote in German, others would reply in German. In summary, there's no problem on content pages, and meta-pages only have a problem if you want it to be one. Dbmag9 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this copying over in multiple languages exactly what happens in the multilingual pages of wikipedia? There is much more content there and it is not made less valuable by having so many languages. If your language is missing, look up how to begin a translation. If wikispecies cannot have translations, I say it should. --130.111.248.90 15:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal language just persist (as latin for nomenclature) because doesn´t care how is written, its just a key for a meaning. But for wikispecies, I think it should be multilanguage, because we are trying to spread knowledge, and English is not the Universal language of it. Knowledge is expressed in many languages, as life is expressed in many forms here in Earth. But, if you want, we can create another page called Especies in spanish, so that we lose the focus of the Wikimedia project, to group all the info and make relationships between them to make knowledge available for everyone, everywhere, everylanguage. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.191.70 (talk • contribs).

If Wikispecies is going to be a project with language-dependent subprojects (as Wikipedia is), so be it. But if it is to be a consolidated database, there must be language-specific "skins" available. Native English-speakers tend to forgot that English is not that widely accepted as lingua-franca, and especially that is was never been "The Universal Language" in biology. Latin used to be and in part still is, as newly discovered taxa are still following the latin grammar. Also I would like to remind to the native speakers the sentence "Why they claim English is so hard to learn, I've learned it at the age of two" - people are not born at the same place, and while many know English, many many more do not. The latter includes quite a significant number of people with scientific background. -- Bggoldie 11:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies does not want to provide any language. In the future the taxonomy structures are put into a database. See meta:Wikidata. Ideally there shouldn't be English on our pages either, but we needed words to explain what the different sections mean. Once wikidata is up and running, the idea is that all wiki's can access the data in the database and use it in any way they want. This project will never see language subprojects, as we are trying to be language independent. The names of taxons are in latin solely, because this is an accepted standard, ever since Linneaus started binomial nomenclature. --Kempm 11:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which One Is Correct?

Excuse me, Can anybody please tell me which template is correct in naming the subspecies and varieties? (at least I'm asking the standart in wikispecies):

Abies concolor var. concolor or simply Abies concolor concolor?

Arenaria lanuginosa ssp. lanuginosa var. longipedunculata or Arenaria lanuginosa lanuginosa longipedunculata?

Agrostis mertensii ssp. borealis or Agrostis mertensii borealis? --Alperen 13:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question

I think the answer is different for plants and non-plants For plants I think we use subsp. , var. and f. (although I am open to changing subsp. to ssp.)

For non-plants I think it is the second option. Other opinions? Open2universe 14:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO using ssp. for subspecies is better. --Alperen 14:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do we have a standard?

As far as I know, botanists use ssp., but it is never used in zoology. We should follow that standard. I'm not sure about Bacteria (though there may be no subspecies there). Ucucha (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In zoological nomenclature, no abbreviations are used, only the trinomial. Example: Papilio machaon melitensis. -- Glacierman 07:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

Do we open new titles for synonyms or do we just mention them in the accepted species? For example if Plant A is a synonym of Plant B, do we open both titles or the only accepted name of the plant (Plant B for ex.)? Thanks --Alperen 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, another option is to redirect the synonym name to the accepted name. Any ideas? --Alperen 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been redirecting the synonym name to the accepted name (at least in birds). Because there are a number of us working from different resources you may find that the article for the synonym is already done. I would change that to a redirect of the accepted name. And if it is a recent name change or if different references claim different accepted names I would add the disputed template to it and note it in the discussion.Open2universe 14:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your explanations are very helpful. --Alperen 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and pronunciation?

I'd just like to suggest that, if possible, it would be nice to make etymology and pronunciation a part of the entries... conceivably, the process might even be semi-automated with a dictionary link; in any case, there should be a way that "canadensis" can be defined for every species with that name at once, for example. (It'd also be nice if the automation could find and link relevant Wikipedia, Wikitravel, etc. entries as it goes through, but that's another issue).

Templates and systematics

Hi, Wikispecies is "the" thing I missed in Wikipedia - cool idea! I just tried to add some information in the bivalvia. The systematics in the bivalvia are discussed (biology vs. paleontology) (compare bivalvia in the german wikipedia. So I got 2 suggestions:

1. If there are different opinions there should be shown both of them. And a short list of arguments. How to imply these different possibilites in the templates without favorising one? All the templates I have seen have a strict systematic. Why not change it to my second suggestion:

2. Every template should just consist of its name and the template of the higher level. So if a higher level is changed you don't have to change all the templates. You also have the possibility to note the different opinins by adding two different higher levels.

Advantage: No useless fights over systemtics.

Problems: You need more calculating-power or you create static templates for the subtaxa that are only changed if a involved template is changed. And you (and I) are supposed to change the exosting templates.

--Weitbrecht 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon Author Pages

I joined wikispecies today and linked a couple of authors to their respective wikipedia pages. I just discovered that the links have been deleted. Are we keeping the taxon authority pages in house? - Totipotent 02:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is Yes and No. Yes we link to an internal article, BUT that article contains little information except links to all the wikipedias. This handles links to multiple languages. Open2universe 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis, Vernacular names, Common Names

There are a couple of issues at hand. 1. There is a request in to have interwikis show up on the left side as they do in the wikipedias and commons. When this happens we won't need to worry about interwiki sections. 2. Vernacular can have very little meaning, but do hold important information. In fact, I believe we might even want multiple vernacular names per language.

Lets get this settled once and for all. User:Thorgal has started a new style for Common Names. See Struthio camelus syriacus. I still prefer lists.

Here is my proposal.

A section name Interwikis (or In Wikipedia, since that it how we handle it in the taxon author page) that includes links to the wikipedias. This section will go away if the interwikis show in the left hand column.

A section named Vernacular names, but in list form.

Any thoughts? Open2universe 12:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's better to have a list of interwikis than the thing Thorgal made, I think, since it's easier to read.
We need the developers to get interwikis in Wikispecies. I already tried to lobby them some time ago, but they wouldn't do it, I don't know why (it had something to do with that Wikispecies was not Wikipedia I think). Ucucha (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the horizontal form; a short list of vernacular names would be reasonable, but I find that I lose entries in the longer uniform lists very easily. The horizontal paragraph style, for one thing, makes the page shorter and invites the eye to read, rather than interpret it as not a part of the article (it took me a few browses before I realised that they were not part of the Wiki chrome). Obviously, it would also be better to have several vernacular names within one language, as in real life this often happens.

Penumbra2000 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've visited the Struthio camelus syriacus-page and have to say that am not happy with the change. Although it provokes the eye to read, it does not provide the opportunity to locate easily the language the reader is looking for. I expect people will much often just search for language-specific name that willing to read all the names in all the languages around the globe. The bullet-list form also allows better separation of multiple vernacular names from multiple names in various languages.

However it brings up a minor issue - sort order. It is better to be uniform but the interwiki approach is English Wikipedia is language-centric and does not fit in all-languages environment. I personally see ASCII/Unicode-order of the ISO-codes as the language-neutral form.

The interwikies/vernacular names raise one more question - should only the ISO codes be specified, or language-name in the language itself too. The current vernacular names use the former while interwikies in Wikipedias do the latter. Please excuse my ignorance if this point have been discussed already (somewhere). -- Bggoldie 11:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soil taxonomy? (and help with pinophyta)

are soils alive?? the strong relationship with plants could make possible a space for them in wikispecies????? it wolud be great and so helpy


"Search" fonction not enough sensitive

They are a little problem with the search fonction : it is not enough "sensitive". I mean, when we search for a genus (without proper page), he don't always find it even if the genus is on a taxon page. I think it happens when the genus is in a taxon with many higher taxons, or with many genera. That happens to me today with the genera Melanophila (Buprestidae:Melanophilini) and Chalcophora (Buprestidae:Chalcophorina). I think it most be corrected cause, when we search for a taxon, we don't necessarly search for the taxon page itself.


key to things

I was reading someones entry about how useful this site would be and I believe the key is in being a key.

With animals its easy (OK easier) but with plants identifying species and sub species becomes difficult even for the trained botanist.

Say I am a new homeowner that has a variety of plants in my yard...I want to identify what they are so I can take care of them. So I go to wiki and it gives me a question as to what I am trying to ID. I say it has leaves... then it asks if the leaves are parallel etc. ...the questions keep going until I have a good id of the plant and at that point it has pictures and all the other great info in wiki. Now that is a useful site! Even for the greatest of plant people!

Your idea is being worked on in the Wikibooks. There's a rough draft you can take a look at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Dichotomous_Key -- kempm

featured articles

Hi, as a new comer it would be great if there was a link to some "featured" or even "good" articles to use as a model, perhaps on the community portal or main page? "random page" isn't getting me anything other than "blank" pages. Stevage 15:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia and Tree of Life

It is not hard to notice the seeming lack of linkage and coordination between several Wiki projects. I took a look, for example, at the plant species on this section of Wiki, Ginkgo biloba, and found similar but differently written articles on the other Wiki projects and I don't think I saw the same photos on each one? This is true of other taxonomic plants I am interested in. If this is to take off and get rolling along, what is the difficulty or unsurmountable problem in moving all the taxanomix photos of everything covered in here that are located in Wikimedia, and only using this section for those pics. It seems to me that it would be a good idea. As it stands for me, there are no full text articles allowed on Media and if I wrote an article on here or Wikipedia, I cant make links other than URL links, although the Image:.jpg appears on both. Hope I am clear as mud LOL LinneausHoff 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)LinneausHoff[reply]

:-( It would be really useful if short descriptions were posted with the names

Otherwise those of us who don't already know what we are looking for will find the taxonomy to be completely useless. We will either use search, or, if we don't know what to look for, we will go find some other site that is actually useful.

Why is the fox not listed in Wikispecies?--210.19.98.2 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the description must be multilingual! --145.254.33.159 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, it would be useful to have differentiating features for each sub-category, rather than just listing them. I don't know enough to give a really good example, but at the top level, under Taxonavigation it lists:

Superregnum Archaea (No Cell Nucleus, but similarities with both other superregnum) Superregnum Bacteria (No Cell Nucleus) Superregnum Eukarya (Cell Nucleus) - Regnum Protista (Single cell) - Regnum Fungi (Live on dead material) - Regnum Plantae (Non-mobile, rigid cell walls) - Regnum Animalia (Self mobile)

I added in the kind of descriptions in parenthesis that I think would be helpful. --Tylhan 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki is basically different from other wiki's. The only real answer we are to to give on this wiki is the place of the taxon in the taxonomical tree. We try to do this without words, trying to keep this unilingual. For the most part you will only see the taxonomical tree which is in latin only. The only sections you will see on wikispecies (a few exceptions) are Taxonavigation, Name, References, Synonyms, a picture, and a section called Vernacular Names. These are interwiki links to wikipedia's in your preferred language. Wikispecies needs to be a 'plug-in' to the wikipedias and all information should be placed on the wikipedia pages, not here. If you're missing information on the wikipedia page of your preferred language, then go there and add that information. If there's no link to your wikipedia, then add that link (provided the page does exist). Adding information on wikispecies would only mean duplicating efforts, and losing the unilangual status of this project. --Kempm 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Questions

I really new hear. If some people could look at what I edited could they tell me if the edits were "Pointless" and "Vandalistic" as pointed out by user Ucucha ? FatAss 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two edits definitely come under the 'vandalistic' category. After that you seem to do nothing other than correct minor stylistic points on talk pages. This, I would consider, is both 'pointless' (it does not help Wikispecies do anything) and in bad taste (similar to correcting people constantly when in a conversation). Dbmag9 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

publicity offer; item about Wikispecies in Wikizine

Hi, I am meta:user:Walter from meta:Wikizine. I would like to include an item in Wikizine about Wikispecies. I do not know really this project besides that it exist. And I think that most users from the other projects not even know that.

Request; make a brief introduction about what this project is. And try to make it so that it invites people to use or join this project. --Walter 10:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ...

... we have a project in our family called "Wikispecies"?

Wikispecies is ....

Thanks for the offer. Give me a little time to come up with something. Open2universe 11:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, there is no deadline. It makes no difference in what edition this is used. Thanks for helping out. --Walter 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Open2universe has provided an introduction to Wikispecies --Walter 10:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Taxonavigation

Where is the line drawn on the length of the taxonavigation section? (There should be a line or else the list could go on pass the page)

I use the order Diptera as my example... it is aesthetically unpleasing even before reaching the species level. The Endless Taxonavigation section reaches the right end of the screen practically at the family level...

I have been including every previous taxonavigation level in the section but I have noticed that some people have left some minor levels out:


What I am Doing
{{Diptera}}
What I Have Seen
Main Page

Regnum: Animalia

Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Division: Neoptera
Subdivision: Endopterygota
Ordo: Diptera

I would like to get some advice before I move on to more specific taxa... If certain levels could be left out then it would look more aesthetic. A perfect possible level for deletion would be the Divisions and subdivisions. In addition, if the format of the taxonavigation list was different then it could possibly look better and contain every imaginable level.

Maybe Something Like This?
Main Page

Lastly, I understand that the whole site should be consistent throughout and I am trying to make that happen.

I would like to get a consensus to what should be done... Totipotent 23:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going to get any response? Totipotent 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point when it comes to insects. I don't have a good answer. Ideally this will be data driven some day. There was talk of a wiki database. Open2universe 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Chelidae need help on an issue

Hi I have just added most of the Chelidae for you, any down to species level, though I have not made any species accounts. However I have a major snag with this group.

It was completely missing from your data, ie you had Pleurodira --> Pelomedusoidea but the other branche of this group was missing entirely, Family down.

My issue is that you have this:

Regnum: Animalia

Subregnum: Metazoa
Superphylum: Bilateria: Deuterostomia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Classis: Reptilia
Ordo: Testudines
Subordo: Pleurodira
Superfamilia: Pelomedusoidea - Chelidoidea

I have added the Superfamilia Chelidoidea and its lower taxa from there. However the Family Chelidae has not been assigned to a superfamily, so to make the links work I have made up the Chelidoidea so there would be a Superfamilia category here. But in reality it is supposed to be:

Ordo: Testudines
Subordo: Pleurodira
Familia: Chelidae

with no superfamily. How do I make the Suborder category jump to a Family category for Chelidae but still go to the Superfamily Category for Pelomedusoidea.

Cheers, Faendalimas 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you could try something like this:

Regnum: Animalia

Subregnum: Metazoa
Superphylum: Bilateria: Deuterostomia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Classis: Reptilia
Ordo: Testudines
Subordo: Pleurodira
Superfamilia: Pelomedusoidea - Unassigned
and then:
Ordo: Testudines
Subordo: Pleurodira
Superfamilia: not assigned (or undefined, or none, etc)
Familia: Chelidae
Lycaon 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This page is moaning and groaning to be archived. You don't have the plus-sign next to edit (do upgrade). And I notice you don't put Aves with the dinosaurs (cladistics anyone?) Anyway.

I posted a couple of requests, one on Ceratotheca sesamoides Endl. and the other on Fragaria (strawberrries). I confess to having just enough knowledge of taxonomy to be dangerous, but also confess I liked to get informed by my betters. I did the article Bungu on Wiktionary. Every good dictionary gives the graeco-latin Linnean name for living things, and wiktionary should be no exception.

My request is that you develop what amounts to a chat room for accurate cross-wiki information. I realize this is not really an English encyclopedia: rather, English is the working language, but the Graeco-latin words are the language. Still, it would be nice if the rest of us English-speakers had a quick way to access the formal taxonomic name of all those beasties.

Final question. Six kingdoms? I grew up knowing the words zoology and botany as the two words for the two kingdoms. What are the other four? Fungology? Bacteriology and Archaeology are already taken. Protistology sounds like a course you could take at Berkeley in the late 60s, or worse, something a really perverted proctologist would hyper-specialize in.

It now has a new edit section link (the '+' you requested, although it wasn't really necessary). Dbmag9 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data dumps

I want to download a wiki like Wikispecies on my PC. I would like to know where I could download the database of Wikispecies like this other Wikimedia project. Does anybody know how? Vietbio 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go back to that page and the project is that is called specieswiki (right before sqwiki) Open2universe 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsTicker

I have coordinated with w:de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb to install his tool Wikispecies:CommonsTicker on wikispecies. This tool will provide us with a report of changes that have occured on Commons to any of the images we link to. I will be monitoring the report results. Let me know if you have any questions. Open2universe 12:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus

I looked up the platypus but found that no one had given it a common name/vernacular; the English vernacular is Platypus, surely. I thought that it was known everywhere as a platypus. There's a photo but no "common name". Why not? Also, isn't there only one species, not "a species of ..." as the entry suggests. IE there are no more species in the Genera 'Ornithorhynchus'other than "O anatinus". Isn't this so?--58.6.100.93 10:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of O. maximus? Being extinct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! By the way, the vernacular names are at Ornithorhynchus anatinus. Ucucha (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the rest know about Wikispecies and help Wikizine

Hi, About some 6 months ago I started with an attempt to bring news with a newsletter "Wikizine". I try to bring different types of news like "Foundation", "Community", "Media" , "Technical news" and so. The idea is to try to inform the reader about what is going on in the Wikimedia family. Wikispecies is I believe the least known project of all Wikimedia projects. I would like to change that a bit.

First step is to introduce Wikispecies to the other projects. You can help be writing a small introducing about Wikispecies; #publicity_offer.3B_item_about_Wikispecies_in_Wikizine

Further would some frequent reports be useful to inform the others about this project. When making Wikizine I sometimes also to take a look in the Village Pump of Wikispecies to see I can find news. But that is no guaranty I will see it or that there is something written in the Village pump about it. So if you have news about your project please report it. Let the readers of Wikizine know there is more then Wikipedia.

To make it more easy to report news to Wikizine and also for not forgetting it consider putting a Wikizine-banner on some suitable project page (maybe on to of the Village pump?) meta:Wikizine/banners There are large and small banners. Then people can easy read the most current Wikimedia-news and if there is something to say about Wikispicies drop a line to Wikizine. I hope to receive some news from Wikispecies! Greetings, --Walter 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the banner. Greetings, --Walter 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guided Navigation

If you are not familiar with taxonomy and it's basic structure, navigating Wikispecies is very difficult. Even with a intermediate understanding of taxonomy, it is nearly impossible to navigate without also using the comparable wikipedia.org pages. This is both difficult and time consuming. Some pages do have explanation regarding how to descern the next step (e.g.: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deuterostomia ) These explanations are really the only hope for some one to try to make their way around the website. These explanations need to be available from the first page on the website all the way down to different breeds within a species.

Tags to sort content

Searching for 'Deep Sea' for example does not pull up all species releated to what one would expect.

I propose tags such as 'arctic' 'deep sea' and others common to what people would search for to be applied to all species.

Categories

This idea was started by using categories much in the same way Wikipedia works. You can check Category:Deep_Sea to get started. Using categories makes this page a research tool anyone can use by sorting life into where you would find it.

E.O. Wilson Discover Interview

Discover Interview: E.O. Wilson;

(need to log in at Discover.com to view article)

Let's talk about your idea for an encyclopedia of life.

Wilson: Thanks to the Internet and to advances in digital photography, we have the ability to put online superb images of even the smallest organisms. So we can speed up the mapping of world biodiversity by an order of magnitude easily. What we need is an electronic encyclopedia of life, with one page for each species. On each page is given everything known about that species. This should be the driving force for future biodiversity studies; it's as simple as that.

But it's not happening?

Wilson: The responses I've gotten are so positive, including from molecular biologists, that logic tells me this is about to take off. They want to know what's out there. Once there's an encyclopedia of life that they can browse, they will enjoy an almost infinite treasury of important projects to work on. Suppose there's a snail in Indonesia that produces a powerful fungicide. Well, that might be known by just one elderly guy at Idaho State University who's a specialist on the snails of Indonesia. But when that species is in the encyclopedia, you can type in 'powerful fungicides,' 'snails,' 'tropical Asia' and . . .

And there it is.

Wilson: You got it. That's my dream. "

Favicon

Ive noticed the favicon is kinda drab. From a distance, it looks like a monocolor weaving dna. You look closer, you see it isn't monocolor, but the colors of wikispecies, blue green, red. Still, couldn't we change that?--Mac Lover Talk|Contibutions 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly possible. Any suggestions? Lycaon 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a textless version of the logo?--Mac Lover Talk 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for the textless logo, I have an animated favicon that scrolls, and a 16x16 regular one.--Mac Lover Talk 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No animated favicon, please. I don't want any of my sites to start moving without my permission, least of all a serious site like this. Dbmag9 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If Lycaon would bother to reply to me, then we'd have a favicon. Even if I ask him on his talk page, I still get the cold shoulder.--//Mac Lover Talk 01:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrate taxonomy

I invite everyone with an interest in vertebrate taxonomy to have a look at User_talk:PA/Vertebrate_taxonomy and comment on it. Currently the higher level systematics are a bit of a mess. If major changes are decided on (and IMO they are necessary), then they may possibly be implemented with the help of a bot(Ucucha?). Lycaon 07:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're not very happy with the taxonomy here either. I created a series of articles over at Wikipedia on snakes (subfamily Viperinae), taking great care to follow the ITIS database. I quick check of this subfamily and the rest of the Viperidae section here at Wikispecies leads me to believe that it does not follow ITIS. In fact, it looks like the EMBL's taxonomy, which is hardly authoritative in my view. So, how is the taxonomy decided upon here at Wikispecies? Is everyone simply expected to fill it in however they want? If so, how can this site ever expect to become known as a "professional reference work", as opposed to a "general-purpose, general-audience encyclopedia"? --Jwinius 11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there should read from which source this and that taxonomy is, so you could know can you maybe use the info or not. – linnea (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensifera (Orthoptera) taxonomy

Hello,

I made these changes in Wikimedia Commons, according to wikispecies taxonomy :

I noticed that another user from Commons named this web site http://www.faunaeur.org as a reference.

However, here and there, I found another classification. Who is right ? --Juiced lemon 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why there isn't any references in articles? How can I be sure that information here is correct? It would be easier to find out if you put some sources to "articles". It would also help if people even write the source in summary box, so you can look it from history-page. – linnea (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. I know when I started I did not always add references, but it really is important. At the very least, list the reference list you are working from, whether it is ITIS, GRIN or IUCN or Mammals of the World or whatever. It will be easier on all of us in the long run. Open2universe 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing levels in Asteraceae

Could someone look into this one please? Several genera appear in the list under Asteraceae, then resurface as generic entries, but lack subfamily and tribus levels. This creates unwanted 'half-orphans' (e.g. in Luina). Thanks Lycaon 05:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of taxonomic classification?

Not sure if this is the right place to request a page, but here it is... It would be nice to have an overview of taxonomic classification, especially for newbies ;-)

--Dmb 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can find it here if you're english speaking, else follow the interwikis from there to your language. Lycaon 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid classification

that's a pity ? In who can i trust ? one example : Diacrisia or Spilosoma is a genus of Arctiinae. Diacrisia is a valid name genus on http://nbn.nhm.ac.uk/nhm/ Diacrisia is a valid name genus on http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=298243 Diacrisia is a valid name genus on http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/butmoth/index.html

but Diacrisia is'nt a valid name genus on http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/lepindex/ and this is what Wikispecies choice. Why ? is Lepindex really more accurate ? Jeffdelonge 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, steady... This is Wikispecies. If you think you have good arguments to change the proposed taxonomy, then by all means do so. We don't have specialists on all topics (yet). Just document your changes and add references. We welcome corrective contribution as much (if not more) as new ones.
BTW, a quick glance at Google-Scholar indicates that Spilosoma may have been superseded by Diacrisia. Please discuss with the other contributors to this taxon. Thanks. Lycaon 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do for the layman

Hi all. Are there any menial or repetitive tasks that need to be done? I'm not a biologist and I don't know much about species taxonomy, but I am very familiar with Wikimedia/Wikipedia and I'm willing to help where I can. ~MDD4696 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclatural citations project

Today I have been brave and started a new project on the English Wikibooks. There are a few things itching on my mind, and by creating this new project I try to resolve an issue. What we're doing on Wikispecies is solving the taxonomical and nomenclatural issues. It serves as a plug-in for the wikipedia's. What I was missing is a place to put the original descriptions of our taxons made by the sanctioning author. That's where I hope Wikibooks come in.

I created a project called Nomenclatural citations, and my idea is to collect the original descriptions, and if possible at least translations into English. In my view it's important to have such a repository. I got a huge piles of old magazines that are just dying to be used. (Physical descriptions are free). At the moment there is no such repository on the Internet, as far as I know, only some individual citations scattered over the Net.

Perhaps we can answer the question one day: What was Linnaeus actually describing 250 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if we found a few cases where things got mixed up. But only time will tell.

Anyway, I created 2 templates (it has to be 2 for technical reasons) which can be viewed here: Apiothyrium and Apiothyrium arcticum, the templates link to the Wikibooks articles.

Is the idea usefull? --Kempm 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing genera?

I noticed a lot of deleted genera in plantae, when checking the Special:Lonelypages. Like genus Aletes, but his children Aletes acaulis exist. Is there a purpose on the deletion? Or is the idea that someone revives them? (Jumping up and down, screaming: me, me, me) --Kempm 07:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The genera were not deleted. At some time user:Alperen entered a lot of species without creating the higher taxonomy. This has caused a lot of orphans. Creation of the genera should fix that problem. Lycaon 07:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll best get working on the Orphan list today --Kempm 07:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small problem...

Sorry for your time.... Why i can't see images on this resource? My Browser is: Opera. Thank you. (Question asked by anonymous user, transferred by Kempm 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images show just fine in Opera 9.x. Maybe you should upgrade or check your installation. -- Lycaon 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:66.36.243.77 is a multi-wiki spammer. I blocked him on Chicheŵa wikipedia. Lycaon 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw him on the English Wikibooks as well, all he does is ask this same question. So I thought let's give him an answer maybe it's a legitimate question. Weird kind of spam, but I guess that's the definition of spam. --Kempm 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. We're calling this 'Opera Images Question Spam. It's a kind of spam software which doesn't work for wikis. Just a pointless waste of time. - Halz 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Autobot needs

Hi to all. I have an Excel table of All Spiders species & genera. I add it to Wikispecies manual, but it's too dumb. Could you help me to build adequate autobot and run it? So ve should achieve 100 000 pages so fast --Arachn0 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is that easy. :-) But maybe you need to ask a question on Metawiki? There are quite a few programmers who regularly visit the Metawiki site. Hope that helps. --Kempm 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's http://meta.wikimedia.org . Ucucha (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eudicot / Eudicot

Is this a noun or an adjective?

I believe Eudicot is the taxonimal name given to a group of flowering plants. I think the English noun eudicot is the name English people use to talk about Eudicot. --Kempm 08:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"subsp." versus "ssp."

I have never seen an official publication that uses "ssp." instead of "subsp." The International Code of Botanic Nomenclature" uses "subsp." throughout. "subsp." is formally correct; "ssp." is practically slang. We should be using "subsp.", not "ssp.". The first step will be change Template:Sspplant to use "subsp.". I would have gone ahead and done it by now, except that this will break a lot of links. Hesperian 07:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's true ICBN is using "subsp.", but I don't see a rule that says "subsp." should be used. Many sources use "ssp.", for example the USDA plants database [[5]]. If you can point out the article number that says "subsp." should be used over "ssp", then I guess we need to change this. We had several discussions like this, Template_talk:Subg. If all our articles were to use the template sspplant than a change is simple, but the problem is, the template is not widely used. So changing it would leave many pages with the hardcoded version, so we need indeed to make sure of this. --Kempm 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> As usual, reality is complicated. It is as you say: the ICBN does not specify what are valid and invalid abbreviations for ranks. It seems there are two positions, which can be summarised in these two links: [6] and [7]. I remain of the view that the ICBN are the ultimate authority, and IPNI comes second. Both of these use "subsp." exclusively, therefore so should we. Hesperian 11:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I DO agree we should follow the standard. And I think we shouls follow ICBN. Even though "ssp." is valid, I think we should follow the preferred way. Awaiting further discussion from wikispecies regulars. --Kempm 12:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I also sigh. I am sorry you weren't around to weigh in on wikispecies:Village Pump#Which One Is Correct?. We are just a small group struggling to find consistency in an inconsistent world. I count fewer than 150 articles that link to this template, so it will be doable. I do not have a strong preference either way. Open2universe 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-) You didn't think you were almost done adding stuff, did you? If I can get a go for my proposal (User:Kempm/Request For Change II), then I don't mind to revise everything as much as possible (although 80.000 pages is really too much for me alone). It does also show we need that manual, I was talking about. A manual should pinpoint discussions like this. --Kempm 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first votes have arrived ;-) Lycaon 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to undertake to do the work required to transition this, if others agree to the change. For now I have created Template:Subspplant and Template:Subspplantlast so that those who wish to use "subsp." may go about their lawful business. Hesperian 06:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be very much appreciated, but wait a few day. We might be in the process to do changes to the trees. In the mean time take a look at User:Kempm/Request For Change II, and make a vote :) --Kempm 07:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did it today. 39 pages moved, around 450 pages edited, one template killed. Hesperian 05:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my additions being reverted back

Is there any particular reason for this. Or is it automatic

We don't add descriptions on Wikispecies. Only Taxonomy and Nomenclature, and use latin as much as possible. See meta:wikidata for the reasons. --Kempm 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer/Winter time

I notice that the server is still showing summer time? Is there something we can do about that? --Kempm 11:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to Special:Preferences, section "Time and date" and change it. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dank U. Maar is er geen verschil dat ik dit als client aan moet passen of een server side verandering? Nu moet in principe iedereen dit aanpassen, en in de lente weer terug veranderen? Terwijl dit toch ook gewoon op server niveau moet kunnen? --Kempm 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Het kan ergens om de standaard instellingen te wijzingen die niet ingelogde gebruikers zien. Maar dat kan je enkel doen voor wikis die specifiek volk trekken van een bepaalde plek. Deze wiki is internationaal en de tijdsweergave moet dan ook in UTC+0 zijn als standaard. Op Wikipedia NL is die wel UTC+1 --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bedankt voor de uitleg. :) --Kempm 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese main page

I noticed the following lines on the Portuguese main page:

Si lo desea nos puede contactar personalmente:

Benedikt Mandl, Department of Zoology, Downing Street, CB2 3EJ Cambridge, United Kingdom bmm26(at)cam.ac.uk

Anyone knows what this means, I think this needs to be deleted? If so, maybe someone who understands portuguese can revise this whole page?--Kempm 12:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know portugese but the text is comprehensible - "if you want to contact me in person ..." -- Bggoldie 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is some fossil from the old days. It used to be on all main pages (see here). Lycaon 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simpel clickable tree?

why not use a simpel graphic model as a tool to manuver on the site? like first the five kingdomes (Animal, Plant, fungi, prosit, moneran) and depending on with one of them you click on, u get deffersent new grupes to click on, for example, if you click on "animal kingdom" you whould get the phylums for that specific kingdom. and so on, down to the actuall species. and if you wrote the info regarding every step in the system, then you whould get a logical system, and also a system that whould be easy to navigate on. this could also be done with a diffrent system, like an evulutionary one, instaid of a linéic one.

See here for future of Wikispecies. It would be a good idea, but wikispecies is simply a plugin. --Kempm 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

I placed a bot request on English wikipedia, to help with removing colons. Request: [8] . There are enough tech-guys with programming experience, that can hopefully solve the problems that UcuchaBot had. Perhaps they are even to solve some other issues besides the 'colons'-issue. --Kempm 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is what you wanted done? It looks horrid, and I don't remember seeing anything like it on your request for change II page. Hesperian 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think so. The problem with that page is that it is hard-coded. I need to make template:Melaleuca, shove it in, and then it's tip top. --Kempm 12:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After ST.bot has removed all ':' from normal pages, there are two type of troublesome pages left. Taxa below the rank of species, and pages that did not use templates (or partially). I am going through the list of templates, and I estimate to be finished next weekend :( (Unfortunately longer than expected). --Kempm 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm a bit slow today. I saw your message on MPF's talk page, directing to him to Glomus przelewicense as an example of what we're trying to achieve. That looks good, and is about what I had expected. But ST47's colon removals are putting all taxa on the same line, which looks absolutely terrible. What's going on? Hesperian 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well those pages that look terrible are not using templates. If a bot could place the right template, then that would be great. But how can a bot do that? A bot can not just do that, because if he just wraps curly braces around a name, and the template doesn't exist we would end up with an orphan? Maybe you have a better idea? One thing I'd still like to ask for in the next step is let a bot go over the pages, checking format, and tag pages that do not conform standard. But perhaps there are better ways. At least I have a technical barrier to what can be done.
One thing is for sure. Removing colons is helpful, because there are pages that are ok now, and use the correct formatting. So instead of having to do 80.000 pages to check, we have less.
It's good to discuss. How can we make best use of a bot? --Kempm 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. The articles that are using templates have only a single line with colons, so all they need is what this bot is doing. Articles without templates aren't being improved by this bot's actions, but they need attention anyway. Okay, carry on. Hesperian 11:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phew that's a relief :)

Multilanguage Village pump?

Could there be Village pumps in different languages? Like the Main page has been translated. --Icepenguin 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you start it, but:
  1. This project has a special Mission, and there will be no language forks as with the wikipedias
  2. I doubt there's a real need for another Village Pump, as this multilingual community is already small enough :) --Kempm 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is just for that there are people that can't understand english. I'll make first finnish Kahvihuone. --Icepenguin 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that finnish village pump is pointless. You can ask here language of your choice. – linnea (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where'd it go?

Hi, I am a newbie here but I edited Chaenopsis with a few of my personal drawings of the six species in the Western Atlantic and I checked them a few days later and they were gone. The Chaenopsis page is now blank again. I noticed a slight change in the setup of the taxonomic page but would a change at that level delete the stuff I added. Is adding images at the species level not what Wikispecies wants to do?

Also, there is nothing listed in my contributions and there is no history of deletion. I don't know what happened but I don't want to add anything if it's going to be gone the next day!

According to the deletion log, it was deleted because it was nothing but pictures. I have created a new page at Chaenopsis. Feel free to add your images; they will be removed if not appropriate. Hesperian 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was responsible for deleting your page. It is as Hesperian says. We have to use strict formatting at wikispecies, but we really welcome your images. Here are a few guidelines on how to add images to Wikispecies articles: Help:Image Guidelines. If the article does not exist, you can create it, or send a message to more experienced users (or here in our own fancy pub), that you like to add an image. I really did like the images though :) --Kempm 12:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, now I realize that my pictures were way too big for the screen and I did not label them properly... I added the species to the taxonavigation page and I will see if I can put the pix in properly. Do the pix have to be 250 pixels in size. Does it automatically link to a larger image? -- Tambja
Upload your image at full size, but insert the image into the page with code
[[Image:Example image.jpg|thumb|right|Caption text]]
The word "thumb" tells Wikispecies to serve the image up to users at whatever size their "my preferences" preferences say. If you absolutely must overrule user preferences, you can specify a size with code
[[Image:Example image.jpg|250px|right|Caption text]]
More info is at en:Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Hesperian 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images will be clickable and stay linked to WikiCommons. So users will always end up at the place you uploaded the images (and see description of the images you added). You are free and encouraged to add details to the images there. --Kempm 09:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing taxonavigation

It seems to me to be obvious that when you follow a link from a taxon to one higher or lower in the hierarchy then there ought to be a link back. But there often isn't. For instance Rhodophyta points upwards to either Protista or Eukaryotes, but neither of these points downwards to Rhodophyta. So how do I find what exactly is its immediate superior taxon? I should think that someone with computing skill could run an audit and find all missing or incorrect taxonavigation e.g. A going down to B, but B going up to something else.

Just fine the way it is.

I think that the 3-D logo is neat. If anything, I think that the other logos should go 3-D.

--Jec 3us 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changing username

Hello, everyone. I'd like to change my username from User:端くれの錬金術師 to User:Hashikure. Where shold I request it? --端くれの錬金術師 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to login as Hashikure now. --Kempm 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Hashikure 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Hashikure correct? Or Hasikure? --Kempm 08:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, I see I made a mistake. Excuse me. --Kempm 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify

While reformatting, I found this

Leptotheca under

--Bluemask 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it from Aulacommiaceae based on http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-196X%28198201%2F03%2934%3A1%3C1%3AATIOL%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size=LARGE . Thx for your help formatting those pages! --Kempm 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_5&oldid=7385310"