Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 10

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interwiki links to Wikispecies...

For Wikibooks, it's b: for Wikiversity it's v:; what is used to link to Wikispecies? Thanks. --Emesee 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if short cuts have been defined. You can use wikispecies: as the prefix to link --Open2universe 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike most other projects, no shortcut is given in the Manual of Style so [[wikispecies: ...]] it is. --Georgeryp 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Les inscriptions au colloque sont ouvertes !


J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer l'ouverture des inscriptions au Premier colloque francophone sur Wikipédia et les autres projets.

Par ailleurs, je vous rappelle qu'une réunion publique d'information a lieu aujourd'hui, samedi 8, de 14 h à 18 h, à la salle Agora du Carrefour numérique de la Cité des sciences et de l'industrie (Paris). Plusieurs projets vous y seront présentés.

Nous vous y attendons nombreux. Bonne journée.--Valérie75 8 septembre 2007 à 08:57 (CEST)


Has there been discussion regarding creating Ecoregions as a category for species? I would be very interested in working on creating a way for species to be grouped, sorted and labeled in Ecoregions[1]. Jgmeidal 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if that specific topic has come up here before but see above for an example of the discourse on adding range information here. It's just my opinion, but since the "taxoboxes" on Wikipedia have coverage of conservation status, range maps, etc - maybe that would be the place to include the category you speak of? --Georgeryp 03:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amborella trichopoda

The page of Amborella trichopoda (old version) is in a very different style (indentations) than other pages (for example Apium graveolens). Is there a special reason for that? Just wondering, I am quite new here around. Winnie Summer 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a previous standard. We tried to update all the pages but obviously we missed a few. --Open2universe 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Georgeryp for fixing Amborella to the new format Winnie Summer 10:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cascade protection

If I go to Special:Protectedpages I see that some vandalized pages are protected, but those pages still exist. It would be better if you delete those pages and make a page e.g. Wikispecies:Cascade and add those pages like {{:W/index.php}}. Most wikis do this. SPQRobin 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

continuing malacology

Is it possible for those who have been working with malacology / taxonomy (Gastropods) to continue theyr great job? thanks, fossil hunter 09:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what Wikispecies good for?

I myself wrote some articles mostly on insecta in wikipedia and had never used Wikispecies. When I need to check on a species I usually search him on Google and find a better genus source than Wikispecies. Now before you are going to get the wrong impression, I'm not against this project I just want to say that maybe this project need to start new path in order to make himself more useful. Maybe adding a list of species should not be the most impotent goal. maybe adding pictures to each article or adding identification keys could attract more people and boost a little the project.
What do you think? 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding keys is beyond the scope of this projects, but by all means, do add pictures if you have them. Lycaon 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So please tell me what is the added value of this project over wikipedia? I already can find species taxonomy and images on wikipedia. what can I get from this project that I can't already get from wikipedia? 08:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In matter of fact there's a big collision about using the wikispecies as source in general on the dutch wikipedia, i realy like to invite all of you to let your opinion be haered in our village pump (De Kroeg), fossil hunter 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding identification keys, consider that Wikibooks already has a section for dichotomous keys. Regarding other comments on the purpose of Wikispecies, from my reading of FAQs and the history of this project, some of the reasons for creating Wikispecies, which still apply today, seem to be:
  1. Language-independence: Most content is not specific to the English-only "" (i.e., use of Latin) so why should it be confined only to that language's encyclopedia or manually duplicated in each language-specific Wikipedia? (I have some suggestions on my user page describing how Wikispecies could become a single source for taxonomic lists just like Wikimedia Commons is a single source for images and other media.)
  2. Open to specialist information (unlike a general-interest encyclopedia): So that there are no disputes about including obscure taxons (unless the validity of the taxon itself is questionable). Such taxa may never get Wikipedia entries but are included here. As a consequence, Wikispecies includes more detailed taxonomic trees. For example, see the 18 taxon "levels", from superregnum to genus of Bombycilla here, compared to only six in the English-language Wikipedia (under Waxwing there, the common name for the Bombycilla genus). --Georgeryp 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With that said, more taxon pages here need "References" sections. Projects like this are, by their nature, far from primary sources and so, like Wikipedia, they should cite sources. Along those lines, I'd like to find the discussion on the Dutch wikipedia which fossil hunter refers to but the only recent conversation I could find was from back in May: nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief 20070515#Encyclopedia of life --Georgeryp 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimédia France recrute des volontaires pour le colloque

Wikimédia France organise le premier colloque sur Wikipédia (les autres projets seront abordés) les vendredi 19 et samedi 20 octobre prochains.
À cette occasion, nous avons besoin de personnes motivées, fiables, connaissant bien nos projets, pour diverses tâches : accueil, pointage, orientation... des participants, faire circuler les micros...
Nos besoins :

  • Vendredi
  • Matin (10h00-13h15) : 12 volontaires.
  • Après-midi (13h15-18h30) : 12 volontaires.
  • Soir (18h30-22h30) : 6 volontaires.
  • Samedi
  • Matin (10h00-13h15) : 9 volontaires.
  • Après midi (13h15-18h30) : 9 volontaires.

Merci de me laisser un message sur ma page de discussion du projet auquel vous contribuez. Je vous recontacterai par courriel via l'interface Médiawiki. Nous serons amenés à vous demander quelques renseignements d'ordre personnel (numéro de téléphone...) auxquels auront seuls accès Valérie, Pierre et moi-même. Alvaro 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Môj, i was wandering if it was an idea to putt categorys to the species, categorys by author and by year, it would make a great list about the persons who subscribed them and in what year they did so. I've made an example to a few, and put them as subcats in the cat: Species,

    • Well, i've started to work out the catagory's at the gastropods, i think it would be a great addition to the information. I've also made links to the articles about the biologists so there would be a match, Henk_K 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not necessarily agree with the changes you are proposing. I need more time to think it through. We have tried adding links to years before and decided against it. In terms of authors, can't you just do a what links here to see the species associated with them. And the table of information is problematic from a multiple language standpoint. Perhaps if we were able to customize by language. Let me think on this some more. --Open2universe 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but for now there are "articles" about persons: Linnaeus for example, i always tought that these kind of articles were prohibbeted, they belong at the wikipedia's, there can be some information be placed on top of the category, so these articles can be out of here there is no information on it as well - a name and a date of birth.
The categorys i've proposed (author and year) can be written in different languages, so - when you've made a choice in your top menu for the general page to be in english or french (mine is dutch) the category can be in your own language. These cats can also be used to give information about the literature. Henk_K 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • About the animal information, the info given in such a tabel should be as brief as possible ofcourse, we are not going to write a novel about what a specimen eats for diner, it will do with a simple word like: herbivore; carnivore or omnivoor , the distribution can also be given in a locationmap, a blanco map of the world or some continent (smaller part), with the distribution of that specimen given with a coloured area, Henk_K 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't understand the reasoning behind some of the new category and format choices. I am using this revision of Strombus alatus as the starting point of my comments:
1. Why start creating year categories as "[[category:1791]]" when we can just wikilink the years as [[1791]] like Wikipedia does and use the "[[Special:Whatlinkshere/1791]]" functionality? If a correction is needed, you would only have to change one thing instead of two: category and text.
  • The main differance is that when i use the what links here abillity you get a lot of trash with everything where the year or author is mentioned, when i want to know wich species are subscribed by some author or in what year - i just want to see a list with specimens subscribed by that author or in that year, and nothing more than that. Henk_K 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Are the proposed "Author" categories (e.g., [[Category:Gmelin, J. F.]] ) supposed to replace the Taxon authority pages? So that would eventually require removing all the authority wikilinks on all the taxon pages? Considering the "What links here" ability of this wiki, I don't see anything the proposed solution provides that the current solution doesn't besides using the "Category" instead of "Main" namespace.
3. Is the "{{sources ...}}" template just a formatted replacement for the "==References==" section? - which is a guideline here: Help:Reference section
  • I'm not sure I understand but if your {{sources}} template is a way of wrapping/collecting all URLs which might change, I'd still recommend using the "==References==" subheading for all types of references and under that, use a template specific to a particular URL such as {{GRINnomen|...}} or {{ITIS|...}}. See Kalanchoe pinnata for example. Also note that the Vernacular names (VN) section is BELOW the References section. This is for consistency and mainly due to the dozens and dozens of languages supported here, the VN section can get quite long and so it is better to put at the end so you don't have to scroll further for the usually briefer but important Reference section. --Georgeryp 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. I thought synonyms were formatted as level 3 subheadings (===), not level 2, and without a colon at the end as specified here: Help:Name section.
  • my mistake, i will change this,`21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
5. What's the difference between the current "==Name==" versus the proposed "Subscriber:" sections? --Georgeryp 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where should I "see above" for "==Name==" versus "Subscriber:"? I'm not a specialist in taxonomy and so my question is: What's the difference between "subscriber" and "sanctioning author"? If there is a difference, couldn't they both be included in the "Name" section? --Georgeryp 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With "see above" í did mean to see my comment at question 4), I think the Name section look stupid, the name is already given on top of the article and at the bottom of the tree, (looking at it again - just subscriber look as stupid as well) maybe to call this section: Taxonomic author, i will change it to a level 3 section anyway. (please take a look at Strombus for this example.
  • To talk about that category system, my goal was to use the tekstspace of the category to give more information, besides de list as mentioned (species by author and species by year) a tekst can be written in the category, in any language, you will see the language according to your preference from the top menu, this can't be done in the main articles. If you take a look at an article like Linnaeus, there is nothing in it besides a name and a year of bearth, the category Category:Linnaeus, C. can be placed as subcat in the place of the article Linnaeus the category tree don't change that way, only the article linnaeus becomes a category, written in different languages according to your language preference. The same counts for the category by year, besides a list of specimens subscribed / discovered that year, you can use the tekst (also in different languages)for information about literature published that year. Henk_K 07:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I placed some info about Linnaeus in the cat you can take a look: Category:Linnaeus, C., the category Category:Author and Category:Taxon Authorities are indeed the same they can be submerged, after this discussion. I als placed some information in Category:1758, for example, Henk_K 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally disagree with removing the name section, I think including the authority and year as part of the name is a good thing. I disagree with removing links to taxon authors.

Most importantly I strongly disagree with making large sweeping changes without a plan for bringing the whole site to the new standard. We have not recovered from the last time. So I would ask that everyone continue to follow the current standards until we make the decision to change them. --Open2universe 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second the points Open2universe makes immediately above. Along the lines of the third pillar of Wikipedia, some kind of consensus decision-making process has to occur before the standard is changed.
So, to continue the discussion, we need to define what the "Name/Taxonomic author/Whatever you want to call it" section is to accomplish. If you read Help:Name section, it's clear that it currently includes more than just taxon name, taxon authority, and year. For example, synonyms are often a subsection of it. If I understand Henk_K's proposal correctly, it separates taxon authority/year from synonyms, etc. That is why I assume it's proposed on Strombus to make the "Taxonomic author" section a level-3 section. I'm not sure I agree with this separation because it seems logical to group the current taxon name and former names/synonyms together. Although I do understand Henk_K's point that repeating the taxon name in "Name" section seems redundant, most trees here list at least one level lower than the taxon of the current page, so restating the taxon name helps reinforce which taxon the page deals with. As for redundancy with the page title, this is usually, but not always the case. For example, see genus Platynota (Tortricidae) distinguished from infraorder Platynota - or any other disambiguations. --Georgeryp 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My opinion is that the author who subscribed the specimen and the year of aproval are very important information, when i started i only saw articles with a name without author/year under the name section, so that way it looked stupid, to start adding the author/year information i've changed the sectionname from Name to Taxonomic author, after all just a name of the section explaining what kind of information it stands for. By all means i don't understand why the information wasn't there, in every book the author/year is mentioned - even in touristic beach guides, besides that i wonder why there is no literature mentioned beneath it as well, even a simpel shell-guide would do. Henk_K 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Still missing a lot of information about sources and literature or even about wich taxonomic standard has been used, no wonder why most wikiprojects don't take this project serieus, or even think about considdering, i realy like to help this project forwarth - even if that means to rewrite it all, but i realy like to see more discussion about the proposels i've made, thank you. Henk_K 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Besides that i think we have to putt more effort in the quality of the layout of the articles, isn't it possible to write the names like ordes, familia, and genera in a strait line from top to down?, Henk_K 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, a major problem has been consistency. We have had many authors over time. Some did not bother adding more information than the name of the species. We have had editors who either did not know or did not care to use existing standards. We have had changes in standards without being able to bring all existing articles to the new standard. I do not have the time, nor do I want to clean up after anybody. We have over 110,000 articles. If we are going to do a major change then it must be done properly. I am loathe to think about undoing all the changes that Henk_K has been implementing. If there are issues, let us tackle them one at a time. I can think of a number of areas that are more compelling than going about changing section names and adding unnecessary categories. Cleaning up articles that lack references, working on the help section and helping new contributors be able to more proficient. Working collaboratively is an inherently difficult process. It is important to be clear and precise when proposing a change to an established standard. --Open2universe 19:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well, I'm working with gastropods at the time, you can see the difference between these and the other articles, i do understand that it will be a huge mountain of work to get all articles straight, i will help with sorting that out, group by group, and try to get the missing info as well, the proposel are the following changes, if there is more to look after, please putt them at it...: Henk_K 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1: category by author; and year.
  • 2: renaming the section - Name - into - Name (Author, year) -
  • 3: synonyms get their own article.
  • 4: finding info about literature.
  • 5: many articles are formatted in a wrong layout
  • 6: finding the proper authorname and year of aproval to add to the species
  • 7: the taxotree is wrong formatted in a lot of articles
  • 8: putting doubtfull internet sources in the formatted source template, and writing scientific publications under section prefernces
  • 9: ...

Some remarks

For some year, we expect a lot from wikispecies. But there are still a lot of problems.

First mistake

For one taxon, there are many classifications (See fr:Classification_classique). Wikispecies présents only one, but never precise which one. This is a big mistake. When you give a classification, you must always precise which one!

Every big classification site (like ITIS) precise wich classification it follows in a specific page. But as wikispecies as so many different contributor, I think the classification followed should be specified in each article.

Another reason to specify the classification followed in each page is that wikispecies will change of classification as a new one appears every 2-5 years. So during the migration there will be pages in both classifications. And that won't be a problem as the classification will be displayed

Second mistake

Presenting only one classification is too restrictif. You should present one classical Classification and one phylogenetic classification! See what proposes: fr:Sapindaceae.

Third mistake

I think that wikispecies takes a little bit of the best of each classification. You mix the classifications, and that is a bad thing, perhaps due to the fact that you don't precise the classification.

For example, Acer is placed under Sapindaceae which is due to recent DNA analysis of fr:APG II. But you don't present a phylogeneticat classification beacause there are no clades. Acer is also placed under Magnoliophyta and Magnoliopsida which tend to orientate to Cronquist Classification, but he places Acer under Aceracae! So your Acer is a mixe between APG II, Cronquist and de:Systematik der Bedecktsamer:Strasburger


I often see talks on fr between admin, to deactivate temporarely the links to wikispecies. For now they always decide to give wikispecies a chance, but it will not last.

Best regards Liné1 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Sorry for the bad english. Please understand that I wish all the best to wikispecies.

The above was copied from the main pages talk page by --Open2universe 15:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes from Henk_K

Please read the discussion in the section above named category. I copied it here for ease of future disscusion. Henk_K is proposing that we change some of our current standards and to make wikispecies a better site in general. I would like to include others in the discussion --Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 1: category by author; and year.
* Oppose I personally think it is unnecessary. The year categories in particular will get very large --Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Neutral I don't see much added value. It's possible to find this information. When wikispecies moves to wikidata, I presume this will have to be reimplemented, and all you can find data, from every imaginable viewpoint. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose Current proposal seems to be in addition to, not a replacement for non-category author pages. Either do one or the other, not both. I may support categories if someone could show me if the following ability works: "... tekst can be written in the category, in any language, you will see the language according to your preference from the top menu, this can't be done in the main articles." I changed from English to Dansk in "my preferences" and no article text changed. --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Neutral I agree with both Georgeryp and Kempm, there does not seem to be much added benefit to this and if it is in addition to the current system for authors then it is also rather redundant --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose Categories will be unworkable large. Lycaon 20:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To make a category by language there have to be page (special page) with the tekst in that language, it works like the mainpage, there is a mainpage (special page as well), in each language, according to your preference language you will be redirected to the mainpage in your language, for the categorys it works the same, according to your preference you can read at the bottom: category (English) or categorie (Dutch) you have to create a redirect to a special page named after the category (with tekst in your language, wich redirect to follow (automatically, is pressing the categoryname at the bottom of the article, your preference will redirect to the special(category) page according to your language preference, i can write a special page in Dutch, and one of you in English, the choice of redirect (according to your preference) should be created by a sysop or software writer, Henk_K 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 2: renaming the section - Name - into - Name (Author, year) -
* Oppose I think it is unnecessary --Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose I see no reason for this. If we keep headers standard, the headers will be 'readable' by engines, when a transfer occurs. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose Not all taxons would be "Name (Author, year)" if anyone uses the "special transcription" described on Help:Name section where it can be: "Name (Author1) Author2, year". --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose as stated above --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose per Kempm. Lycaon 20:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 3: synonyms get their own article.
* Oppose although if others agree then I would like it to be clear which is the most current name --Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Neutral There is a lot to say in favour of this, and a lot to say against it. I believe if this is added the synonyms should just be redirects, but no need for full articles? Anyway more discussion on this can't do harm! --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose Unless further discussion can create a migration plan for this. --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose If anything is to be changed with the current system I agree that the synonyms should be made into redirects. Further information is usually available in the linked wikipedia articles explaining the current taxonomic status. --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose per above. Lycaon 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 4: finding info about literature.
*  Support I absolutely agree that we need at a minimum the original reference--Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support If you mean Supplementum Plantarum I'm in favour. But at the same time I understand the reluctance of others, to start this work. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support Like all non-primary sources, this project needs more references to justify what's here but also which references and taxonomic systems are preferred here (when new classifications come out). --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support This has always been a issue with entries --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support I guess that's clear. Lycaon 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 5: many articles are formatted in a wrong layout
*  Support I absolutely agree, and if we change our standards I would like to see a proposal that will guarantee that all articles will be brought into the new standard within a week or two --Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support I missed discussions about this, but wrong formatting needs to be adressed. From previous experience, I think it's essential that if we do any big changes, that we discuss them with experienced bot users, and see how they can help with the proposals. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support I have done some bot work and I'm willing to help with this when I am able to. --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support There have been a number of changes to the formatting over the years and unfortunately they were not always implemented well. --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work there. Lycaon 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 6: finding the proper authorname and year of aproval to add to the species
*  Support I absolutely agree that we need at a minimum the original reference--Open2universe 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support This is vital information. Name sections should be in place, which is already current policy. In rare cases this information has been lost, though. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support Maybe a template or category tag could be added to all articles where the "Name" section doesn't exist or only has species name. A bot could do this and it would create a "to do" list for those willing to help. --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support A bot generated list would be extremely helpful rectifying this --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Support I'm too in favour of a bot list. Lycaon 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 7: the taxotree is wrong formatted in a lot of articles
Not sure what this means
Address such issues in discussions. There are many different ideas, and specialists hardly ever agree, on taxotrees. If you think a taxotree is wrong, raise a discussion, and see if others agree with you. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* If you are referring to taxonomic trees that are partly in line with the page edge and partly staggered they are relics of the formating shift that was recently implimented. --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
>>>>Adenerita; Gibberulus > examples of wrong formatted taxotree, Henk_K 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are indeed relics (and they are still common). Lycaon 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 8: putting doubtfull internet sources in the formatted source template, and writing scientific publications under section prefernces
Oppose I think having it under References (not preferences) as it is now is fine. I think most people can tell the difference.
Neutral References should be 1. the official literature in which the binomial name was given. 2. further references to name changes. 3. one Internet resource (of scientific quality) that shows the current state of affairs on a taxon/tree. References of doubtful quality should not be given. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Even print references can be "wrong" or obsolete so why focus just on Internet links? Is it hard for the user to distinguish print from Internet? We should instead create a better list of *quality* internet sources that are trusted here and include them in the "References" section like we do now, just make sure they are listed below original references. The proposed {{sources}} template does not make it obvious that they are exclusively "Internet|web sources ". --Georgeryp 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose Along with the already stated reasons many jourals and magazines are more and more trending to publish online first, in some cases on online, and print a limited run of hard copies only. --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose How do you judge what is doubtful? We trust contributors when they make the effort to list references that those are (as far as possible) reliable. Lycaon 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 9: In another topic someone asked if it's a good idea to give more species information about the animal / plant, like habitat or distribution, i think that's a good idea, but it have to be brief and in multi-language base, Henk_K 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose This is a suggestion that is brought up frequently. This information is not included because wikispecies is as language neutral as possible and including habitit/range/distribution is almost impossible while maintaining neutrality. --Kevmin 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with this, the same problem occures with vernacularnames, besides that, information about distribution can be placed with a locationmap, with a colloured area of where the species exsist, 08:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
* Oppose This is very hard to standardize in a language neutral environment. Lycaon 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 10: I've been trying to wotkout a template in the form of a formular, wich can be used to creat the species articles, great advantadge is that when something have to bee changed, you only have to change one template (maybe two), and not 100.000 articles.
  • to see the template ([[Template:Animalspecie]]) used at: Harpago chiragra arthritica - questions in the template wich are not used won't be shown at the article) - the only thing which didn't workout was to place headers, i'm still trying to work this out, Henk_K 08:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to raise issues. I hope to see a proposal/examples to make everything more tangible. --Kempm 09:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the template for species with structured and tagged data is a good idea (for automatic conversion to a better database with a querry system). But, I tested it and I think, it can cause some problems:
  • I think, if the template changed (a field added), the new field doesn't appear in the articles, that were been created early. A user, which wants add such info cannot see the actual stuctureof the template.
  • I think, if the template changed (a field removed or renamed), the old field doesn't appear in the articles, that were been created early.
Summary: this template is good for layouting but it doesn't support dynamical changes on data structure, if needed. Please correct me, if I am wrong and don't understand, how such templates work. I think, a set of headers (consensual header names (such as NAME, SYNONYMS, SYNONYMOF,HOLOTYPE...) can work better. The position is not so important (a conversion program - wikidata - can recognize header sections independent on the position, if placed wrong), if a header is missing or wong written, the conversion program can analyze it too. I think too, it would be easier to edit header sections, there are not so much special characters, it would be more intuitive for users without wiki-syntax knowledge and the data volume would be not so large (unneeded header sections could be missing). I suppose, a user must copy the template structure in all cases - he can copy a pseudotemplate (a text saved somewhere) with headers). It's my opinion only. Of course, hard work of Henk_K - thanks.Kingaspis 13:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok, forget about the template, Henk_K 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Now i know why there are so few writers at this project, Henk_K 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Now, I understand it too. I searched in help for standards, how to create a species article. I found nearly nothing (no rules, no recommendation for diffrent biological groups, no info about, what info needed - sorry, name, reference and synonym are a little ...). I think, this is a scientific project for scientists and "freaks". If this project doesn't support, what "freaks" and scientist need (complete info about a taxon + querry system), it will died, I am afraid. People searching for "T rex" must not have wikispecies with taxonavigation - they can find it in other wiki-spaces. I apologize for saying it, it is hard work of all users, but I probably stop my work on this project (after 2 days) - I see no value in infos saved in it. Kingaspis 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Indeed, this is not a project about species, they should have called it The freaky wiki taxo tree there's nothing in it besides names and redirects, to think this project is going to fill the taxoboxes in the different language wiki's, sorry they are already filled, without info about species this is totally useless project in this form, Henk_K 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)- something less, Henk_K 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still think it can be done the same way as it's done with author's, the name of the author is linked at the article see: Linnaeus, the article about Linnaeus brings you to an article in your own wikipedia, the same way other extra information can be added, extra information could be:
  • general lenght, weight and age (numbers only),
  • animal type (Carnivore; Omnivore; Herbivore, etc,
  • habitat, (with marine species) Sublittoral; Circumlottoral, etc,
  • distribution, > coloured locationmap
  • stratigraphical exsistance (fossils) > see example Olenellina‎ > Early Cambrian
  • extra information always be given with one or two words, linking to an article wich takes you to wikipedia, Henk_K 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to discuss about additional data in wikispecies. I understand, the language neutrality is important, but I think, a set of additionaly information is needed. I will try to explain why:

  • wikispecies should be converted to database later. Such database would be usefull, if it supports querries with criteria. I think, the mosst wanted crireria would be occurence (geographic, in time for fossil, refences (literature). When wikispecies will have milion articles, it will be very difficult to contribute additionaly data to all taxa (most on species level)
  • If I work on species or genera level, I must use literature or internet resources. In this case I often see many important data but I am not allowed to put a little bit of them. I must spent time to find out the right reference. If I have to find these data once more some years later (for adding them to database), I spend double time for that.


  • if agreement, we need some additionaly attributes: it should be done so, that existing articles haven't to be formated newly. In this case I would propose header-based structure. Additionaly headers have following advantages:
    • bots can recognize them easily - missing (important for existing articles), wrong spelling, not allowed headers
    • it is not important, where a new header will be placed (sample: behind the Reference-Header or behind the Name-Header - not important) - bots can recognize the postion and place them correct (layout). It could work on usage of low level headers too.
    • not all attributes (data-headers) of an group would be needed for an other group => missing data-headers can be found in taxa groups by bots, where these headers are required. Other groups could be ignored by bots.
  • the sets of headers should be work out - depending on taxonomic groups (required/optional/not needed). If changes (new headers) => see bots
  • if data-headers defined: everybody can decide, what data (headers) he wants to fill (time limits or data not available for the contributor) - bots can find missing data (headers) later.

I apologize for my bad English, if needed, please feel free to correct my text. User:Kingaspis 25. October 12:07 (UTC)

I agree, we need to be able to expand what we add in a controlled way. I think the notion of adding sections based on taxon type makes sense. Perhaps with templates to keep consistency. --Open2universe 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dichotomous key(s) on wikiversity

Hi all. I noticed someone mention the Wikibooks dichotomous key somewhere above, and thought I'd mention the growing keys on en.Wikiversity now. The v:Bloom Clock, which has been going on for over a year now, has several flora keys by region (see, e.g., v:Bloom Clock/Keys/Southeastern Pennsylvania for the most well developed ones). We're going to be setting up new clocks for birds, reptiles, and arthropods over the winter as well. They're currently on wikiversity because there is an "Original Research" aspect to them (participants log when they see particular plants in bloom), but some version will eventually be transwikied to Wikibooks after we arrange peer reviews.

My first question is about how interwiki templates are used here, since they're needed for non-wikipedia links. Is there a standard set somewhere? Would something like w:Template:Wikiversity-bc be appropriate?

My second question is about marking for "wanted species". On en.Wikipedia I just make stubs for missing articles (for example, w:Papaver atlanticum was created by checking wikilinks on v:BCP/Papaver atlanticum, and there's likewise no article (are they called "articles"?) here for Papaver atlanticum either. I could just copy from another Papaver (that's what I do with taxoboxes on wp), but Papaver nudicaule, Papaver rhoeas, and Papaver somniferum all use radically different styles, so I'm not sure which to emulate. I also am unlikely to know the "authority" of any plant (let alone reptile, bird, or insect). Is there a stub-marking system? SB Johnny 13:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papaver rhoeas was written according to the current standards, althoug it misses both name and reference sections (see help pages). Lycaon 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The help pages weren't all that helpful, I'm afraid :). Is {{NST}} the only cleanup template?
Speaking of templates, why aren't all the pages just made from a single template which can be used to force consistency and regularity on all pages? See, e.g., v:Template:Bloom clock plant top. That would make it a lot easier to keep things consistent and updated over time. SB Johnny 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Scusate io frequento la wiki italian e il mio inglese fa schifo segnalo questa pagina come possibile vandalismo:

"Loose" genus along with tribus

Please take a look and comment: Marginellinae. Thanks, Pjsouza 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could put it either in an unassigned group or in an incertae sedis group, on the same level as the tribes. Lycaon 07:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Pjsouza 14:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification again

THE PAGE Liliopsida IS A SHAME. I am furious agains wikispecies. The classification is NEVER provided, which is absurd AND the classification of Liliopsida is totally UNUSAL. The references provided have NOTHING to do with the article.
Wikispecies will put shame on all wikipedia if it continues to use strange unprecised classification.
The problem is not about providing references, but first to say what we are talking about. You MUST first and rapidly provide the classification followed on each article.
Then, you will discover the mess: each of wikispecies articles follows a different classification.
NOT cordialy Liné1 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]