Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 17

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use language rationale[edit]

Please be fair and if English is the chosen language of this website... use it!! I have little occasion to come to Species but even when I would like to, it is not written in English but rather some ancient and foreign language. There can be no argument that non use of standard names removes a vast majority of potential interest in this site. What is the percentage of Average Joe whose learning of scientific names overtakes his knowledge of standard naming? Less than 1%. I typed in moth and followed the top hits to find some sort of fungi. I typed in fungus and got [1] which appears to be the main page in Unang Pahina language. It is hardly fair to discuss barcoding that which cannot be found by its conventional name anyway. RTG 09:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Using common names is not accurate because if I say something like "Northern spruce", it could mean totally different species if you are in different English-speaking countries, let alone in non-native English-speaking countries! We don't cater the needs of Average Joe, which makes us very different from Wikipedia. It's not impossible to search by common name, though it's involves chance. If the species you're looking for has an English common name in "Vernacular names" (which is a fancy term for "Common names") section, the search engine will still display it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You should direct yourself to catalogue all forms of a species which fall under a recognised name (how can the correct name be incorrect in any sense?) and you may not cater for Average Joe to make yourself different from Wikipedia but this is a Wikimedia project and if you wish I can show you how you are supposed to cater for Average Joe not reason yourself as the Wikipedian alter-ego. Would you be trying to say that any person wishing to search out the genealogy of the Northern Spruce should look elsewhere? That is rather pointless and selfish at very least. I beleive that making this wiki accessible to those of standard learning would be a much less difficult task to collecting the information and besides what you should or shouldn't do, what exactly would be the problem? I have provided particularly ridiculous examples of how the "venacular names" route you suggest is absolutely useless. Certainly no child who is not a prodigy will find much staisfaction in this site. I am sorry to give you a bad report but no matter what you say and no matter what abundance of information is contained in this wiki, it is only accessible at random and is absolutely useless. Again, as part of Wikimedia you are bound to make information accessible. There is no fault in this. I am sorry for being harsh now but this reply went from unfair to promoting insufficient. It is irrational. RTG 14:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say: if you don't like it, ... off
Stho002 22:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the project page for Wikispecies where "average reader" is covered RTG 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with RTG that one should be able to find the scientific name of an organism by using its vernacular name. Perhaps what is needed are lists of vernacular names in the format as below:
English vernacular names of oaks, genus Quercus
Ed Uebel 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much variation even if it's just Oak. If you search by "black oak", it could be Quercus kelloggii or Quercus velutina. Other way also holds true. Quercus rubra is known as Northern Red Oak or Champion Oak. And good luck trying to identify what species is Red Oak, because that's over 30 species all referred to as Red Oak. There are too much variation of common names in the world due to geographical factor. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"Too much variation" is irrelevant, Ohana. There is no greater variation than what you guys handle here already. Geography? No, genealogy!! Either you type the word in here and can find what you looked for or you type it in elsewhere. It appears that Ohana has a pretty good grasp of venacular names. If venacular naming was irrelevant to this wiki, I think the first answer here would have been to tell me where I should look elsewhere. Obviously a multi lingual genalogy of all earthly life knows no bounds of language (or strangely does it?). Ed Uebel seems to have the idea. It should only be off the cards if not possible or irrelevant. On Wikipedias, for instance, most words are accompanied by their pronunciation in ancient language.
@User:Shto002 No, friend, we do not tell people to fuck off thanks. I am sorry if that is how you have been treated but it has nothing much to do with me, venacular names or Wiki-talk. I would sleep better if I could type in dog here and come up with some sort of canine. I like it just fine but I can't translate it and neither can the best of translators (think of that mr et ms 1%). Obviously (Shto002 on barcodes and fear of reader) that which takes the form of a barcode will sit down for lunch with a barcode reader even if your prefered skill is to make little zebras out of it. Happy New Year! :p RTG 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vernacular names require a published source. The source that I used for the examples of oaks was:

  • Gleason, H.A. and Cronquist, A. (1991) Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. (2nd ed.) The New York Botanical Garden, 910 pp.

Only Quercus falcata has more than one correct vernacular name according to Arthur Cronquist. Ed Uebel 14:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RTG, I can also call your discussion irrelevant and digression from the point you raised, which is "why do we not create common name page in various languages and redirect them to their latin species name?" The scientific community, regardless of countries, use latin to catergorize species. This is pretty much set it stone and is the common norm. Going back to my example of black oak, what should it redirect the page to? Quercus kelloggii or Quercus velutina? FYI, RTG, if you type in "dog" in search field, you DO get Canis lupus familiaris as your first search return. You can see how names placed under "vernacular names" section do serve its purpose. All the wiki engine needs is a bit of time to cache names in that section. Once cached, it will be there for general public to search. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
RTG, It seems you don't understand what is the raison d'etre of Wikispecies. If you want to type 'dog' and come up with some meaningful results, than go to the general English Wikipedia. This site is intended for scientific-oriented people, enthusiasts, conservationists and environmentalists, who know, and can navigate through scientific names. There's no reason whatsoever to create here a duplicate of the English Wikipedia, but if you want some scientific details about a familia of obscure mites, then you go here, and search under 'Acari', because the general encyclopedia won't give you such information. I'm sorry to say you have stumbled upon the wrong place. You don't need to convert us, just search some other place (and there are lots) which suits better your demands and inclinations. Mariusm 17:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the format for the vernacular list of oaks (Quercus). This list includes both Q. velutina and Q. kelloggii. Every worthwhile plant flora includes an index of both scientific names and colloquial names, so I don't see why there is so much resistance to including an index of vernacular names in Wikispecies.

Bear oak  - Black oak  - Black-jack oak  - Blue-jack oak  - Bur oak  - California black oak  - Cherrybark oak  - Chinquapin oak  - Darlington oak  - Laurel oak  - Live oak  - Northern pin oak  - Northern red oak  - Overcup oak  - Pin oak  - Post oak  - Rock chestnut oak  - Sand live oak  - Sand post oak  - Scarlet oak  - Shingle oak  - Shumard oak  - Southern red oak  - Swamp chestnut oak  - Swamp white oak  - Turkey oak  - Water oak  - White oak  - Willow oak  - Yellow oak  

Ed Uebel 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the page Quercus which is the Oak family has a long list (Venacular Names) of the word "Oak" in different languages. It would be best, in my purely onlookers opinion, to provide a list as such on every entry and ultimately to produce a specialised search routine to find an article/entry by its name. It is quite interesting and surprising to see so many variations. I have worked for a couple of carpenters and would not have thought there was more than ten varieties of oak let alone the 30 or so that Ed is working with. I am sorry to once again refer Mariusm this time to the actual raison d'etre of this site which can be found here where it clearly provides that the site not be restriced to the scientific community. Ohana, my words to you were actually quite offensive. Perhaps being told where to go elicted a wider reaction from me, sorry. I only needed to point out that this site is built upon variation (of life) as you thought variation was not worthwhile. If there is no picture to go with an entry, I have no point of reference but this site is supposed to be "a free taxonomic reference and directory, for both the scientist and the average reader." Entries should not require a Wikipedia article but if they are only scientific names without description the only reference available is when you find it elsewhere and just check to see if it was here. That is reference for amusment not for interest. Any good taxonomy will have a description and/or a sample (it is not about the names duh!!), the simplest description being to point out that it is Oak and not some sort of Rottweiler. Not all genus will be contained on Wikipedia. certainly not all these species of Oak. RTG 13:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Ohana, Wikispecies is going well over four years. It may have one of the most filled collection of recognised genus but to check that you would need a library of reference. Where would I get one of those now? lol happy new year RTG 13:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity that none of the skeptical folk entertained the idea. I should point out that the Meta site is also designed around the idea of multi-linguality but errs on the side of Multi-lingual instead of the linguistic singularity and that the agreements to set this site up, including the "charter" and the summary of the project on the Meta site do not provide scope to restrict the info to advanced or professional biologists/scientific community/closed doors/skepticism!. I am no biologist myself and merely making selfish requests here but undoubtedly Species will thrive only if it is accessible. User:Ed Uebel gives a prime example of how to begin that and an editor need not speak English to add to a list of vernacular names. Thanks for the large input anyways. RTG 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If one is truly concerned about searchability of vernacular names then I would point out again that with the use of the {{Vn|en=|jp=|ru=}} temple one is able to add vernacular names to a page. Thus if you ad Oak to the Quercus page anyone searching for "oak" will bring up Quercus. Thus if you have the time and want to do large amounts of researching you CAN add the names into wikispecies in a way that they will be found and not involving the creation of large disambiguation pages.--Kevmin 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but it would be great if you peoples who are making the wiki were adding those templates as you went and it would already be useful RTG 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
That's something you can help on =) These info do not require you to have science knowledge as prerequisite. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm brand new to wiki so please forgive any stupid question. This is the English version of wiki, so it puzzles me greatly that when I look at the vernacular names on the Quercus aricle referred to above, I can't even tell what some of the languages are, nor what the name of the oak sounds like in that language. Is it the use of the VN template? I wanted to add the vernacular names, (as they sound in English) to the Butea Monosperma in Hindi, Urdu etc. but I can't do that, as I don't know how they're represented in those languages, only in English. Surely all the information should be intelligible to the English language speaker? Dunno why my name comes up as a numeric url - I'm Colinvlr. 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not the English version of this wiki. There is only one, similar to commons [2] and meta [3]. So I would not expect everything to be intelligible to an English language speaker. I would not expect to see romanized transliterations of other vernacular names here. Hope that answers your question.--Open2universe | Talk 16:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it answers my question - thanks. 13:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
*AHEM!!* They are all Romanised... that is what this thread is about. Some consider that a strictly Latin naming convention will be transliterate and devolution of dialogue will be best as it may serve to seperate this wiki from the Wikipedias. Meta and Commons are Multi-literate or English only where the text has not yet or will not be translated to all languages. Those two sites operate on the principle that accessibility is not restricted to a certain form of language. To navigate this site accurately the user must be fluent in Latin or be a Master of the knowledge of taxonomy and yet such navigation would reveal little information. To be sure of the nature of each entry the user again would need to have a masterful knowledge of taxonomy or a good site or library to reference Latin naming conventions (and what a master you would be to be able for that regardless of your native language). This site does not apply to be a wealth of information, it is only a list of Latin words. Try Googling for a site that does provide descriptive knowledge. I found that searching for "species of the world" turns up some of the more interesting sites. RTG 07:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, "species" on wikipedia redirects to the page en:Global biodiversity. There is very little on it. It basically says, there is lots of species, they become extinct, two pictures and a short list. In fact the page is only 3.1 kb. This talk page is more than 5 times the size. RTG 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what page you are referring to. The page at en:Species is quit long and detailed, curently istting at 50kb long. --Kevmin 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How does that page on Wikipedia affects us? This page is for improvement on this project, not Wikipedia, not Wikinews, or any other WMF projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It was redirecting to "Global biodiversity" at the time but its back to normal now. If the page "species" was missing, Ohana, and I told anyone, here may have een the best place to tell anyone (I must have imagined the whole thing anyway). RTG 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon restored to admin[edit]

Just for general information, Ucucha has restored adminship to Lycaon, with the following (Bablefish translation of) message to him written in Dutch on his talk page:

Dear Hans, I answer you in Dutch, because this goes provisionally for a communication between our and, where it is not necessary that others can read also everything. I will not discuss thus what Stho002 and OhanaUnited above to write. Also I had been rather shocked by Stho002 continuing insinuating bulletins and am in my opinion found oneself look on wiki (the first becomes clear above again from its suggestion that you do not want reported in the publicity); I have him there also a time for blocked. He has been however rather persuaded of its own right, I has seen. I hope that he are life will improve. I am it once with your that it not being appropriate is that you now still no more admin are. For this reason I my ring has stuck out and you adminrechten returned. If another bureaucrat finds that the same must be done for Stho002, must which that itself but does. However, I you want recommend for you not too much with that ' rash nieuweling' to interfere; I am frightened that you have to that weing and little comes further. Hoping that you can live pleasure still much on Wikispecies, Ucucha

Stho002 20:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got a slightly different translated version from Google Translate, so here it is

Dear Hans,

I answer you again in Dutch, because this is preliminary to a communication between us two, it is not necessary that others also be able to read. I will not elaborate on what Stho002 and OhanaUnited above letter. I was rather shocked by Stho002 continuing insinuating messages and I think its wrong view of wiki (the first show above again from his suggestion that your message is not in the public wants), I got him there once blocked. He is quite confident of his own right, I noticed. I hope he will improve his life. I agree with you that it is not appropriate that you still are no more admin. I have my neck out and once you admin rights restored. If another bureaucrat is that the same should be done for Stho002, they must do that yourself. I would recommend that you do not want too much with "reckless novice" to interfere, I am afraid you have to insufficient and little further forward. Hoping that you will enjoy on Wiki Species,

First, I am shocked that Lycaon got the adminship restored by Ucucha[4] even though Lycaon did not become active after the conflict (check his edit history). Instead, Lycaon chose to go on low-profile and says he will not be active in this project[5]. On the contrary, Stho002 continue his activity, reverting vandalisms and flagging duplicate pages for deletion. I am worried that Ucucha performed such action too hastely. (For comparsion, Lycaon performed just above 30 edits while Stho002 performed over 4000 edits after both got desysoped) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ucucha has offered the following translation of his own message above:

Apparently, an English translation is still considered necessary. I find that unneeded, because this is, or should be, a private communication between Lycaon and me, but for those who want to know what I actually said (which was not Bablefish gibberish), I'll provide an English translation: Dear Hans, I respond to you in Dutch again, because this is for the time being a communication between the two of us, for which it is not necessary that others are able to read everything. I will therefore not speak about the things Stho002 and OhanaUnited write above either. I was also rather worried by Stho002's continuous insinuating messages and his, in my opinion, wrong look at how wiki works (the former is corroborated above here by his suggestion that you do not want to have your message out in the open); I have also blocked him once for that. I noticed he is rather convinced of his being right, though. I hope he will improve in that respect. I agree with you that it is not fitting that you are still not an admin anymore. I have therefore been bold and restored your admin rights. When another bureaucrat thinks that the same should be done for Stho002, he should go ahead himself. I would however like to advise you not to busy yourself too much with that 'rash entrant' [quoth Bablefish]; I am afraid that it won't help you much and won't bring you much further. Hoping that you may experience a lot of pleasure on Wikispecies, Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

just two comments:

  • >because this is, or should be, a private communication between Lycaon and me

private communications should be by email, whereas this is an open forum

  • I have no particular objection to Lycaon being restored, provided it is conducted openly and with consensus of all admins (isn't this how a wiki works?)

Stho002 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the question at hand is whether Lycaon's admin rights were taken away legally should be taken into consideration. They were not taken away by community consensus either, so restoring the same thing should not need community consensus. [no, two wrongs don't make a right - consensus is required Stho002 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]
From reading the bits and fragments that led to that incident, I can only conclude that Lycaon was always following the few rules this project has set for themselves.
For what it is worth, I am glad Ucucha reverted this incident, and I heartily welcome back Lycaon. I also sincerely hope that less effort will be put into unnecessary quarreling, but more efforts in the project itself. --Kempm 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, Lycaon was desysoped quite rightly for wheel warring with me, and ignoring my repeated requests to get a consensus view on the issue before changing anything. Seems to me that there is a bit of an "old boys club" in-crowd thing going on here, with Lycaon "in" and me "out". However, I don't care ... Stho002 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

extinct symbols[edit]

Certain people seem to be being overly "nitpicky" and think that extinct symbols (†) shouldn't be used when the next higher taxon already has an extinct symbol (so all subordinate taxa are extinct)

  • Firstly, perhaps editors could find something better to do than making edits which merely remove what they consider to be "redundant" daggers from my edits
  • Secondly, it does no harm, and is best practice, to put a dagger on EVERY instance of the name of an extinct taxon (except in titles of references)

Stho002 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon continues to make edits which merely remove what he considers to be redundant daggers from my edits. We are in danger of another wheel war here. We need a consensus decision, please.
Stho002 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the use of daggers at the level at which a group goes extinct. I really dont see the point of having daggers for example on all the levels from Trilobitomorpha down to Phacops rana (of which there are several subspecies). As someone who spends most of my editing time on the extinct taxa, Ithink time is better spent adding taxa to Wikispecies rather then going thogh every extinct group and adding daggers. Ammonoidea, Trilobitomorpha, Dinosauria, Belemnoidea, etc... this is alot of taxa add daggers too when a single dagger signal s the same thing.--Kevmin 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Three points:
  • If someone does want to spend time putting daggers on all levels, it does no harm, and I am objecting to another editor coming along and just taking them off again - hardly a constructive use of editing time!
  • It is easy to miss seeing a single dagger high up somewhere in the taxonavigation section.
  • Sometimes, a "living fossil" is discovered, and what was a wholly extinct group now has one extant species somewhere within it. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen. This could cause quite an editing headache, if daggers aren't on all the extinct taxa.
Stho002 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No harm, but not necessary, as they ten to clutter up the page and make it harder to read. If a "living" fossil is found it is easier to move one dagger then many depending on the placement of the taxon. The possibility of missing the dagger is not really a valid argument. It is possible while reading to skip whole words. It can be argued that adding daggers to every level is JUST as much a waste of editing time.--Kevmin 03:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
as I said, it is best practice in the taxonomic literature to dagger every use of a name for an extinct taxon - it can be argued that the dagger is effectively part of the name - but do you read much taxonomic literature??? Unless it is POLICY not to put daggers at all levels, then I would suggest that it is up to the editor writing the article, and for another editor to come along and remove them is tantamount to vandalism...
Stho002 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually yes I do read taxonomic lit. and from a sampling of my lit at home here, of the 5 papers I looked at (by 5 different authors, all on extinct taxa) None of them marked every extinct level they discussed as extinct, in fact none of them marked the taxa at all. An since there is no policy the adding of the daggers can equally be considered vandalism until there IS consensus --Kevmin 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

<Unindent> Clearly, rational argument is pointless and ineffective here, as you are obviously just "kneejerking" to every little minor issue ...
Stho002 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: Though I will say that claiming that an editor freely expressing their own opinions and preferences could be counted as vandalism when there is no policy against it is definitely out of line. My point was rather that an editor deliberately removing what another editor has written (and thereby expunging that editor's freedom to express their own opinions/preferences) without good reason, and without a policy mandate, is effectively vandalism

How am I "kneejerking" if I may ask. You inquired as to if I read taxonomic lit. and I responded. In regards to editors freedom, how does this relate to your opinion on [talk page content]? It seems the to are very closely related and yet you seem to have a completely different stance on them.--Kevmin 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant in general, making far too much of a trivial issue (daggers) - clearly a reflex reaction. Anyway, my position is consistent: if anyone in particular complains that I removed content that they themselves posted, then I will happily put it back. However, I doubt that anyone would bother complaining about the loss of anything that I did remove, as it was all just no longer relevant talk that we don't want cluttering up the talk pages for any longer than we have to. The edits I made to the corresponding taxon pages (particularly the references added) largely addressed the issues that were raised in the removed talk anyway. Hence, I had good reason to remove those bits of talk, unlike those who remove daggers from extinct taxon names...
Stho002 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The thing is extinct life makes up a large portion of all life that has existed so the decision on this issue will affect a large portion of the content on wikispecies as the project progresses. Thus this isn't just a "Trivial" issue. thus it is something that needs to be decided on now--Kevmin 06:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I doubt that there are more DESCRIBED extinct taxa than extant ones, which is all that we are concerned with here. Anyway, the most straightforward approach is "if it's extinct, put a dagger (?=RIP cross) on it". It is important to know if a name denotes an extinct taxon without having to know how it is (subjectively) classified, and if the whole group it is (subjectively) assigned to is extinct or not.

Stho002 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that adding †'s down to the species level in taxa like Dinosauria tend to clutter the page, and seems unnecessary, but levels down to the family level (included) should have the †, for clarity. So I suggest a compromise: Species & genera --no, but familia and higher --yes. Whenever a single species in a familia is extant, all the †'s down to to species level must of-course be displayed. Mariusm 08:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if the whole family/genus went extinct, just put it at the highest rank where all extinct. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we only need to "tag" the highest level that encompasses all the extinction. For example, the mark on Dinosauria isn't needed, as it applies to Ornithodira (since Dinosauria and Pterosauromorpha are both extinct). If there are any exceptions, on any level, then the extinction mark should be applied further down. For example, if somehow a specimen of Scaphognathus crassirostris were to be found today, then the extinction tag on Ornithodira would have to be moved down to just Dinosauria, since not all specimen of Pterosauromorpha (and, therefore, of Dinosauria) would be extinct. EVula // talk // // 17:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think you are making the wrong decision. It might be OK for dinosaurs and the like that everybody knows are all extinct, and which have RELATIVELY stable taxonomy, but with the majority of obscure little extinct creatures whose taxonomy changes all the time, it will be VERY difficult to keep track of which ones are extinct if there aren't daggers at all levels including the species level. This is an example of a widespread tendency to overgeneralise from the easy cases to all cases. Stho002 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me one way or another. Whatever decision is made should be added to the help pages and if the decision is to add it all the way down, a bot should be the way to go.--Open2universe | Talk 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for late response. I don't care either how it is used, unless it is being used consistently. The guideline as it is now is that it is used at the highest taxon level of extinction. Seems fine as it is, and I don't see a reason to change this. Of course if the community decides it's better to use at all levels I would gladly support that.
Until that time, we must assume the old rules are in place. --Kempm 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Authors and dates for names above family group[edit]

Names above family group are not regulated by any code of nomenclature. In particular, priority does not apply, and there are no criteria of availability/validity. Therefore, there is little point, and even less sense, in ascribing authors and dates to them. For example, Lycaon wants to put Animalia (Linnaeus, 1758), but this makes little or no sense. For a start, why is it in parentheses? I strongly suggest that we simplify things somewhat and do not give authorship to such names above family group. Stho002 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

English vernacular[edit]

[to Stho002] However I strongly disagree with you about moving the vernacular name. This is not an English wikispecies. It is more like Commons and Meta. There has been some discussion that one would see only the vernacular names of the language you are logged in with. Please don't move any more vernacular names until there has been further discussion. Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

English is the universal main language of science, just as Latin (or latinised Greek) is used for the actual scientific names. This is a scientific wiki. Hence the English vernacular is the most important, and ought to be given precedence, rather than be lost in a big list of minority languages.

Stho002 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stho002. daniel B 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand how Stho002 got his idea, but we cannot place English vernacular onto a standalone template. We have to go according to ISO code (just like the listing of interwikis on the sidebar). OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we? What is ISO code, and why are we bound by it? Who is going to enforce such arbitrary rules??? By the way, vernacular names ought to be written entirely in lower case, and in plural form when above species level (e.g., Ctenophora are comb jellies, not Comb Jelly).

Stho002 05:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

in hebrew wikipedia we have a rule that English is at the top of the interwiki list, and only then come all the other languages by ISO code order. Also, at the English Wikipedia main page Simple Wikipedia is on the top of the list. So we don't have to go by ISO code. daniel B 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazing, someone actually agrees with me!!! Stho002 09:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Common (or vernacular) names should be capitalized to distinguish them from adjectives. For example, if you write white oak you are referring to any oak that is white in color. However White oak (or White Oak) would refer to the common name of Quercus alba. Ed Uebel 10:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to this: [6], and I was just talking about common names above species level (i.e., groups). Anyway, context usually prevents confusion with adjectives, and is hardly likely to be a problem in the context of a list of vernacular names!
Stho002 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree with the notion that English should be first, but if that is the ultimate decision, it is a simple matter of changing the template to make this happen. --Open2universe | Talk 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My piece: The most majority of wikis has interwikis and other multilingual stuff similar to vernacular names template here abc sorted by ISO 639 language codes. People are used to it and know, that they'll find English between Deutsch and Francais. To be honest (and without saying it doesn't exist) I can't imagine any reasonable reason to change the years used habit. In real world I deal with accessibility and usability issues as a part of my job. I can say, that moving English to the first place would not add any of both, but - on top of it - it would in fact lower down the usability a bit because of two major reasons - 1) People are strongly used to it. Every major change like this should be based on long time user behavior monitoring as well as on major feedback. and 2) abc is the native sort of pretty much everything. And people subconsciously expect it.

On the other hand I understand that for some people having their language first instead of finding it somewhere in the middle, which may (or may not) take some small amount of time, would be practical. Therefore I have a proposal for compromise. I'd create a gadget (or rather script) where everybody could set their favorite language to be first. Then everybody could set different one without bothering others. And the default order would be abc per ISO 639.

Does that sound acceptable?

Danny B. 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear:
  • I was NOT suggesting that English ought to be first because it is "my language", but rather because it is the international main language of science, and this is a scientifically oriented wiki
  • In almost all cases, the vernacular names in other languages are simple translations of the English one, rather than "new ideas"
  • There is a tendency here at Wikispecies to care more about nitpicky points of formatting than trying to increase substantive content
  • All things are not equal - some are more important/fundamental/primary/salient/relevant than others. Putting everything into a simple abc alphabetical framework makes it difficult to see what is really important/fundamental/etc...

Stho002 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC) PS: Seems a bit odd that someone called daniel B agreed with me (see above), but now someone called Danny B. disagrees with me!

  • "I was NOT suggesting that English ought to be first because it is "my language"..."
    – Anybody actually said that?
  • "(English) the international main language of science"
    {{Citation needed}}, I'd definitely go for latin to be international main language for biology, besides different parts of science - different major languages. And just by the way, the most often used word in technologies - "robot" - is Czech.
  • "In almost all cases, the vernacular names in other languages are simple translations of the English one, rather than "new ideas""
    {{Citation needed}}, Czech vernacular names, as well as most of slavic languages names, are mostly not based on simple translation from any so-called world language but raise from such language itself. Not even speaking about cases when English has translated (or inherited) its vernacular name from any other language.
  • "There is a tendency here at Wikispecies to care more about nitpicky points of formatting than trying to increase substantive content"
    – Well, just go ahead and increase "substantive content", nobody said you are supposed to or even must take care about "nitpicky points of formatting". But as nobody is pushing you to do so, please, do not push those, who are interested/involved in technical background, to take care about the content part rather than the technical one.
  • "All things are not equal - some are more important/fundamental/primary/salient/relevant than others. Putting everything into a simple abc alphabetical framework makes it difficult to see what is really important/fundamental/etc..."
    – Who decided on behalf of millions of non-English speaking users that English is important but their language is not? Who decided that English is most important language at all? Who decided, that eg. English is more relevant to Czech than eg. Slovak or other slavic language etc.? Who decided, that users should use primarily English instead of their mother tongue?
    My proposal actually lets every user to set what is "more important/fundamental/primary/salient/relevant" to him. But that does not mean other users will share the same view. And that's why I suggest/offer per-user customization, which would satisfy all and not only somebody.
  • "PS: Seems a bit odd that someone called daniel B agreed with me (see above), but now someone called Danny B. disagrees with me!" – Assuming good faith wouldn't hurt you. "daniel B." is in fact User:דניאל ב. as seenable in page source - a guy from Hebrew projects, who by the way has registered after me. So it's just an accident.

Danny B. 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Danny B.[edit]

  • "I was NOT suggesting that English ought to be first because it is "my language"..."
    – Anybody actually said that?
    • Well, you said: On the other hand I understand that for some people having their language first instead of finding it somewhere in the middle, which may (or may not) take some small amount of time, would be practical

I was just making the point that this was not my reasoning

  • As for English being the main international language of science, here is a good (if rather old) article on the issue:
- Also a quote from
It is estimated that there are 300 million native speakers and 300 million who use English as a second language and a further 100 million use it as a foreign language. It is the language of science, aviation, computing, diplomacy, and tourism. It is listed as the official or co-official language of over 45 countries and is spoken extensively in other countries where it has no official status.

-An entire book on the subject:

  • I don't understand why anybody would object to English being the main language of science, except perhaps some sort of misguided "patriotism" to some non-English speaking country? The French seem to get rather uptight about it, as is well known. But neither England, nor even the English speaking world, can take any real credit for the status of the English language, just as we don't think that the Greeks are any better than the rest of us just because we use ancient Greek for taxonomic binomials.
  • Anyway, all just food for thought...

Stho002 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Language of science?[edit]

It is worth reminding the parties to this discussion that Wikipedia/media is a forum for scientific content in a manner that "disseminate(s).." it "..effectively." Not a list. The main language of science is not necessarily of any importance to including other languages. Although important and respected languages, Greece is a rather small place in international terms and Latin is not even a native language anymore (is it? who speaks Latin?). If no person suggests removing Latin or Greek, the option of including names that any person may read should not affect other languages. Inclusion of relevant content need be the only topic. I cannot speak Latin or Greek therefore Wikispecies is of absolutely no use to me and yet it apparently holds a wide range of information. Preventing me and other ordinary people from accessing the information is surely unacceptable. Who can say why I should not be able to read the content of Wikispecies without referring to the most commonly used languages? I am going to request a comment from the Meta crowd on this. Nobody has to change all the articles to English or any language but nobody should be prevented from adding it if they do not affect the content. It is a ridiculous debate. Be ashamed of yourselves and start to thank and encourage those like Stho002 who are attempting to make this content useful to ordinary people. It's hardly an easy thing to do. RTG 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging anonymous contributions with account contributions[edit]

I just realized I added my most recent contributions while logged off. As as a result they do not appear in my contributions page. Is there a way to connect these contributions (from IP with my username? It would be easier for me to keep track of them this way. Thanks in advance! Ryenart 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Mediawikik software doesn't support merging ip contributions with a username. So there is not a possible way to connect nor merge them. Abigor talk 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon reverting my most important edits[edit]

  • Why is Lycaon, of all people, reverting my most important edits (such as the Animalia page) where I added an overview of phyla to make the page far easier and intelligible for people to navigate to the main taxonomic groups without being baffled by the shifting sands of modern cladistics?
  • If it is truly a consensus view that the overview must be removed, then I will concede, but until that is clear I will be undoing Lycaon's edits (possibly resulting in another wheel war)
  • I note that Lycaon hasn't actually added a new taxon page since 18 November 2008. Perhaps his editing energy could be best channeled into adding new taxa, instead of just interfering with existing articles????

Stho002 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, perhaps Lycaon would like to apply his intellect and energy to trying to sort out some of the many articles (e.g., Choanoflagellata), with no connection to me, that are a complete mess, and do not follow the agreed syntax by any stretch of the imagination. Stho002 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As a general plea to admins: please don't use pedantic small points of policy/agreed formatting as a weapon against clearly genuine efforts to improve the intelligibility/utility of articles, particularly when there are far more serious problems to be dealt with (such as, for example, the problem I am currently working on to improve the navigation to the major groups of Vertebrata - just look at the history of the page to see what a ridiculous mess it was before I edited it!)
  • Furthermore, the "consensus" process here is not truly democratic. Adminship is an "exclusive club", by invitation only, from the existing admins. Hence, people with genuine alternative views can be excluded. I note that my adminship still hasn't been reinstated, while Lycaon's has, despite the fact that I have made an order of magnitude more edits than would normally be sufficient to gain (or regain) adminship.
  • Vote please:

Should we allow overviews leading to the major taxonomic categories (i.e., regnum, phylum, classis, ordo, familia, genus, species), bypassing the complexity and instability of clades and other subcategories (but still including these as an alternative navigation route), such as has been done on the Animalia page (my last version thereof)?

I must agree here with Stho002: sometimes it is absolutely essential to list a group overview, otherwise the various children are getting so buried in the sub-pages, it is impossible to see the whole picture.
and to Lycaon: please make use of your energy in a more constructive way... Mariusm 09:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
While I do agree that overviews can be extremely useful, how do we decide what to include in them. I see that the overview on Animalia only included EXTANT "phyla". Me as a student training to become a paleontologist and as someone who works as a collections manager of a fossil site half of the year am just as likely to look for extinct taxons as extant ones.
Stho002 before going to far into telling others what is a valuable use of time I would point out that you where in the exact opposite position regarding daggers and were complaining that editors should spend their time as they see fit. This is getting very close to the pot calling the kettle black. --Kevmin 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
By stating right here and now what, if anything, you beleive should be included in an overview so that others may add their opinions. By discussing what Stho002 included in his/her overviews. What do you beleive is suitable or not? RTG 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The overviews are just meant to provide short-cuts between relatively well-known and stable taxa. For example, try navigating down from Mammalia to Homo using (1) the overviews I have provided, then (2) without the overviews!

Stho002 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Kevmin[edit]

  • fossil taxa: I agree that they ought to be included. The only reason I didn't add the fossil phyla is that I know nothing about them at present, so I wasn't in a position to judge the accuracy of information in this regard. I don't think we all need to have a rambling discussion about what and when to add overviews. Keep it simple and use one's discretion. Some cases will have to be treated differently to others. It is looking that way with Vertebrata
  • No, the pot isn't calling the kettle black! I was complaining about the proportion of some people's editing time spent merely removing daggers. The proportion of my editing time spent adding daggers is negligible. This is because I usually make edits which add information, rather than just going through existing articles and nitpicking.

Stho002 01:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon strikes again[edit]

  • yet again Lycaon reverts edits for two important pages that I improved (Animalia and Platyhelminthes) with the effect of removing the phyla overview on the Animalia page, despite Mariusm's support (above) for such overviews, and his plea for Lycaon not to waste time targeting my edits. I have no wish to start a wheel war, but I have undone Lycaon's meddling yet again. It would be nice to see Lycaon actually add a significant number of new taxon pages...

Stho002 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys[edit]

I am regular visitor and contributor to species, but there is one thing missing here. One time I wanted to ask for help and I was looking to connect to IRC, to species channel. And, I was not able to find out where to connect. Can you please specify connection on the top of this page more detail, present explanation is not good enough for guys like me. Regards --Lasta 14:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AP Vandal[edit]

Hello. There was a previously blocked vandal on the loose today, so I had to intervene, because there didn't seem to be any active administrator online. I reverted all the mess and deleted all the underlying pages. Also, I've blocked the vandal (Lugnuttz) indefinitely. You can change the duration if you don't agree with this. Thanks. --Dungodung 09:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted; agree with the permanent ban. One more page for deletion: [Wikispecies talk:Pissing against the wall]. MPF 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


What exact whe have notice under Name? I see different pages. Type locality and Holotype are often not filt or not filt complete. PeterR 10:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


PeterR flagged this for deletion, which affects over 140 other pages. I'm slightly confused, as it would seem to make sense to delete the pages if the subfamily doesn't exist, but I'm a bit in doubt due to the sheer number (it's not because it's difficult to delete so much, MaximBot can take care of that in a minute). Opinions? Maxim(talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to PeterR, Arctiidae is now Noctuidae: Arctiinae, and so Arctiidae: Lithosiinae is now Noctuidae: Arctiinae: Lithosiini. The pages using the old templates appear to have been reclassified correctly, so the old templates can be deleted, I think, without problems. (PS: I do wish PeterR would clearly cite his references for the reclassification!) Stho002 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Correction: the pages haven't all been reclassified yet, some still use the old templates! Stho002 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies reliability: copy of correspondence on user page of User:Meganmccarty[edit]

Please don't use not reliable sources for add lepidoptera species. Use only original material (books, bulletins). Otherwise we need a lot of time to revise the sides.

PeterR 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This means not that you can't add species. If I know your background and hobby You can add a lot of species from reliable pages.

You can answer me on my talk page.


PeterR 20:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The side you refer to is not reliable. If you add species you need full text and references. See for example Aemulatrix. I add the species out both books. I add the species from bulletins like Zootaxa, Lambilionea etc. who I borrow from my library NEV (Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging). If you have the original books or bulletins you can make the text in Wiki complete.


PeterR 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You can do what you think is right under the wiki system - there is no compulsion to obey PeterR provided that you stick to Wikispecies policy and format

Stho002 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sides but you have work like the professionals. If you are interesting to do a lot of work I can help you. I'm working now on Zootaxa bulletins 2006 and 2007 full text.

PeterR 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Websites[edit]

Megan, I have seen your correspondence with Peter concerning the reliability of other websites as sources of current taxonomy, so I did a very small piece of research. My area of specialisation is Asian Lycaenidae and I have recently created all the WikiSpecies pages on the Lycaenopsis group of genera, in accordance with the last major published revision by a recognised authority (1983). In this work, which covers the whole of the world for this group, there are listed only 15 sepcies in the genus Celastrina when used correctly in its strict sense. Compare this with Zipcodezoo's page on Celastrina and you will see that they list 177 species. Somewhat different. Many of the species they list under Celastrina are now correctly placed in other genera, many of which were only first erected in 1983. For example, they include a species called corythus under Celastrina whereas it should be listed as Ptox corythus. In fact corythus was originally described under the genus Cyaniris in 1895. Then in 1909 it was moved to a new genus Lycaenopsis by a French man; in 1929 a Dutch man erected Ptox as a new grouping, but considered it a sub-genus of Celastrina and finally, when more information became available, Ptox became established as a genus in its own right following the combined efforts of an Englishman and a Japanese. All subsequent specialist authors have agreed with these last two gentlemen.

So unless you have access to all this history, it is difficult to write WikiSpoecies pages that show the whole story and stand up to critical examination. I invite you to put Celastrina into the Wikispecies search box and see what comes up. Look at the species pages and the publications that are cited as references. Then you will see why just using a single web site as a source is not really enough. I hope this has been useful, as it was intended. Alan Accassidy 18:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies reliability[edit]

Hello again Megan. I am a little alarmed by what you are being told by both PeterR and Accassidy (although I do not think that they mean any harm). When, I first started being an editor on Wikispecies, I was very concerned by the problem of keeping the information reliable, but my suggestions for improvement were rejected by the community, and I was told that I could not protect ANY pages from editing by others. Effectively, I believe that what PeterR and Accassidy are trying to do here amounts to the same thing - but rather than physically blocking you, they are insisting that you do it their way or not at all! same thing! Hence, I would like to once again point out that you have the right to do whatever YOU think is best, provided only that you follow Wikispecies agreed format and policy. If they don't like it, tough!
Stho002 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: Although Accassidy's advice may sound reasonable (and indeed is reasonable in large part), I am still worried about 'So unless you have access to all this history...' Very few people have access to all the information they need for complete reliability, and I don't think we want to limit Wikispecies to just those people and prevent others from being editors. Accassidy himself is clearly at least "semiprofessional", with good access to reliable resources, but the same cannot be said for some others singing the same tune here...
Stho002 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Megan, actually I am completely amateur, in the sense that I do not and never have made any money out of studying insects. It is actually a hobby that takes up significant time but does not cost an arm or a leg. But the history of taxonomy is full of "amateur" experts who have made exceptional contributions. As I am a Member of the Royal Entomological Society in London, I have access to that library and can get copies of small publications by paying for their photocopying. I imagine that you could do the same with the US Institutions to which you belong. I also have bought many of the larger books myself, but inevitably newer academic papers sometimes render older books less reliable.
Taxonomy is a bit like detective work; you always have to seek out confirmation of one person's story from other sources. This way a consensus of what is currently 'best evidence' can be deduced. I would like you to take encouragement from my messages, not the opposite. This detective work is clearly more time consuming than just using a single web reference, but it is very satisfying when you track down a number of leads and discover that something is actually reliable information after all. Best of luck, Alan Accassidy 09:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Megan, I have not get response from you that you will work with reliable sides. I work on the same way as Alan Accassidy. I ask the library of NEV for copies and books. Copies they send me direct and cost me pages 1-10 €1,00 other more page cost me €0,10. If the copy cost are more then €4,50 then I order the book or bulletin via the local library. I have correspond with John W. Brown and other entomologist about the status of their work. If you want you can do the Tortricidae. PeterR 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Megan, Once again I must register my unease at other editors (i.e., PeterR) telling you what you can or cannot do (i.e., 'If you want you can do the Tortricidae'). If you want, you can do anything you like (subject only to policy/agreed format). Stho002 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stho002 is good in humiliate people. After Lycaon it is now my turn. People can obley me and the same cannot be said for some others singing the same tune here are very humiliate. Thanks to Stho002 is Cercyonis a great mist. Therefore I leave Wiki. I have done over the 30.000 species with out comment that the data is not good. I could do a lot more reliable species but I don't let humiliate me. PeterR 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I hope you stay with us here. There is no need for you to feel humiliated; your work is accurate and you are co-operative - something we should all aim for. Alan Accassidy 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It could be partly a language problem in that it is hard to understand exactly what PeterR is saying sometimes, but my objection is that he seems to be dictating what other editors (e.g., Megan) can or cannot do, when they are free to do whatever they like (subject to policy). Perhaps PeterR should just be a bit more careful about how he words things - there is nothing wrong with suggesting to another editor that they work cooperatively. It does however come across a bit rich when he preaches about reliability, when he is not himself the most reliable/accurate editor of Wikispecies articles. Perhaps his friend Accassidy would like to give him some friendly advice about thinking before writing such messages? It is not my intention to humiliate anybody - however I am the sort of person to say things as they are. Lycaon had a problem with this, but, quite frankly, the best thing that both Lycaon and PeterR can do in response to my comments is just to lift their game, rather than just spitting the dummy and walking out! To Accassidy, I would say that you are the sort of editor we want around here, but be aware that with the wiki system being such that it is, there is no way of securing the reliability of information on the pages, and trying to be "territorial" about it is NOT going to work. My approach to the reliability problem is to cite references wherever possible, and it is up to the reader to verify the information on the pages against the references. Effectively, Wikispecies can be thought of as a taxonomically highly structured version of Biological Abstracts or Zoological Record. Stho002 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

>Thanks to Stho002 is Cercyonis a great mist
Well, I don't see how I can be responsible for a page I have never edited! I see that Megan wrote that page. If PeterR believes that the information is incorrect, then he is fully entitled to edit it himself to fix it! Please try to understand that WE CANNOT STOP EDITORS FROM ADDING UNRELIABLE INFORMATION. If we could, I would probably stop both Megan and PeterR. I am just as frustrated as anybody (probably more so) by the problems of the wiki system, but it looks like we just have to make the best of it. I still say it would have been far more sensible to allow editors to protect their own pages, and if another editor disagrees with the information on a page, then they can create their alternative version of the page alongside it. Stho002 22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I might also point out that if there are any parallels between the cases Stho002 vs. PeterR, and Stho002 vs. Lycaon, then it is in the tactics that both opponents use to "defend themselves", namely (1) threatening to quit; and (2) invoking the number of edits they have made as a "reason" for accepting their arguments over mine! All I am saying to PeterR is that I don't think he should be telling other editors like Megan what they can or cannot do. I fail to see the relevance of the fact that PeterR has done over 30,000 edits! And to Acassidy, your pointed comment about being "co-operative" is not lost on me, but I think you need to take a wider view, i.e., PeterR may be co-operative with you, but not so with Megan, and she has just as much right to do what she wants as you do. Stho002 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies for "species" or taxa?[edit]

I have just started to contribute to the Wikispecies. I mainly write for the Swedish Wikipedia, but thought I could help here as well. Just a questions (among many in my head). Is Wikispecies trying to present a consensus or accepted taxa or all taxa? I ask because I don't know what to do with synonyms, should I make "pages" for them and redirect to presently accepted taxa? Or maybe create pages that are lists of published name with directions to currently accepted names, however these lists could easily be less than up to date. So have there been any discussions about this I should read about? Epibase 11:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for the taxa that I know most about, there usually isn't a well-defined sense of "consensus" or "accepted name", just individual opinions (which are typically not challenged mainly because only one person has an opinion!) I create a page for synonyms and redirect that page to whatever name I am using as the valid one (on grounds of priority), but that is just my preference. I don't think it matters too much which particular road you choose to go down, provided that we all end up at the same destination! Stho002 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the opinion matter. I will personally follow the major Floras and database available, but also make chanses in hope that others will add their knowledge. My perspective will be global to sort out intraspecific taxa, if possible. I'll go down the "redirection" lane and await reactions. Epibase 15:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If a currently valid species has a recorded history of synonymy, then this should be recorded on the current species page. If the synonym is well known and others are likely to search for it then it seems sensible to create a redirect page. I have done this for some taxa that are well-known names but currently thought of as synonyms: see Celastrina ladon which redirects to Celastrina argiolus ladon. This may be useful to Wiki people from the USA where ladon is still often used as a valid specias name.Accassidy 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In archives See as of 30 september 2008 there is a discussion about use synonyms. PeterR 09:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is hard for me to explain in English... so please be patient.... In Wikipedia Commons and in the Swedish Wikipedia there is a system of categories. Could that be useful for Wikispecies to crate lists of taxa and then the articles could list only accepted/used taxa? UME 19:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Celastrina argiolus echo is after Lamas, Celastrina ladon echo is after Hodges and Celastrina echo is after Opler. Have I now make two redirects to Celastrina argiolus echo? PeterR 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Lamas, 2004 (new world), and Eliot & Kawazoe, 1973 (a global view of this group of genera), place echo as a subspecies of argiolus. Eliot & Kawazoe also place ladon as a ssp of argiolus, while the only reference in Lamas to ladon is to ladon ab. nunenmacheri, also subordinate to argiolus. I think other pages relating to echo and to ladon should be redirected to argiolus. Accassidy 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with a template[edit]

I'm having trouble with the Torosaurus template. On the template page, it shows a link to the Torosaurus genus page, but on the T. latus species page the link is instead in bold. Wild Wolf 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Stho002 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


I see that Stho002 have add information in my references. He update the references with text like 4 news species of etc.. When I have a bulletin I see two informations. (Example) One with Zootaxa 1673: 4 plate 5, figure 2 for the species and under references Lamas, G. Two new species of Celastrina etc Zootaxa 1673': 1–11. I have for an example specialy equipped for comment Idaea inspiculata. If we agree with the result of the discussion we have update the Help template. PeterR 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Move Aceros comatus to Berenicornis comatus per Handbook of the Birds of the World and ITIS. This is restoring the page to its earlier name, but the redirect had been edited subsequently making an admin move necessary. Thanks, MPF 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please do this!! - thanks, MPF 11:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Bicentennial[edit]

Darwin's 1837 sketch, first diagram of an evolutionary tree

Hello everybody. Will Wikispecies do something special on this Thursday Feb. 12 of 2009 ? This is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin !!!! A stamp ? A special page ? CaCO3 17:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It's once-in-a-lifetime event. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the administrators change the main page and add a picture/figure of Charles Darwin and link to Wikipedia in Feb. 12th ? CaCO3 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Request fulfilled. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In future, please make sure the event ends when the day does; it looked quite silly to have the notice up there on the 13th, when I removed it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxon overviews/cladism gone mad![edit]

Can I please stress, in the strongest possible terms, that taxon overviews are essential, particularly in today's world of "cladism gone mad". For example, someone ought to be able to navigate directly from regnum Animalia to phylum Platyhelminthes, without worrying about the current (disputed) cladistic theory whereby Platyhelminthes belong to Animalia/Eumetazoa/Bilateria/Nephrozoa/Protostomia/Spiralia/Platyzoa! An overview to the next lowest major rank of relative stability is vital! Stho002 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in support of Stho002 on any matter that makes navigation of the tree easier. I must say that working top-down is really quite difficult. In some cases impossible. If you try to work down from Animalia to Homo, you get as far as Placentalia and are then presented with a choice between 5 Superordines. Then if you go to Homo and look back up the taxonavigation, there is no rank of Superordines and the rank lower than Placentalia is not one of the five Superordines on the Placentalia page. So there is a complete discontinuity in the tree for Homo sapiens, and if navigation is difficult for this species, then we certainly have an issue! There will be no short-term solution while professional biologists argue over the correct cladistic model for the Animalia (just look at all those new referenced phylogenies), so pages that add to the ease of navigation are to be applauded, even though they may short-cut the tree. I will continue to expand the twigs of the tree; after all, this is called WikiSpecies, not WikiPhyla. Accassidy 09:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Accassidy, and make two further comments:

(1) we should simplify navigation as much as possible by use of overview "short-cuts" to navigate between the standard Linnean categories of relative stability (i.e., regnum, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species); and (2) even though the site is called WikiSpecies, I don't think we want to revert simply to being an (unclassified) alphabetical list of genera, each with their included species! But classification depends on phylogeny. The set-up of the site does allow us to say useful things about phylogeny, so why not also try to "compete" with ToL and the like? Stho002 00:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem so it is now at least possible to navigate down from Mammalia to Homo. Stho002 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I still can't do this. On the Homo page, the level below Placentalia is Primates. But working down from Mammalia I get to Placentalia, on which page I would expect to be able to click on Primates, but its not there. Accassidy 10:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some pages have this problem of (without using browser's back and forward button) after going down the page cannot lead you back the way up to the same page you originated from. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there must be some misunderstanding here. What I said was that I had fixed the problem so it is now at least possible to navigate down from Mammalia to Homo. This is correct. The first step is to click on Primates in the overview of extant ordines section that I put on the Mammalia page. Then there is a fairly obvious route down to Homo from there. The "long route" (i.e., not using the overview short-cut) still needs to be fixed up, but I will do that some other time, unless anyboby else wants to do it?

Stho002 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it so you can now navigate down from Mammalia to Homo via the shortcut Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo. Stho002 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

List of admins[edit]

I recently checked list of admins and noticed that we have almost half of inactive admins. Also, I noticed also that we do not have policy for desysop in case of absence. I know that I am talking about trusted members of our community, but my opinion is that circumstances change during time and sysop can be only person who is active on project. what I am proposing here is following:

to create desysop policy
stick to a policy regarding present situation.

I would like a comment from all members of our community regarding this issue, this has to be sorted sooner or later. --Lasta 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. Wikispecies is a foundling project, a fledgling, and it seems a little bureaucratic and a little pointless to go about formulating a desysop policy and taking away the privileges of the inactive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment about vernacular naming [7][edit]

Hi, at the risk of infuriating some of you dedicated editors, I have requested comments from Meta about the various disputes related to venacular names. Here RTG 00:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RTG in as far as it would be better if it were possible to restrict a search for cat, for example, to just the vernacular names section of species pages. At the moment, a search for cat pulls up mostly the abbreviation Cat. (for catalog/catalogue) in references sections! Stho002 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
People working with insect species should be aware that The Entomological Society of America has assigned a common name to a number of the more common insects and arachnids. This list of Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Scientific Name is available on line, and these common names should be used for the English Vernacular Names. Please note that there is only one correct common name for each species listed. Ed Uebel 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Though they have some wrong, e.g. Vespula germanica (with wikispecies currently correct, good for wikispecies!) - MPF 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009[edit]

Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, posters, open space discussions, and artistic works related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 talk 18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


We had another spree today: [8]. I'm thinking that it'd be good if we could perform a rangeblock; find out the IP and flush this guy out for good. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The AP vandal is certainly devoted to his "art". I'm not sure anyone really can be blocked, as there are free proxies out there with dynamic IPs. Has anyone tried talking to him??? Stho002 20:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I don't really see the point. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see the point in blocking him either, as he will just come back using a proxy! Stho002 06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It doesn't particularly matter. It's my feeling that it is quite simple to destroy his work, and all vandals eventually tire. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)