Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 19

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

3 images = too many?[edit]

There's a trend to limit species pages to one image, however, I think for some species it should be acceptable for more. Specifically when the male/female or juvenile/adult forms are considerably different. As an example, I added a couple images to Danaus plexippus. There you have a female, a male, and a larva. I don't think it's too much, but I would like to hear other opinions. Rocket000 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks alright to me, but generally 220px is reserved for portrait images, not landscape. Landscape uses 250px. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know but I wanted it inline with the sections (vs. [1]). They're all good images; the subject can be seen clearly at these slightly smaller sizes I think. I normally view/edit this site at 1680x1050 which means lots of whitespace and no scrolling in most cases, so I didn't know if this was image overload. Rocket000 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Help:Image_Guidelines even 2 is too many. You can always link to commons for more. Wikispecies is not meant as an image repository IMHO. One could always find sound reasons to add 2, 3 or even ten images. But this will then be uncontrollable I expect. CTD 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course Wikispecies is not a image repository; we only have 7 images. ;P I think you're kinda missing the point I was raising. I'm well aware there's a 1-image standard here but when you're talking about visually distinct male/female forms (especially for butterflies, birds, and some mammals) why show only one sex? I mean, if we didn't have this nice convenient non-offensive boring image, what sex would you chose to represent Homo sapiens? As for visually distinct developmental phases, I would say the immature forms should only be included when the species undergoes metamorphosis and, as in the case of most butterflies, is visibly unique when compare to larvae of related species. I don't think include image of various tadpoles or maggots or grubs is particularly useful (they all look the same to me, but with caterpillars, some are as easily identifiable as their adult counterparts and just as unique). Of course, pictures of puppies or infant humans don't count either (no metamorphosis). Rocket000 06:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is that the number of images depends on a case by case basis, and what exactly we are trying to do. A single image only gives some indication of what a species looks like, but may be insufficient to technically be able to identify it. There is also the point mentioned above that a single species may look totally different depending on whether male or female, or mature/immature (i.e., larvae of insects). I say that images should not repeat each other, but if there is space, and different images tell us different things about a species, then why not add more than one? Stho002 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Organisms which exhibit sexual dimorphism should be exempt from the 1-image rule. As for larvae, I'll sit on the fence and watch the arguments presented by both sides before I decide. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Larvae: in many cases, the larva lives far longer than the ephemeral adult (e.g. mayflies). Surveying stream invertebrates is big business, and it is the larvae that are important here, not the adults. So, why oh why would we be biased towards adults? Stho002 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS: I draw the line at images of eggs!Reply[reply]
True, and some species are even more popular (to non-specialists) in their larva stage, e.g. silkworms. Some species live in their adult form only a week or two simply to reproduce (although when you turn out like this, it's easier to see why they get more attention). I guess it doesn't make sense to have one single rule for all organisms. It all depends on the species. And I agree with the egg thing. Rocket000 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My work-around if I have more than one picture I want to show is to make up a collage (for example showing both sexes, or specimens from different locations) and then post this as a single image. The thumb then links to a larger image on Commons where those interested can see more detail. No-one has objected to this. Accassidy 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's good too, especially the way you do it. You even got both sides in there! (which is something I didn't want to bring up because people might take that as "what's next? shots from every possible angle?" not realizing this would only apply to a very small group of species that are commonly illustrated this way in identification guides and plates in scientific literature). I think this approach works best for insects. The scale's a nice touch too. But unless you can take the photos yourself, combining photos with different locations/size/camera/quality/etc. usually doesn't work so well. Rocket000 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, photos of eggs can be important - in ornithology at least ... Stho002 22:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about plants? Much the same questions apply. Photo of a whole plant, or detailed close-up of part of a plant? With or without reproductive organs? - MPF 11:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't do much with plants, but I would say normally the whole plant should be shown and in the flowering stage if relevant. But as a general guideline, how the plant is most commonly photographed would be a good place to start. Rocket000 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It all depends on what the point of the image is ... to be able to identify the species, or just to have some vague idea what it looks like? Stho002 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GLAM -Challenge[edit]

On August 6 & 7 Wikimedia Australia is hosting GLAM-Wiki at the Australian War Memorial supported by the

In lead up to the event some of the GLAM institutions(Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) have donated items to be given away, Wikimedia Australia has organised the GLAM Challenge which will run from 13th July until 23:59UTC on the 19th July. This is open to all registered editors in any Wikimedia project, you dont need to be in Australia to win as prizes will be posted to anywhere in the world. Nominate yourself by the 13th July, see GLAM Challenge for more details. Gnangarra 12:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sister Project links[edit]

I was originally going to beg for information beyond taxonomy and common names here, but a bit of browsing was enough to tell me that such a thing would go against policy.

Instead, I'll ask: would it really go against policy or be too much trouble to include some Sister Project links (to Wikipedia articles or pages from WikiBooks) to provide additional information? Wikispecies is supposed to be the "free species directory", and a phone book (that is, a directory of people who own phones) that lists names but no numbers is pretty useless.

--Proginoskes 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They already exist for most pages. Look on the left side of the screen at the bottom of the column. If there are sisterproject pages the links to those pages will be there.--Kevmin 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcements from ZooKeys[edit]

Delivering good news to you all from ZooKey's latest announcements This unplanned collaboration between ZooKeys and Wikispecies brings scientists closer to the general public. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am currently preparing a collaboration with ZooKeys, which means that we can use the rich resources of images in ZooKeys' papers. This cooperation will be announced shortly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome! That is good news. Rocket000 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can't add templates etc. When i put on the button go there comes search. Please can somebody help me?

PeterR 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italic titles[edit]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia about whether to italicize titles. Should we do this here? It's already being done de facto. Pzrmd 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wikispecies uses latin names which should be italicised, and non-latin names that shouldn't be Stho002 22:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Whether or not to italicize titles of pages about genera and species. Pzrmd 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, it would make sense for genera and species, but not higher taxa, if it can be done easily, but otherwise not worth bothering Stho002 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I have poked someone with bot experience and even he said it's not so easy. Another person suggested to assume all articles need to be italic and exclude those in higher taxa[2]. Either way, it won't be easy. But if English Wikipedia found a way to do it without problem, why the hell not? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I see we already have a template for it. Should I/we start adding this while editing entries just as we're it? Pzrmd 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I'm not sure how to integrate them slowly into genus and species articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I'm going to start doing this. Is that ok? Pzrmd 00:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • You need more than a template. It takes javascript to do this. I don't recommend it. It will take a lot of work for little benefit. We should concentrate of creating/improving taxon pages and let technology catch up with us. Italicizing titles is actually pretty simple (you can even do it with a little CSS, see the code for User:Rocket000/Italic title. JS is more powerful, see b:Template:Displaytitle), but the reason en.wp's is so complicated is because they make it exclude stuff in parentheses. This won't work here because we have subgenus pages. E.g. Genus (Subgenus) species should all be italicized. Sure we can make another template for those, but again I don't think it's worth it. Let's wait until MediaWiki improves and gives us some easier and more practical way to do this. We already have {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} which replaces the title but they block changes other than case so it's not misused maybe they can make an exception for us. StringFunctions would be nice too but it looks like we're not getting that yet. Rocket000 08:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • Rocket, your test page italic all pages, but we only want genus and lower level to be in italic, not on kingdom or family. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • What do you mean? I wasn't suggesting we apply it to all titles. It wouldn't be any different than the JS way. You still would apply it to only the ones you want to change. I was just showing even CSS could do it, but javascript would be more powerful (although not everyone uses javascript). Rocket000 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • Were you thinking the other way had some way of knowing what is or isn't a genus or lower? That would be quite impressive. ;) Rocket000 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                      • Well, it would be hard since we use templates here. Even though not all uses javascript, I believe most have them enabled by browser default. If they switched off javascript, then it will appear as unchanged. But for rest of us, that's a change. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                        • You're right, and we would use JS if we do this. The CSS was just an example. Both ways would be done with adding a template to the page. If we're serious about this, the smart way would be update our templates like {{Sp}} to work like the ones on Commons (e.g. commons:Template:Species) and include the title changing code within all subgenera (not genera) templates. That way wherever the subgeneric subtaxa is listed (meaning on genera and lower pages), the title will automatically change. Oviously, this means changing the way we use those templates, but in the long run, it makes the most sense. The new form would display the same but instead of {{sp|G|enus|species1}} {{sp|G|enus|species2}} {{sp|G|enus|species3}}... it would be {{sp|G|enus|species1|species2|species3|...}}. It's easier to use, IMO, but would be a major change from the way we do things. Rocket000 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                        • Actually, the conversion is unnecessary. We could do it through all {{xxlast}} templates (e.g. {{Splast}}) since every target page should include one. Rocket000 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So what is the verdict? Using {{Italictitle}} DISPLAYTITLE until further agreement? - Soulkeeper 08:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Election Notice[edit]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that:

- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)

- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning.

- The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August.

Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.

For the committee, Philippe 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reverted user:Stho002s revisions to the Eukaryota page as there was no discussion that I could find regarding whether or not the new 2 clade structure, just published this year, has actually overturned the years of contention on the taxonomy and phylogeny of the group. I would have looked to the talk page and posted my concerns there but I see in my watchlist the the entire page was deleted in the same overhall by the same editor with the resoning of "no longer relevant". This is completely against talk page policy and the page should be restored to allow discussion of what taxonomy to follow.--Kevmin 05:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I have just been able to post this comment after being temporarally blocked. I hope that I will receive a full hearing out of my concerns before actions are taken again.--Kevmin 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. You could have had the courtesy to speak to me about it before acting! Not doing so is the very "sin" you accuse me of! Stho002 05:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. If you had spoken to me first, I would have told you that the Wikispecies classification at these higher levels is in a huge inconsistent mess as it is, and I am trying to sort it out bit by bit Stho002 05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. you reverted my edit of that page back to an earlier edit BY ME! I think I know if my previous effort needs modifying or not! Stho002 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That actually brings up a good point. When I first joined Wikispecies in December 2007, I saw the main page's classification and thought "wow, that's messed up." I wanted to correct it right away but got stopped because I have to wait a few days for autoconfirm to kick in. And afterwards, I gave up after foreseeing that a change in main page means all other languages will have to be changed as well due to the cascade effect. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fascinating, I'm sure, Andrew, but we are talking here about the Eukaryota page, not the Main Page! Stho002 05:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I will also point out that I have been putting many pages like this into more standard formatting, and choosing a consistent (and current) classification to follow - as I said the pages at this hight taxonnomic level are in total disarray, and Kevmin just came along and undid hours of hard work to put it right! Stho002 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I blocked you as it looked like an attack by you on my edits! You came out of nowhere, and without a word of justification, immediately started to revert my edits Stho002 05:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. you should post a justification before acting, or else it will look like an attack: someone lunges at you with a knife, you defend yourself first and ask questions after ... Stho002 05:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I remind everyone that this isn't the first time Kevmin has "focussed his attention" on my edits Stho002 05:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I agree I was hasty in my revert.--Kevmin 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. If it is in need of revision, then considering the importance of the page the changes should have been discussed on the talkpage or on the VP before a major change. However you deleted the entire talkpage discriminating all record of discussion which happened before. I talked to you about talkpage blanking soon after you first strated to edit here when you blanked the Animalia talk page. Your comment that that time was that the information was irrelevent at that time and that if any realy wanted to find it they could go throught the page history and see what was there. This time you ahve removed even the page history so there is no way for anyone to see the past discussions.--Kevmin
Given that those higher taxon pages were already inconsistent and therefore meaningless, and often non-standard in format (see for example, I didn't think it necessary to apply for permission to tidy up a huge mess! Also, would you really have acted any differently if I had just blanked the talk page rather than deleting it? Any issues regarding that talk page are irrelevant to your revert of the Eukaryota taxon page! Stho002 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have, rightly, reverted the blanking on the grounds that blanking on any talkpage that is not your personal userpage talkpage is prohibited by wikipolicy, blacking is worse because there is no history preserved for users to look through. Personal opinion about the relevance of talkpage contents, excepting vandalism, is not a valid reason for deleting the page entirely--Kevmin 06:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe - I may have made a mistake there - I do make mistakes occasionally, lapses of judgement, just like everyone else. BUT, this does NOT justify your reverting of the Eukaryota taxon page (i.e., NOT the talk page)! You can't try to justify the latter with the former ... Stho002 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revert was for the reason that there was no discussion of the massive changes being made, it was not in any way an attempt to bring back the talkpage, and at no point have I made that assertion. I stated I was not posting the reason for my revert due to the blanking of hte page. I should have clarified that posting the VP was because creation of a new talkpage would, if I understand correctly, made it impossible to restore the old contents should it be deemed that the deletion of the page was inappropriate. They are two separate though related issues which need to be discussed.--Kevmin 06:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, no, no! I justified my "massive changes" explicitly with reference to a publication by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, a full professor at Oxford University. There are no policy guidelines on what counts as a "massive change", only your chosen opinion. Given that the Eukaryote classification on those pages was either totally messed up, or else my own contribution before this latest publication, I felt I had every right to edit those pages as I saw fit, without needing to discuss. We aren't going to get very far if we have to discuss every page before anyone can edit it... You are trying to unilaterally control my edits on a Wiki, and that is out of line. You made no attempt to see if anyone else agreed with you first... Stho002 06:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Full professorship does, in no way mean that Cavalier-Smiths classification proposal will be accepted by the scientific community. From what I can tell, the scheme was proposed in October 2008, is there any indication that this classification has the support if the scientific community who works in this area. Considering the contentious nature of the debate over higher Eukaryote phylogeny, this seems unlikely. Are there any reviews of the classification published yet? This does constitute a massive change to me as it is a complete change of the pages to which the vast majority of the taxonavigation pages in WS link to--15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I think I am unlikely to stay with C-S.'s proposed classification, but that is not the point! The point is threefold: (1) I was in the first stages of trying to render the Wikispecies pages CONSISTENT at these highest levels, and to do so I simply chose to run with the C.-S. proposal explicitly for the time being, because although it may turn out not to be correct in some details, it is still one heck of a lot better than an inconsistent mess. Connected with this is the fact that it is simply not practical to wait and see if his proposal becomes "accepted", as this is a vague notion which cannot be measured, and for WS purposes (for any taxa) we just have to CHOOSE A SENSIBLE OPTION, make it explicit who we are following, and run with that until such time as something better comes along; (2) since WS is concerned mostly with the leaves of the tree (i.e., species), these changes to highest classification are unlikely to be of any significance to many users, so are not "massive changes"; (3) the most important thing is to assemble all the relevant literature references on the pages (e.g., Eukaryota), which I was doing, until you started removing them as OhanaUnited correctly pointed out to you on your talk page! Stho002 23:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, you might not know this, not being an admin yourself, but the history of a deleted page is still preserved, and I could

have easily restored the talk page and its full history if you had provided me or another admin with a good reason for doing so - I still don't see how you reverting the Eukaryota taxon page was supposed to help???? Stho002 06:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fully aware of the fact that a cashed version of the page prior to deletion is kept. I also know that it is still for all intents and purposes gone for anyone who doesn't know it existed and doesn't have access to the cashed page.--Kevmin 06:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill...Stho002 07:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why, by askin that admins follow policy like everyone else?--Kevmin 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I'm sorry, point?--Kevmin 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I reverted edit I saw in on my watchlist that I was concerned about when logged in this evening, I apologize that that seemed out of the blue to you, but you also have a history of accusing me of targeting your edit when review of my and your contributions clearly shows that we rarely interact an the times we do it is on pages that are already on my watchlist. I have not at any point ever purposly targeted you.--Kevmin 05:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well given the history of "accusation", I would have thought that a smart chap like you would have learned by now, and been cautious enough to say something this time BEFORE going on a revert rampage! Stho002 06:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One revert is not a rampage....--Kevmin 06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You arrived and immediately did two edits: (1) moved my refs from top of main page talk page to bottom where nobody will see them, and then (2) reverted my edits on Eukaryota which I had spent most of the day working on. Two edits may not be a rampage either, but it sure looked like it could turn into one very quickly! Stho002 06:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What things may look like to one person are not reason to block without full block proceddings. Plus as you have already demonstrated the information was easily retrieved thus the work put into the change was not lost.--Kevmin 06:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My approach (which I defend) was to stop you in your tracks, pending some sort of justification (that you ought to have given FIRST). Your changes are reversible, but I didn't know how many you were going to do, and I don't have time to revert a large number of them if you had continued (which you might well have done if I hadn't blocked you). I was defending the Wiki from a potential attack, that is all. If you had acted properly, and spoken to me or at least someone FIRST, all this could have been avoided. I don't feel that I had to inform anyone in advance of my intention to tidy up a bunch of inconsistent and non-standard format pages - that is just routine stuff ... Stho002 06:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry..."potential attack"?? I would have thought that my history of editing this project since 2006 l would be proof of the fact that I DO NOT "attack" the project. You are well aware of this fact and could also have just as easily asked me to stoip on my talk page and I would have.--Kevmin
Yes, potential attack. For one thing, I haven't been around since 2006, so your attitides to my edits in particular are "suspect" and it remains to be seen if you can control yourself over them. Secondly, people can and do go off the rails at any stage in their lives, so just because you haven't attacked the project in the past doesn't mean that you won't start to do so at any stage. Admit it, you lost your temper, got up on your high horse, and started carelessly reverting my edits without saying a word to anyone, and now you criticise me for not asking you to stop on your talk page! You handled it all wrong, and handed me full justification to block you pending an explanation of your counterproductive edits. I'd do it again, and I have warned you several times (which you then tried to twist my warnings into "threats" against you). What you did was tantamount to vandalism and I blocked you for it - end of story. Stho002 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) OhanaUnited has chosen to give you another chance, and I respect his wishes, but we are both keeping a close eye on the situation ... Stho002 08:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking about this with a clear head, I made it obvious what I planned to do next with my edit summary stating I was going to post on the Village pump. As you can not, to my knowledge, read my mind, your justifications are rather weak. Yes anyone can go off at anytime, this does not give anyone the right ot block others just because you do not like their edits. I made 2 edits last night, one of which didn't remove any of you text, just moved it according to policy. The second was with an edit summary stating what I was going to do, however I was not given that opportunity. You have given me warning before due to me disagreeing with you on editing style. I disagree that you had justification for blocking me, as on most projects admins are very specifically prohibited from taking the type of action you took when a page which has been edited by that admin is involved. the proper course of action is to notify a neutral party and ask them to intervene. Please give us you definition of vandalism so that we may judge if my actions do indeed fall into that category.--Kevmin 15:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure your head is really that clear? Perhaps you should consider anger management counselling, or at least yoga! If we were to take this particular issue out of proper context, then I would have little or no justification for blocking you (though I must point out that in the summary field of the block, I did put a reason (harrassment) and the note that the block was enacted pending discussions to try to resolve the issue). However, the context is one of repeated attempts to provoke me into doing something that you can then use against me, which I call harrassment, which is tantamount to vandalism, particularly when you come along and revert a page I had been working on all day, BEFORE offering any explanations, and in doing so remove highly relevant references from that page (see OhanaUnited's comment to you regarding this on your talk page). I have given you warnings about these things before, so my block was no more or less justified than it would be for any other already warned vandal... Stho002 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. excuse me, KNIFE?????
  2. See bullet 4
It was I who asked Stephen to put the reference links out of main page, since I think they may not be in the best place to display them. But I don't know how the dispute somehow left main page (or talk:main page) and moved to Eukaryota OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like a case of looking for things of mine to revert! That is why I acted defensively with the block. Perhaps I was a little hasty, but Kevmin didn't look like he wanted to discuss anything, as there was no attempt by him at discussion before he started reverting my edits. Perhaps, we were both a little bit too hasty? Stho002 06:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talkpage policy is that new additions to talkpages are placed at the bottom of the page, this is what I was following--Kevmin 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, policy can be waived around like a knife by any good beauracrat, but this was a special case with special issues that we could have at least discussed before you acted. I wanted those refs on the Main Page as they are relevant to the Taxonavigation section on the Main page. OhanaUnited gave me good reasons why it was not a good idea to put them there, so I moved them to the "talk page" - but they are not just "talk", they are more important than that and so deserve to be put in a prominent position. At least it was worth discussing, I would have thought ... Stho002 06:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That being the case then you should include that reasoning with the information so those reading the page will understand why they are there. As it is thatt is no indication with the information as to why there are there.--Kevmin
I thought it was self-evident, and if it wasn't, I thought someone would ask why they are there? Stho002 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A as an aside I would appreciate it if you found a less threatening analogy to make points with. Constant refereneces to Knives and the use of them against others is not welcome--Kevmin 06:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two references to knives is hardly "constant"! Apart from the usual bounds of decency, I don't choose my metaphors to cater for individual sensitivities, sorry! Stho002 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And calling your last edit "what is with the knife threats???" in the summary box is OUT OF ORDER! Please do not suggest that I am threatening you with a knife, when I was simply using metaphors about what YOU were doing to ME!!! Stho002 06:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest you read the wiki policy on threats as you will see that you comment are covered and considered threat by that policy, and it doesn't matter what the situation or context is.--Kevmin 06:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh come on, that is just laughable! So, let me see, I am threatening YOU, am I (?), by making an analogy, explaining why I blocked you before talking to you about it: namely that if someone lunges at one with a knife, one defends oneself first and asks for explanations later! What sort of nonsense is that????

I am logging off for tonight as I have to work in the morning. I will respond to any further comment then--Kevmin 06:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Sweet dreams ...Reply[reply]

I would like to ask both of you to stay cool a little and, regardless of the merits of the dispute, stop this discussion, which does not seem to be going anywhere now. If I may be allowed to give you a piece of advise, please leave each other alone for a while and avoid hasty actions. Ucucha (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stho002 was making an analogy, and it was in no way even close to suggesting he would inflict physical harm on anyone. Even in the analogy, Kevmin was the one doing the "lunging with a knife". Reread exactly what he wrote. It must be a language issue or a misreading, but as a native speaker of English I can vouch that no rational person could possibly take that as a threat. Rocket000 08:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strategic Planning[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.


(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)[edit]

Hi friends! I was created a new plant identifier wiki project based on Semantic Mediawiki extension. It is in beta status, and if it looks intresting, anyone can join to it. There are some missing features, but the basic mechanism is ready and it can be used (in the future, if number of taxons will be enough) to identifying any kind of organinsm (e.g. animals). My basic idea is a sister project to Wikispecies, or it can add in Wikispecies (melt into Wikispecies).

Any ideas and opinions are welcome.

PiPi69e talk 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Andrew (and all others)! I'm ansvering here to Your question. Florawiki can be a "background utility" (different but collaborative project) or part of Wikispecies. In this early status it is only a sandbox. Wikispecies supports taxonomical aspects of organisms, Florawiki allows to mark taxons with morphological data, and allows to search taxons by these data. If You have a look at and than You can see these taxons are marked with property Colour of petals with value Red and value Yellow. If You go to page than You can search by property Colour of petals and if You select Red than You can find Papaver rhoeas in result list.
Florawiki has three logical level:
  • The first is ready, and it allows adding new taxons, part types and properties.
  • The second is: what kind of properties are necessary to identifying taxons correctly. We (Florawiki and me) need help of amateur or professional botanists (Wikispecies users) on this level.
  • The second and a half is: What part types are taxons compounded of. The basic collect of forms and templates (the first level) of Florawiki is suitable for any kind of organisms e.g. animals.
  • The third is: If the main part types and properties are collected, than users can fill in data. They can add new taxons, and can mark these taxons (or parts of these taxons) with properties and property values.
If number of taxons are enough (what number is it?), Florawiki will be able to identifying taxons. If Wikispecies users think so, marking taxons with morphological data is a good idea than Florawiki can be a part of Wikispecies (installing Semantic Mediawiki, Semantic Forms and some other extensions is required), or it can be a different project (if so, there will be a redundancy of pages of taxons). PiPi69e talk 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can a lower taxon override a property from a higher one? For example, I'd want Rosa to say "has petals in whorls of five" and Rosa sericea to override that to four. Kingdon 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question, but I can't answer it. Why? Because I need Your (and any others) help to build this project. Inheritance of properties is an uncertain theme. There are some new notes in the end of section. Come, and help me :)
The answer is now: Rosa sericea can inherit all of properties and property values from Rosa or nothing. There is a rule now: a higher taxon can have a property (and a property value) if all subtaxons have this property value too. PiPi69e talk 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but there are some problems with this feature. I should work on it. PiPi69e talk 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's ready. Take a look at Primula veris. This taxon inherits from Primula. The inherited properties have a new "override" link. PiPi69e talk 23:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About redundancy of taxons between Wikispecies and Florawiki: Yes, the taxons are duplicated on Florawiki, because taxons are only markable with morphologic data if all taxons have their own page. It's only a side effect. PiPi69e talk 15:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EOL update?[edit]

Is there a project page for following coordination with EOL? Sj 04:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't know. User:Accassidy is probably the best person to interact with EOL but he hasn't been around here for quite a while. Even the collaboration with ZooKeys was unintentional. Stephen (User:Stho002) was creating articles published by ZooKeys. The publisher/managing editor was impressed when he discovered that just a day after ZooKeys published Issue 13, Stephen already created entries for species described in that issue. The publisher was amazed that "community-maintained, low-profile resources like Wikispecies can become the best Web sources for taxonomic information" because government websites are often 5 or more years behind, EOL has not added any data submitted by ZooKeys, and Catalogue of Life is years behind. And things are much easier to work with when ZooKeys' permission is CC-BY 3.0. This gives us much more options on importing text and images from their papers onto Wikispecies and Commons.
Getting back to topic. Establishing collaboration with ZooKeys took me about 2 weeks. EOL deal is going to take much longer, if ever, because they may consider us as potential rival. I haven't give my hopes yet and I certainly want to forge deals with them. But it definitely will consume a lot of our time both before and after. We need to develop a bot so it can automatically create articles from EOL exported data. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to be able to add something constructive, but right now I cannot. Wiki for me is primarily a winter (northern hemisphere) activity as my work is very seasonal. This summer I am also involved in organising a major world aviation event [3] which is now only 2 weeks away. But I do still check my watchlist every other day. I might be able to get further with EOL in the late autumn. Accassidy 10:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my interactions with them I don't think they see Wikispecies as a rival. Is there a page here where we can collaborate on our requests to EOL and messaging to them? I know E.O. Wilson casually and have worked on a separate project with his foundation, and they were willing to help facilitate a specific collaboration. (they also released some gorgeous Frans Lanting photos under a free license which I need to upload.) Accassidy, good luck with the WAC, that sounds amazing :-) Sj 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What about homonyms on specific rank? Should the pages be named with author names? I have made a "test page" at Rosa sempervirens... comment please. Epibase 20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obsolete taxa[edit]

I'm not sure what to do in cases like Muscoflorschuetzia and Theriotia. Both genera have been subsumed into Diphyscium. Should the pagesbecome redirects? Be deleted? Exist with this nomenclatorial information? In your reply, please state whether your recommendation applies to taxa at other ranks as well. --EncycloPetey 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All synonyms should be redirected to the page of the valid name, where they should be listed in the Synonyms section with a note on who synonymised them and when (with the reference put in the References section) Stho002 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works for synonyms, but what happens then when a taxon has been split, reassigned, or dismantled in a way that a single redirect is not possible? I can cite the genus Tessellina which had two species, each of which was sent to a different genus in two different orders. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the genus has a type species fixed, then the genus goes with the type species. If there is no type species fixed, then the genus is a synonym (in part) of all the genera to which its species are reassigned. Stho002 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but in practice, what would that look like here? I'm concerned about implementing, not about the synonymy. What happens to a WS page for a defunct genus with no type species fixed? --EncycloPetey 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't a problem I have yet encountered! Show me an example, and I'll show you how to implement it...

Stho002 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've never had to work with a group whose taxonomy was confounded by Franz Stephani. :) There is, for example, a liverwort genus Herverus, published by S. Gray, 1821. According to Grolle (Acta Botanica Fennica 121), there are two taxa involved. The earlier Herverus (earlier by 7 pages in the same work) is a nom. illeg. taxonomically synonymous with Metzgeria. The second Herverus (in the same work) is a nom. inval. taxonomically synonymous with Pallavicinia. That is, the taxon contains no type of its own, and the two member species both are types of their respective genera. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't really know botanical nomenclature very well, only zoological. Maybe it is appropriate to use a disambiguation page for Herverus? For a zoological example, see Edalus Stho002 23:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good afternoon, I apologise for bad English, I used the autotranslator.

Whether the information not only on species as those, but also the information on their proteins, RNA, DNA is admissible here? S.J. 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you can only cite references to such information on taxon pages, not the information itself. Stho002 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And why? It is possible to place more precisely where it is written what information, and what is not present? Whether It is possible to write high-grade articles about kinds, organisms, procariote for example? S.J. 01:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are for Wikipedia. We only deal with basic taxonomic information here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give, on an example, I can create page Escherichia_coli_UTI89 (strain). And to specify that it contains two a locus: NC_007941 and NC_007946 having given on their only references in NCBI. Since it is specified that it is a database for biologists is after all the important information. ?? S.J. 22:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some questions[edit]

Hi, I am writing an article about Wikispecies and I am having a couple of questions about this project:

  1. I have found out on Meta the logo description, but I don't know, why red, blue and green colors where use? Does it take any special significance for project or WMF?
  2. Is it possible to add pages lower than species, such as varieties, forms, subspecies etc.?
  3. Is it possible to add pages with breeders and gardeners taxons? Such as cultivars, lines etc.?
  4. How the project was founded. I mean where come out the initial idea? Was there an official proposal or was it the personal project of Benedikt Mandl? Who is Benedikt Mandl? A zoologist from Cambridge University? Wasn't that a project of Cambridge university? The foundation of this project is not clear from the information available at w:en:Wikispecies.

I would like to thank you very much for your replyes.--Juan de Vojníkov 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. - don't know!
  2. - yes, infraspecific taxa can be (and often are) included
  3. - no, cultivars and breeds are outside of its scope
  4. - sorry, no idea!

Hope this helps - MPF 10:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll fill in the rest of the info... You can probably get a lot of answers from m:Wikispecies/FAQ. As for Benedikt Mandl, I believe you can get your answers in here, though it only mentioned what he contributed but not his background OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here I am, sorry, not around much anymore. You can easily contact me, just google my name. Best wishes, Benedikt

OK, thank you very much!--Juan de Vojníkov 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs some sorting[edit]

Avialae lists Aves as a subtaxon, but Aves doesn't have Avialae as a parent taxon. Also Avialae cites its higher parent taxon Ornithodira as extinct (as do all other pages containing Ornithodira). But Aves is of course not an extinct taxon, so therefore neither is Ornithodira. I'm not sure how to cope with all the template editing needed to sort this lot out (and also don't have any useful expertise in the taxa involved) - anyone know how to do it? - MPF 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It you edit Template:Ornithodira, that will change all the pages that include that taxon. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "all the template editing". Which other templates do you think would need to be edited to correct that problem? To fix Aves, you need only copy into Template:Aves a call to Template:Eumaniraptora and add lines for Avialae and Aves. The classification is set up with nested templates so that major revisions can be handled more easily by simply editing the template of the parent taxon. --EncycloPetey 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I can remove the † from Template:Ornithodira, but it will also need to be added to all the highest subtaxa of it that don't have any surviving species, all the various dinosaur clades from which birds didn't descend. That's where my lack of knowledge comes in, I'm not entirely sure which clades to mark. - MPF 00:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is precisely the reason why it would be better to mark all extinct taxa with daggers, not just the highest! Stho002 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely it is easier to mark the 15 taxons Between Ornithodira and Avialae then to marjk every single extinct taxon in the database. you yourself have said multiple times that our time is better spent creating taxon pages then makeing useless changes such as adding daggers to every extinct taxon.--Kevmin 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

foundation-l discussions[edit]

Hi, there are two threads on foundation-l about Wikispecies.[4][5] Enjoy, John Vandenberg 14:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French main page[edit]

Good day, I would like to edit the french main page in order to translate the announcement about ZooKeys and to add it to the french main page, but this page is locked and I cannot edit it. Thanks you, Amqui 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All non-English main pages have edit restrictions reduced to autoconfirm. French page edit restrictions are removed. No change on move restrictions OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask to answer my question[edit]

Give, on an example, I can create page Escherichia_coli_UTI89 (strain). And to specify that it contains two a locus: NC_007941 and NC_007946 having given on their only references in NCBI. Since it is specified that it is a database for biologists is after all the important information. ?? S.J. 14:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Err, I'm afraid none of the regular contributors are experts in microbes so I hesitate to give you an answer because it could be wrong. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But matter is not in a subject domain. Business in rules of this project - whether it is possible to place here such information S.J. 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will explain for what to me it it is necessary. I try to open a course in the Wikiversity connected with Biocomputer science. In him it is important to have the information as about biological kinds, about their structure, about their description. And only after that it is possible to start to work over researches. Therefore I need to understand precisely what to place in Wikispecies that in Vikipedii, and that in Vikiuniversitete. Besides, it was mentioned that there is a project on software creation uniting all it - you know about it as it is possible to learn about a condition of it S.J. 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You see, while our Eukaryote pages are organized and formatted properly, the same cannot be said for many Archaea, bacteria, and virus. Let's be frank, virus is a big mess because there's no discussion on the format (and also because it's more complicated than it looks). OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Eukaryote it too concerns. For example, it would be good to have references to chromosomes of animals.
We have discussed my question with User:Stho002, and have decided that an example Escherichia coli UTI89 ‎ we will admit and is useful in this project. S.J. 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright then, we have just established the guidelines for strains. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Well it to write down in rules ... S.J. 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add multilangual script[edit]

I ask to load a script [6] here, and to connect it in Common.js.

On meta-wiki it is a lot of inquiries about division on language sections what naturally refuse. But for dialogue recommend to use multilangual templates, on beta.wikiversity it is made very successfully and conveniently. I ask to make here again similarly. S.J. 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correctly I understand, what this project is dead and isn't conducted what job in this direction? S.J. 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, don't understand what your question was. Are you using an internet translator? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Sorry. I ask - whether this project is active ? I think - that it won't work any more! S.J. 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bots ?[edit]

Has made inquiry on Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval S.J. 10:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent major changes[edit]

What's going on!? Was this new Taxonavigation template discussed anywhere? It looks terrible. Rocket000 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why it is awful? S.J. 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Bryophilinae. Rocket000 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand it either. It looks unnatural. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's discuss... Here not all is made. Definitively only for Archaea, Bacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia, Virus. With the rest still it is necessary a lot of job. But finally is should it will turn out remarkably. Look only pages Archaea, Bacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia, Virus. What are притензии to them? I will try to consider. S.J. 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to discuss this before making any major changes. (Flood flag going on to revert) OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So let's discuss! What for to delete my job? S.J. 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already done. Now flood flag off. If anyone still sees the old version, do a purge OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We discuss before major changes like that. It was affecting like every page because of our template system. Maybe you thought you were only changing the top pages, but the changes were pass on to all the ranks. Rocket000 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I thought, it won't mention so many pages... But let's start discuss. Why it is awful? S.J. 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too many things to list... Maybe we should start with you saying why it isn't awful? I don't see the purpose of it. Rocket000 23:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. It is beautiful
  2. It is more strict format
  3. It is more convenient for using
  4. It is more convenient for mass processing and external use

In discussion I can open any of these points but against what you mind? S.J. 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the end of the day User:SergeyJ, it comes down to the fact that we are admins and you are not, so it may be prudent to bear that in mind! :) Please continue ADDING USEFUL INFORMATION, not CHANGING FORMATS! Thanks, Stho002 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. You refuse to discuss? S.J. 23:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing to discuss! You are clearly out of line on this! Stho002 00:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How it isn't present? I give reason more low. It improves and develops the given project. S.J. 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why you don't wish even to discuss my offers? I call you for discussion why you refuse? S.J. 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responses to your points:
  1. That is subjective. I think it's ugly. I hate center alignment and pink. :) The "taxonavigation" title also is redundant to the section heading.
  2. Not necessarily a good thing. Of course we should aim for standardization and consistency, but by making major changes like this without even telling us you're actually making things worse. We need to all be on the same page.
  3. I would say the opposite. The way we do it now is much simpler. But I didn't look into the template code that much yet.
  4. Depends on what you're using. It is not difficult at all to parse our current layout. Rocket000 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Well, about details we can will agree. Can you will try to draw using the liked colours. :) It not so essentially in trifles, but the white not formatted sheet is precisely worse. Agree?
  2. Certainly, I was going to to you to tell. Only has finished examples... Also the thunder was distributed :)... Give all aspires to standardization
  3. Here it is necessary more in detail. As it is valid as I confirm. I will describe it separate point later. But in the beginning look at it while I will describe
  4. Not not so it isn't possible to use it yet there will be no strict format. And after all about it it is told in rules of this project. More precisely they not convenient enough for analysis - and precisely don't suit the project of type Wikidata S.J. 00:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So. What format and why it is easier for using.

  1. On the page the text - {{t | {{PAGENAME}}}} settles down only. It is the text it is possible to put automatically. Thus, navigation isn't distributed between page and a template. And such distribution is bad.
  2. Further the problem to fill a template:
    1. It is necessary to press to edit in a template corner - the template at once opens. It essentially since it is not necessary to search and type it in the manual. It strongly saves time.
    2. The template can as to be substituted automatically. It is necessary to fill its fields only.
    3. Fields are similar to that, as was filled. But are divided on two parts - a tree, and the list of kinds.
    4. Besides, in the same place it is possible to specify the link on NCBI and ITIS. It too is important. As allows to find in a strict format these communications. S.J. 00:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again I apologise. The translator of English not so well translates. Probably details of my explanatories - you understand hardly. I ask don't hurry - ask if something not clearly enough. I will write then more simple phrases. S.J. 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, one thing I did like was the link to edit the template. I created a new gadget for that. Try it out and let me know if there's any problems. Rocket000 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but it only one point. What we will do with the others? S.J. 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In trifles this decision is worse. As there are pages in the project the template for which isn't present and can't be. S.J. 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking of better ways to the taxonavigation part since I've became active here, but so far haven't come up with anything better than what we do now. The MediaWiki software isn't ideal for what we're doing so there's not much we can do. I don't think your template made it easier at all, so changing the look of it wouldn't help much. You were actually using the other templates inside your taxonavigation template[7], so that doesn't really replace our current system, it just adds another layer of complexity and formatting. You're right on the last part, and that's why I made it a gadget instead of the default. I don't think it's a problem for experienced editors to see a 'template' tab on taxon authority pages or other non-taxon pages in the mainspace. I could create a blacklist but that would be hard to maintain (and kind of a waste of resources, IMO). Rocket000 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give nevertheless once again we will think. I have thought up as it is possible to solve the first part - registration. Only you to me then I hope will help. In the beginning we can refuse colours, and make alignment to the left. Then the user external will notice nothing. But let's leave at least tabular lines? Then, it will be possible to make гаджет that everyone for itself(himself) would adjust colours and alignment. S.J. 10:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not division between a template and article very important! It not strongly complicates, when there is a possibility to correct a template one pressing. But it strongly improves severity of a format. It in turn allows to process the information a bot. There is a lot of information which can be added. And it is possible only at such format. Otherwise you need to do it in the manual. And it is a lot of information that it is possible to make for days - you will spend years. S.J. 10:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Example of conservative registration - Virus. Against such registration there are objections? S.J. 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Похоже, "Каши с вами не сваришь, а сваришь есть не будешь" (русская поговорка) :) S.J. 08:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Единственно не понимаю, почему Вы хотите заниматься ненужной работой, которую можно автоматизировать. Приглашаю всех к себе (sample), скоро там будет все в строгом формате, красиво оформлено, и с информацией из NCBI, которую вам в ручную еще вводить годами. Итого, данный сайт морально устарел. Жаль. Я надеялся найти общий язык - вы не захотели.
  • It is unique I do not understand, why you wish to be engaged in unnecessary job which can be automated. I invite all to myself (sample), it will be fast there all in a strict format, is beautifully issued, and with the information from NCBI which you in manual still to enter for years. Total, the given site is morally obsolete. It is a pity. I hoped to find common language - you haven't wanted. S.J. 08:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you even know what text shows up after being autotranslated? (facepalm) OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't understand? No that turns out in English I understand badly. S.J. 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I just saw this discussion, and after looking at the sample, I think it's a very nice idea. The current format does tend to take away more time in terms of locating different classifications with one sight. In fact, that's the first thing I noticed when I came to Wikispecies, the confusing, all on the same level writing. I do think the details can be changed (e.g. pink color), and also I think it would be nicer if for example regnum would be somewhat indented compared to superregnum and so on, rather than all of the classifications being exactly below each other. Perhaps some ideas to consider. I realize I'm a novice here, and others might have spent more time here than me and gotten used to the current format so much to be hesitant to any change. But change can be good sometimes. :) Chaojoker 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, with me do not wish to enter discussion. But I hope that there will be people who will support my idea. Because it only improves a format and appearance are indisputable advantages... And in general I am surprised, why managers have treated to it with contempt... S.J. 19:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't object change, we object on surprise change OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you agree now? S.J. 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

With the expansion of the project there has been an increase in the number of "type" entries included with each taxon, especially at the genus and species level. I would like to propose splitting the names section into to sections, the "Names" header would retain Name and synonym headings, while the new "types" section would contain "types" related entries (e.g. Type species, type genus, type locality, type material). I think this will help to group and formalize the types entries as a important and separate group of data from the name history. What is the opinion of the community on implementation of the split?--Kevmin 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes sense to have synonyms and type data as subsections of the name section, as I have been doing. I do not vote for separate sections. Stho002 22:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I'd want to go back and edit lots of pages just to put Type information under a separate heading. I'm happy with the way we have been doing things thus far, listing Name, Type Locality and Type specimen information ahead of a sub-section on synonymy. Accassidy 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The type is closely connected with the name, so it's logical to have them together, as far as botany anyway. Hithero I have just included data on the type occasionally and then only for the basionym of the "valid" name, not for any heterotypic synonyms. Epibase 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volunteers still needed[edit]

Hi all,
Although we soon will remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Foundation is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area experts or to sit on task forces that will study particular areas and make recommendations to the Foundation about its strategic plan. You may apply to serve on a task force or register your name as an expert in a specific area at

The Foundation's strategy project is a year-long collaborative process which is hosted on the strategy wiki, at Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) there. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and any member of the community may join fully in their work. This process is specifically designed to involve as many community members as possible.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on my talk page here or on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identify this spider[edit]


can someone identify this spider: It is photographed in Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai, India. I would like to add the photo to commons and if possible into the article about this species. Thank you very much.--Wing 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it. It is a Nephila pilipes jalorensis.--Wing 09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facelifting Main Page[edit]

The main page design has not gone through a major facelift since 2005 so I thought it's time to give it a facelift. Fortunately, User:Mariusm also had that in mind and developed a preview of it (User:Mariusm/MainPage1). Two main highlights in this new proposing main page are the species of the week and the pictures displayed. The species of the week, just like the name, will have a species featured once a week. The next week will be updated with another species. For the pictures, originally we planned to do something similar to EOL (with the changing pictures once in a while). However, Marisum said it requires the use of java and would be hard, if not possible, to implement on a wiki-engine. So we'll leave the pictures like that and they will be updated every once in a while, probably the same time as when we update the species of the week. So we want to get some feedback from the community on this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be necessary to give the reference on Viroids since it is independent group and into hierarchy of Viruses does not enter... S.J. 09:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Virus has long been on the main page. Viroids, on the other hand, is not. We are discussing the layout of main page, not the contents. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any objections? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Ark (talk page) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

200,000 species[edit]

Are there anyone working in the 200,000 logo ? CaCO3 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We just hit the 200k mark. The article is Zealachertus bildiri, created by User:Stho002 OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am new to Wikispecies and need help on creating the correct links within the taxonomic tree. Specifically, I like to enter information on species of the tribe Rhotanini under the family Derbidae. There was no problem creating a page for that tribe together with the 8 genera found in that tribe (the first one being the genus Alara).

Now creating a page for the genus Alara should work with:


However, this created a "template" (the concept of a template is not clear to me), did not link to the Rhotanini page, and did not look right. Copying what other have done I ended up with:


which looks OK, but obviously does not have the correct internal links. The
tags don't make a difference. In the instruction I also see
tags (meaning?), but they also don't help.

Any advice on this would be much appreciated, including forwarding this to somebody else who can help me.

Thanks in advance,

Bernhard (email:


It isn't obvious to me which internal links are wrong. Could you please be more specific about the problem? I think I've understood your question now and created Template:Rhotanini. Each taxon has a template paired with it that contains the taxon's name as wel as the entire hierarchy by calling the next higher taxon's template. This allows us to revise classification for all the members of a group by changing a single template rather than changing all the individual pages.
The <br /> is the Wiki equivalent for <br>. The latter is technically an open tag that requires a paired closing tag, even though most people and most browsers don't use it or actually require it. The Wiki version incorporates a final slash ( / ) that indicates it is self-contained and requires no later paired tag. You'll see that in a number of other Wiki tags like <references />, which is also self-contained. --EncycloPetey 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot. Yes, now I get an internal link to Rhotanini. I guess the concept of templates was not clear to me yet. BernhardZ


I am new and have created the page "Melichar" for "Leopold Melichar (1856-1924)" under "Taxon Authorities - Entomologists". How can I change the name of the page to "Leopold Melichar" which would be the correct name? Bernhard (email:

One day later: I have now created a new page called "Leopold Melichar" and used the the "redirect" command to redirect "Melichar" to "Leopold Melichar". Since I have exchanged all links to "Melichar" with links to "Leopold Melichar" there is no more need for the page "Melichar" and would like to delete it to avoid confusion in the future. How can I delete that page?

Sorry, I also have one more problem concerning the page "Rhotanini" and the template with the same name. This looked OK initially, but I have now re-arranged the tribe "Rhotanini" under the subfamily "Otiocerinae" and I now get 2 heading named "Taxonavigation" for the page "Rhotanini" on top and for all pages for taxons under (that is branching off from) "Rhotanini" (genera and species). What went wrong?? Any help would be much appreciated. Bernhard (email: Zelazny 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trees and roses[edit]

Hi, I put "tree" in the search box and got nothing. I put "rose" in and got Trevor Nelson Rose. What colour is the Trevor Nelson Rose? Are all rose of that genius? RTG 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tree" is a descriptive term for woody plants over (genreally), 10 meters in height. The term has nothing to do with taxonomy thus trying to create a page for the term here is very far outside of the project scope. "Rose" is a more taxonomically based term, and is used as a descriptor for several general in the Family Rosaceae, mainly in the genus Rosa. but is also broadly used or the entire family, which encompasses everything from almonds to hard hacks, to apples, to snow wreath.--Kevmin 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What should the guideline be for hybrid names?

  • 1. Magnolia ×soulangeana
  • 2. Magnolia × soulangeana
  • 1. ×Harrisinopsis
  • 2. × Harrisinopsis

The Vienna code permitts both, but I have hitherto used the form Magnolia ×soulangeana as used in the ICBN, and ×Harrisinopsis. However, Wikipedia Commons has decided to use example 2, at least when it comes to nothospecific taxa 2. Epibase 12:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should definitely stick with spacing, as in the second example in each case. It is vastly clearer (as recommended by the Vienna Code); if there is no space, it is too readily confused with a single word beginning with a letter 'x'. Consider Rosa xanthina and a hypothetical hybrid Rosa × anthina; without a space, the latter becomes a visually near-identical "Rosa ×anthina". Spacing is also the de facto usage in the vast majority of botanical publications; the old pre-Vienna stipulation of no spacing was probably the most widely ignored guideline in the ICBN (a while back when the same discussion came up on en:wiki, I did a random check of 20 books; 19 had the hybrid symbol spaced). - MPF 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done some checking too and most major databases use spacing and Wikispecies should too. Unfortunately I've entered some taxa without spacing... I hope I can find them and change. Epibase 09:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However I would prefer nothogeneric taxa to be written without spacing for the same reason. ×Harrisinopsis is more clar to me than × Harrisinopsis. Epibase 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwiki links?[edit]

Does anyone know what happened to all the interwiki links? Every single one I have seen on the site is broken, take a look at the mainpage. More importantly how do we fix this?--Kevmin 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see nothing out of place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For future reference, cross-wiki links were broken for a time on November 12. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary_Hover: a JavaScript on double-click[edit]

Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

  1. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('');"
  2. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
  3. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the need here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be useful for non English speakers, and in the future we should also have the phonetic and sound with this gadget. I invite you to test it individually by importing my User:JackPotte/monobook.js into yours. JackPotte 12:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a plus-value and that's could really help for understand the latin words. I think for a Wikispecies open, it's a great tool. Otourly 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in JackPotte 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, things are quiet here because kids think it's too complicated to vandalize here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposal for a major formatting change![edit]

I propose a change in format of taxonavigation section, from vertical list to horizontal list, more like WoRMS. The reason for this is that the vertical lists are often too long, and dominate over the more important information on the pages, like name and references sections. Please consider ... Stho002 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not too sure if we're attempting to fix something that isn't broken. If you go further down in horizontal format, (e.g. [8]) things just got bumped to next line anyways. Other popular sites are also using vertical too, such as ITIS, EOL, and Catalogue of Life. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bumped to the next (or even several) lines is fine. It is still better that having to scroll down the page just to see anything useful. It may not be broken, but it still might be worth swapping it for a better one! Stho002 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I agree with Ohana, the portion of taxa where scrolling is needed is smaller then the portion where it is not needed. That plus I am still fining crufty relics from the last major formatting change 3ish years ago. --Kevmin 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions to help with Wikimedia Strategy.[edit]

Hi, good people of Wikispecies.

I've come over from We're interested to know two things about how you work here on Wikispecies.

First, do you have any competitions? On en:wp there are quite a few different competitions that seem to help motivate editors to do good work and more of it.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Does Wikispecies run anything like that?

Also on en:wp there are a number of WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities within the larger one.

Here's an example:

More can be found at:

Can you point to any sort of sub-communities within Wikispecies which help editors bond as a smaller group within the project as a whole?

Answers to these questions will be valuable to us as we work on Wikimedia Strategy. I will be grateful for any information you can provide. --Bodnotbod 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greater interlinkage[edit]

It occurs to me that it might be a sound idea to categorise (that is, with categories) taxa by taxonomist. The key advantage would be to allow users to browse through the content by author, as an alternative to browsing solely taxa-for-taxa. It would certainly make it easier to view and browse through the sum of a given individual's work. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't "what links here" on the taxonomist's page does the trick already? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for example Jo Berry Stho002 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although most readers won't know how to use Special:WhatLinksHere. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, and other things might "link here". —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explanation of absence[edit]

I've been absent since July; it's been just real-life busyness, but I've neglected post a notice about this until now. I should be back some time later. It's only a temporary break and I have not permanently left Wikispecies. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccessible to general public[edit]

I'm not a biologist, let me start with that. Also English is my first language with a bit of German which I haven't used in years.

Wikispecies claims to be available in English and 60 other languages, but it's not, it's all in Latin. Sadly public education is not what it once was and we are not all taught Latin in school, it wasn't even a choice at my high school.

In high school biology I learned Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Here it's Regnum, Phylum, Classis, Ordo, Familia, Genus, Species all Latin. I even clicked "Simple English" hoping to find it in English, but no it's still Latin. I understand that is how biologists do it. However I feel it makes the page inaccessible for the general public. In addition I found that I can't easily browse the pages because I have no idea what I'm looking at, again an ignorance of Latin. I've heard this complaint from several others who are fans of Wikipedia and click over to Wikispecies to take a look. I also fully admit that I don't know how feasible it is to make the pages available in English and of course some words have no English translation.

Also some explanation of taxonomy would be nice, and not a simple redirect to Wikipedia's taxonomy article. There are a hell of a lot more categories than what I was taught in high school. Gray wolf breaks down into 21 categories from Cladus (which makes up 5 separate categories, how the hell does that work? I can't even find it in Wikipedia.) down to species. It would be nice to see some explanation of all of the extra categories used.

Perhaps Wikispecies is not intended to be accessible to the public. If so then it is what it is. But I believe it could be a fantastic resource to people with an interest in taxonomy, plants and animals if it were simply a little clearer and written, as much as possible, in other languages, nothing really changes when I choose another language to browse in. I am of course in no way suggesting that the Latin be done away with, I'd like to see it side by side with the English (or whichever language) version. 05:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes, this issue comes up occasionally. Some comments:
  • Wikispecies is (to some extent, anyway) whatever anybody with the time and inclination wants to make it. So you are not going to get very far just by telling us what it should be like!
  • Wikispecies is a global resource of taxonomic information. Latin is the language of taxonomy. Taxonomic papers in scientific journals all use latin for the names, regardless of what language the paper is written in. So, Latin is of PRIMARY importance. Most species ONLY have Latin names. Realistically, the only way Wikispecies can be multilingual is in cases where there are vernacular names, and we do that already.
  • if you don't like the way we do things here, then feel free to go elsewhere, or start up your own Wiki ...

Stho002 06:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems what '98 is more concerned about is names of ranks, not names of taxa. I'd have thought it should be fairly easy to make the names of the ranks appear in the user's set language preference (but don't ask me how to do it!!). - MPF 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could do that if they weren't hard-coded. And it's not worth changing the whole system now just to have auto-translated rank names. (I thought about doing it for the section headers, though. That's very feasible with a bot.) Rocket000 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello guys[edit]

I just wanted to say that this is a great project. It seems that I am the only user who contributes in Persian. So I will try to add Persian names to all the species' pages. However if there is anyone else here who also contributes in Persian, I will be glad to talk to her/him. :) --Professional Assassin 02:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, glad to have someone who knows Farsi on board. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]