Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 20

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Correct syntax for imagery[edit]

Hi All

I am having difficulty with getting one of my images onto a WikiSpecies page.

Feel free to edit it to make it appear properly please!

Cheers, Greg

Hi Greg, My first question is where is the image being hosted at this point? I have searched for that file name on species and commons without success, and the file needs to be, preferably on commons before it can used on Wspecies pages. Cheers --Kevmin 12:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make that: It must be on Commons to be used here. Local uploads are turned off. Rocket000 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I think this picture must be on public domain, because it is in an Australian government's website. Then you can upload it on commons and use it here.--Professional Assassin 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, they restrict usage which doesn't mix well with a completely free site such as this. IMHO, all work the public pays for should be public domain, but apparently that's a US thing only (most other governments copyright their work). Rocket000 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hmmm they spend the public money for private usage then. That's the way their "Her majesty" wants. lol --Professional Assassin 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it time to consider reopening local upload system to accommodate non-free species image until free images are found? OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think local uploads could be a good idea, given the problems we have been having at the Commons. Stho002 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we do, we should restrict local uploads to non-free images only. Everything else goes to Commons. We could have a "fair use" policy like en.wp. Non-free images of endangered, rare, extinct, etc. animals would be allowed if no free version exists. This helps keep the "free" part of this site in focus. (Let's just not adopt their ridiculously tedious licensing/fair use rationale system, though. ;) Rocket000 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree with the last part. Let's just not adopt their ridiculously tedious licensing/fair use rationale system, though. :-) --Professional Assassin 02:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, same here. No rouge bots programmed to bug people to provide a fair use rationale that meets the standard template, just slap the non-free template and move on. And no Pokemon pictures please! OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image I want to attach is loaded into Commons at this location. As to the availability of imagery on the Government sites, frankly I think it depends on the webmaster more than anyone else. I agree, all photos taken with public money funding should be PD, but many of the photos I take when at work I take on my camera, and have been advised by legal opinion that they remain mine, unless I take them on a camera supplied by work. Gets back to the IP / ownership issue more than anything else. Cheers User:Orkology 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Taxonomic incompatibility - Gap or worse[edit]

The class Myxini is listed as in phylum Chordata, but you cant get back from there to Myxini. I don't have the references needed to sort this out. I am working from Smith's Sea fishes 2003. which uses SC:Agnatha > C:Pteraspidomorphi > O:Myxiniformes, but this is incompatible with WoRMS which uses SC:Agnatha > C:Myxini > O:Myxiniformes. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corrected: Myxini is in Craniata following Nelson, 2006. Ark (talk page) 10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably that is cladus: Chordata Craniata in phylum Chordata, not classis: Craniata in phylum: Brachiopoda. I have made the changes. Seems to work, but someone should check as I am a little uncertain of some of the syntax. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short form binomial names[edit]

I was wondering why H. spaiens etc don't exist as redirects (or disambiguation pages for many of them) or something. Shouldn't they? 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not! Stho002 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you didn't notice, that's a typo, I meant H. sapiens 08:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E. coli
S. aureus
H. erectus
D. melanogaster
C. elegans
etc... 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you did notice it was a typo, and knew what I meant, why shouldn't they exist? 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The typo was irrelevant. They shouldn't exist because it would be a huge amount of work and a complete waste of time. For example, if someone doesn't already know what genus is relevant for C. elegans, then getting a huge list of options on a disambiguation page isn't going to help. If they do know the genus, then they should search for it using the full name. In summary, "no way Jose"! Stho002 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although it would be a lot of work, it would be a really useful starting point for people like me who'd love to help but don't have much experience.

Also, a disambiguation page will help those unfamiliar with genus names if it also provides a common name. People who don't know the full binomial might be more likely to be searching under a common or folk name anyways.

Standard changes in the name section?[edit]

Botanists tend to like full citation of names, with the reference of the original publication, rather than taxon + author + year.... me included. I propose that the name section of an article should look something like this: [[1]]. 1. "Name", with full citation of the name (rather than split between the name and reference section).

2. Synonyms with full citation. They could be written in chronical or alphabetical order. I use alphabetical but others use chronical as I find it easier to view, but chronical might be better from a scientific point of view...?

3. "References" is to me where I got the information from. I don't belive we all go back to the original publication of each name... so I list which sources I have viewed.

Comments please... Epibase 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Don't like it - the publication details should go in the references section, where they can be cited IN FULL, with DOIs, etc. Keep the Name section as simple as possible
  2. Yeah, I can't decide on alphabetical or chronological either! Probably doesn't matter too much. Only alphabetical is well-ordered - there may be several names with equal priority, and while determinations of priority may change, alphabetical never changes ...
  3. My approach now to References section is to separate "cited sources" from "additional references", and mark things as "not seen" when this is so. The original publication reference will be in "cited sources", and may be "not seen", and if old and obscure may be a less useful reference than some of the later "additional references" (which may be very useful modern revisions) ... Stho002 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, good points... but the synonymous names should be with references attached to them? Would be very complicated tranfering all to References. I clean up the name area but keep references attached to synonyms. I'll stick with alphabetic until otherwise decided. Later on, it would be a good thing to reverse the help article. Epibase 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • >but the synonymous names should be with references attached to them?
this is unclear, and doesn't sound like what I meant. I mean that the synonyms should be in the Name section, but the original references for them (and for the valid name) should be in the References. In other words, just don't put references in the Name section... Stho002 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is would, in my view, be a very confusing reference list. Why not stick with the traditional way of listing taxa as most databases do? Epibase 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer to keep the References in full at the bottom and the Name simple, like Stho002. The Names and Synonyms should easily relate to a Ref below. Some Refs are very long and would over-complicate the Names section, so adding a short version would just be duplication. I think synonyms should be in date order, as often this best explains a series of name/genus changes and you can see the development of taxonomic thinking over time. For example, a species first descriped in Papilio might later be allocated to Polyommatus, once that idea had developed, and then later to Hypolycaena as further sophistication comes in generic classification. This progression is far more logical in date order than in alphabetic order. Regards. Accassidy 17:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IDEA: Using Wikispecies to Identify Food Plants by Countries in Which They are Adapted to Grow[edit]

I am currently working on a project being run through Rotary International called Learn/Grow. (See The project is meant to help people identify edible plants (both native plants that grow wild and cultivated crops) that are adapted to grow in the areas in which they live. The idea is that if people consciously cultivated food plants that were adapted to grow in the ecosystems they inhabited they'd spend less time, effort and money to produce food for themselves, their families and their communities. Having a list of all the local plants that could be used as possible food sources is an excellent resource for those concerned about food security in a particular area.

The database which is the current centerpiece for the project is years from completion. It also does not contain as much rich information as does Wikispecies. I was wondering if there was a way we could create a specific global interface in Wikispecies just for information about food plants? This is a completely not-for-profit philanthropic action and it has been established that there is a clear need for this type of information to be both organized and accessible to people in developing countries with food security issues.

Learn/Grow has been very popular in Papua New Guinea, and we now have documents specific to Solomon Islands. I am in the process of working on food plant documents for Haiti. Wikispecies offers the unique aspect of having already created a successful forum for both interdisciplinary and international collaboration. Botanical or agricultural collaborators - even those working in developing countries - would have instant and full access to more data than than the present database could provide them even if it was completed, and if they were so inclined, could easily upload valuable information as contributors.

If we could create an interface which would link food plants listed in Wikispecies according to specific countries and their nutritional values it would be a tremendous resource for both this project and anyone else interested in food plants or in improving food security. Right now, I find I can look up individual plants but cannot easily pull up lists of food plants for a country.

What would need to be done to make this a reality - or is there already a way to access the information without doing this? If you have any suggestions or comments, feel free to e-mail me directly at the e-mail address listed below.

Mary Wharton; Burke Rotary Club; District 7610; Virginia;

replied by email ... Stho002 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put your answer in here too. We want to know it... :) --Professional Assassin 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just advised her that she could if she wanted to create lists of species in her user space, like this:
User:Whar10/Food plants of Haiti
and link the species in the list to the main Wikispecies pages. Stho002 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmmmm.... right. --Professional Assassin 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template confusion[edit]

The template Template:sgsp was manipulated by User:Arachn0 at 18 Dec. 2009, and this causes many errors in a lot of pages.

Originally this template was meant to be used for species which have subgenus, in the form of Genus (Subgenus) species. But User:Arachn0 changed it so it addresses now the form Genus species. This makes a lot of links unusable.

Currently Template:sbgsp can be used instead of Template:sgsp, but I think the change User:Arachn0 has done isn't proper, and it made a lot of confusion. It should be restored back to its original usage.

Mariusm 12:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support not having subgenus in species page names, which was possibly what User:Arachn0 was trying to achieve(?), but it needs to be made consistent Stho002 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. It shouldn't have been changed just like that because it broke a lot of links but I've been creating redirects to fix the links because they should exist anyway. The traditional form of Genus species is what most people would expect the pages to be called (the name section can use the subgenus). Rocket000 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we don't need subgenera in the species why do the authors this in their books and bulletins? (See ZooKeys 32: 1–82 (2010). We started species.wikipedia after original information. So with subgenera in the species like template sgsp. If people change every time the templates after their minds they create chaos. Everybody have add there contributions after original templates. PeterR 12:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree we should standardize to Genus species but not in this brutal way!! This change broke the links to perhaps hundreds of pages!!! What are we going to do about this??? No one has the time to search for them, and repair them! I suggest as a first thing to restore the template to its original code, and then we'll see what to do next. A template like sgsp shouldn't be touched like this because it affects a lot of pages ... and it must be urgently be protected. Mariusm 05:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm creating redirects to fix these. There's not that many left. I find them by checking what pages use the template. Here's what's left: User:Rocket000/sg (the red links). Rocket000 12:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocket, your search isn't adequate. Look please at the orphaned page list Special:LonelyPages. There are listed about 2200 pages affected by this template change! They themselves don't carry the sgsp template, but are linked by this template in the subgenus pages.

Before making such a drastic change, the minimal thing to do is discuss it and reach an agreement, and see how to reasonably and carefully implement it. The way it was done is certainly un-productive confusing and harming.

Rocket, are you prepared to fix all those 2200 pages? What about changing the help text to reflect the new policy? What about voting on such cardinal issues? Who can make such a decision? Mariusm 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realized my search wasn't adequate after posting.. but it's not all of those pages. Yes, I could be prepared to fix them all. I almost finished writing a bot to do it, but I guess it's not needed now. Rocket000 10:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turned template back. But the problems remains. When You making new page from red link caused by template:sgsp, the title of the page will be Genus (Subgenus) species. 99% of users are not make the redirect from Genus species title. However the page Genus species may be existed before. What can we do? --Arachn0 09:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was I problem I kept running into. There was many times duplicate pages on the same species. Rocket000 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Arachn0. I made two new templates: Template:sgsps and Template:sgspslast to be used for species in the format Genus species. These will display on subgenus page as G. (S.) species and the format to use is {{sgsps|G|enus|S|ubgenus|species}}.
Lets use it, and leave alone the sgsp template for the time being.
By the way: When changing or updating templates of this importance, please include documentation as the nature of the change and the new usage (enclosed by <noinclude> and </noinclude>) Mariusm 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works! Super! Thanks!!! --Arachn0 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism by JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

Please delete the user page User:Tristan Miller 2 and block the user. That account was created by long-term vandal JarlaxleArtemis. —Psychonaut 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page upgrade[edit]

I would like to propose an upgrade to the MAIN PAGE, which looks very outdated and dull (if not ugly). My suggestion is to change it to this. The the species-of-the-week article will be upgraded every fortnight or so. My intention is to make this change at February the 15th.

I urge everyone to express their ideas and suggestions (for example, there's another possibility which looks like this.) I think the main page is our "face", and should be treated with more care and consideration. Please feel free to comment or criticize.

Mariusm 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that supposed to be a mandatory design & code for all languages? If yes, I'm against and will post reasons later on (I don't want to spam with them now), if not, do whatever you want with en main page, since I have plans on redesign too, so I can use them on cs page then... ;-)
Danny B. 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius, I like the gallery idea of your first option, but there is a lot of white space at the top of the page - maybe a bit too much. The second option is better from this white space aspect, so if you could have the gallery of links in this one I think it would be much better. Regards Accassidy 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you did a very fine job with the first one. In any case, a visual refresh will be nice. I suggest making a template for all the formatting so it would be easier to update the other languages as well (not that we necessarily have to). Rocket000 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'll see how to incorporate the mentioned ideas in the future revisions. Meanwhile, the Main Page (only the English version) has been changed to the proposed format. I hope it will make us look a little nicer... Mariusm 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not convinced that it was the best idea to switch in this state. Especially Main Page should comply to web(design) standards and guidelines such as accessibility, usability and correct semantics. This one does not. Besides, I don't know what screen resolution you use, but apparently some higher, very probably widescreen. Narrower resolutions have more or less serious issues. Abuse of (nested) tables for creating of frames causes another issues. That's from code point of view. The design point of view can be of course pronounced subjective, however usage of framed boxes is couple years obsolete design process (besides it causes unnecessary waste of space), massive waste of space, especially by header - the important content lies outside viewport, inconsistent design of content sections. Random inequal horizontal distances between images. Are those subject to periodical exchange? If not, they are inconsistent. No obvious key of their selection too. Honestly, I do not think this was currently the promotion. :-/
Danny B. 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Danny. I'm glad you're concerned with the look of WS. It means you care for the site. But to sit back and criticize just isn't enough for me. So please roll up your sleeves and show us your vision of how the Main Page should look like. Mariusm 05:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning of siting back and criticize isn't fair so much from you. :-/ You in your first post called for comments and criticism, so I did comment. Actually, if I wanted to criticize only, my post would look waaay so different... I just totally in neutral way mentioned the issues the current design and code have or cause. I don't think that pointing to imperfections and shortcomings is sitting back and criticize. We have a proverb saying "more eyes see more". So I just mentioned things which apparently have been missed. Furthermore I've added some hints or catch-up points from which one can start. I also asked directly or indirectly several questions, so answering them would be handy for the next development. Anyway, I can recode the current thing instantly, but that will solve only one third (the others are general conception and design) of it. And since I do not have so much time to recode everything all around, I'd prefer the discussion on issues described in my previous post first before coding. I've said couple objections and suggestions (aside of mentioned questions) so I think the ball is on your (and others) side now to put your/their five cents in. Then we can start to work on first mockups and drafts.
Danny B. 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More vandalism[edit]

The Animal Lover is back. Seems to have got round the block. Can an Admin redo the block please? Accassidy 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We now have Animal Lover 3 posting rubbish!! Another block please, or perhaps something more fatal for him? Accassidy 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undiscussed changes to Wiki markup tools[edit]

Somebody is modifying these without prior discussion of notification! Stho002 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

at least the REDIRECT should be reverted back to how it was, as it is worse now Stho002 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be related to the recent changes that are being implemented in the mediawiki software used by all the projects. I have turned of my beta toolbar status on en:wiki due to the very buggy nature of the changes.--Kevmin 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone please block User:The Animal Lover 4... writing pervert messages and blanking pages Epibase 19:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for proposals for Wikimedia UK initiatives[edit]

Hi all. The Wikimedia UK board has been putting together a budget for the next year (You can see this, and help with its development, here) and we have some money left over. We are looking for proposals for projects/iniatives with budget requirements in the range of £100-£3000 (GBP). These projects can be either online or offline, but they should be primarily focused on the UK and they must further the objects of Wikimedia UK (broadly, to collate/develop/spread freely licensed material).

The deadline for proposals is the end of this month (i.e. 0:00 UTC on 1 March 2010). You can find more details of the requirements, and how to submit proposals, on our blog. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block for Animal Lover 10[edit]

I have blocked The Animal Lover 10: The final account, even though he supposedly apologises for all the vandalism, because we would be foolish to trust him ... Stho002 05:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with user[edit]

I seem to have a problem with this user named Stho002, he is getting on my nerves and I haven't done anything wrong, like he is telling me that i shouldn't welcome new users on this site, as I was trying to be nice, can an admin. do something about him? Lakevin 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're not Facebook. This is not the site for socialization. Your account has shown types of vandalism[2][3] and it has exhausted our attempt to assume good faith. Yes, there is a problem with user, but that user is yourself. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what, the problem is this site, I am actually... The Animal Lover, I made this account two months ago, and guess what... The Animal Lover is not only 1 person, it's more than one, that means if a user under the name of The Animal Lover gets block for a day, another person for example, a person i know, creates an Animal Lover account to continue to vandalize, that means if you block me on day, another person becomes the animal lover the same day under a different computer. I have created many accounts on this site. I AM THE ANIMAL LOVER!!!!, and don't fuck with me bitches!!!!!! Lakevin 21:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Animal Lover socks[edit]

Admins please be vigilant looking out for potential socks of Animal Lover. The new user User:Random-5000 looks a bit suspicious, but they have yet to make an edit. Stho002 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have decided to block this user as a precaution - still no edits. Stho002 20:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like that's a valid move. This account has already been blocked on English Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time for m:Steward requests/Checkuser? Rocket000 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Animal Lover is probably using a proxy server with dynamic IPs Stho002 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually, they can usually figure it out. If anyone, vandal or not, is using a open proxy, the proxy will be blocked. They aren't allow to edit Wikimedia sites. Rocket000 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requested CU at meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#The Animal Lover@species.wikipedia OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Im the REAL Animal Lover here, i just wanted to say that im not using proxy servers with dynamic IP's, the users are copy cats, people that are following my succes, they are doing what I usually be doing, thats vandalizing this site, and as I said before, they are people that are followers, The Animal Lover is not one person, I'm not the only Animal Lover, there are many,thats all i have to say. Making love to Animals 02:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Watch User:Champak256 as a possible sock. Stho002 03:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to go for today, but please watch this new user User:Kiwigurl, in case it is another sock. Stho002 05:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CheckUser result is out. All admins please act accordingly by block all confirmed cases and watch any accounts that are listed as "possible". OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To all admins: IP range has been pre-emptively blocked for 6 months as demonstrated to be the origin of TAL and its sockpuppets. It only affects anonymous users since we have already fished out and blocked all TAL accounts. The only users affected will be any genuine contributions by IP users from this range. However, so far no genuine contributions were made from this range. Furthermore, IP result reveals that the contribution comes from a high school, which belongs to Syracuse City Schools system in New York, USA.Click here and enter "" in the textbox to see the IP result It's unlikely that a scholar will be contributing from this range in the next half a year. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of interest[edit]

Hi all. There's currently a discussion at Commons—albeit not a very substantial one—that compares Wikispecies to other projects. Thought you might be interested. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To all users on Wikispecies[edit]

Hello Wikispecies users, most of you may have known a certain user. That certain user name is The Animal Lover(TAL). Well here is the truth, I Am TAl. Yeah... that's the truth. For the past couple of months, I have been vadalizing this site, writing nasty stuff about animals and say bad stuff about the users. Most of the socks were created by me, while 2 of them, Sarcholio and AL11'sback, were created by a friend. The reason I am writing this is because one of the admin found where I lived, and find the ip adress that belong to my school. My real name is not Ben Curtis, or I'm not a college student from Canada. I'm actually just some high school student. So all I want to say is sorry for all the vandalism I caused, and I also wanted to say sorry to the users and admins who tried so hard to keep me off this site. I have learned my lesson. I have learned from my mistakes. I am really sorry. This is not a joke. Again... I'm sorry. I will not fool around this site anymore. I hope everybody forgives me... Thank you. BenCurtis45 21:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The people who contribute regularly to this site do so because they are interested in the biology of our planet and in making a positive contribution to this community. Whether we are editors, Admins or whatever, we are just ordinary people like you but we want to do something constructive with our spare time as it gives long-term satisfaction. Being a vandal also gives satisfaction, but only in the short term and at the expense of others. Obviously you understand IT and have been clever enough to use it in a destructive way. Your apology is accepted by me; other will speak for themselves. However, I would like to urge you to study hard at school and learn more about the world so that some time in the future you will be able to be a welcomed and positive member of the community rather than just a nuisance. Then you will be proud to tell us all your real name. Accassidy 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New namespace[edit]

What do you guys think about creating a new namespace called Authority: and moving all the author pages to this? Of course, we can leave the redirects so we wouldn't have to change the current links in use nor would we have to type the full name out in the future if we don't want to. This way we can separate author pages from taxon pages. The main reason for doing this would be so we get an accurate count on all the taxon pages we have. It won't really require any work after moving the pages. Rocket000 02:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

against - there is little point, and it could disrupt things. Knowing how many taxon pages (at every level) there are isn't important. More useful would be knowing how many species pages there are ... Stho002 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can do that two ways. 1) Create a template, something like {{Species}}, which would be used in the taxonavigation in place of the hard-coded "Species", this would also add a category Category:Species (or something). 2) I can send out my bot to add this category from a list. To create that list, first I would grab a database dump, scan it for every title with a single space in it, excluding any pages that don't include the text "== ?Taxonavigation ?==" in order to remove any author names (this wouldn't be an issue if they had their own namespace). I would also remove redirects. If we go with #1, we can expand this for every rank. A lot of work (mostly bot work), but it would really be interesting to know what we have at each level. Furthermore, once all names are replaced by templates, we could auto-translate it into whatever the user's interface is... ok, I'm getting carried away, but the species category is a good idea. Also, some species are in the format Genus (Subgenus) species which I can automatically generate a list for as well. I'd be willing to this if others want it. Rocket000 03:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's another way, if you don't want to use categories (which can be hidden, btw), we can simply add a empty template to each page. It wouldn't make any visual difference on the page but we then a have a count on Special:MostLinkedTemplates. Rocket000 03:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't proceed with anything until we have all had time to consider this ... Stho002 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course not. Rocket000 03:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, what Steven said. Got my hands full of things. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't asking for help or anything... Rocket000 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another idea: If we categorize via templates we can also italicize all titles while we're at it. BTW, I intend to do this completely on my own, so don't let the amount of work scare you off. As mentioned, a bot can do this. The only thing we'll all have to do in the future is add a "{{species}}" at the end of each species page. We can do the same for genera. A single template (without any parameters) to categorize and italicize. Rocket000 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tribes under Dendryphantinae[edit]

All of the tribes under Dendryphantinae should be deleted. Please see the discussion at en:User_talk:Sarefo#Tribes under Dendryphantinae. These taxons haven't been actively used since the 1950s and are hopelessly outdated. All modern literature on jumping spiders uses a system of unranked clades between subfamily and genus. Unfortunately, I can't delete them myself as I don't have admin rights here. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. I couldn't find another appropriate forum. Thanks. Kaldari 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They should NOT be deleted! The genera should all be listed under the subfamily, and the tribes listed as synonyms of the subfamily, and the tribe pages redirected to the subfamily page. This will take time, though any editor can do it. I don't see it as a priority issue ... Stho002 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposal for a new page layout.[edit]

Our page layout is ugly and uninspiring--everyone can see that: a lot of horizontal rank names, and a lot of blank space. I thought of a new layout style where the top 5 or 6 ranks will be displayed horizontally instead of vertically. (look here for a demonstration page I made).

This requires only a minimal amount of work: just a very limited number of templates should be modified because all lower ranks are dependent on only those few top-rank templates.

Why not improve ourselves a little? Well... I would like to know what you think of this proposal. Mariusm 07:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it... Accassidy 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to recall suggesting horizontal taxonavigation here before, but OhanaUnited objected ... Stho002 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a big fan of complicated templates. Plus it increases the learning curve for anyone who wishes to start contributing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New contributors won't need to handle these templates at all. On the contrary: I suggest even protecting them, because they affect so many pages. I'm speaking only of the 5 or 6 top ranks ending perhaps at Subregnum level. Ohana, when did you handle those templates lately? I may say - never. On the other hand, new users are deterred and discouraged from the dull and uninviting aspect of our pages.

All the lower level templates--Superfamilia, familia, genus etc. will remain as they are now, so where is the learning curve you speak about, Ohana? Changes aren't always bad, you know; and I'm not suggesting here a revolution, only a moderate improvement.

I suggest voting on this, so we may see the opinion balance: Mariusm

I don't handle those templates because I have stumbled too many times on it in Wikipedia so that I'm now wise enough not to touch it anymore. These templates are all too familiar to me when I edited sport team records a year ago. Are there any working models in other databases? What do you achieve if this proposal is implemented? And why choose 5 or 6? Is that an arbitrary number or is there a reasoning behind it? According to your proposal, the "ugly and uninspiring" navigation layout will remain to exist below the "good looking" horizontal layout so it looks like the point is moot. Why fix something that is not broken? I rarely see templates get vandalized but now if TAL is reading this discussion, we just stuffed beans into his nose and gave him a brilliant idea (plus ammunition) to cause the greatest havoc on the server. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (a) Any number of lines we can cut on the vertical interminable list is a net gain for us and it improves the readability and usefulness of the site.
  • (b) I don't propose to touch the low-rank templates because it will burden the users, and add a difficulty level to editing.
  • (c) The vandals are clever enough to reason about the high-rank templates vulnerability. The simple solution: protect then. No one edits then anymore (maybe only in an exceptional and rare cases).
  • (d) I think there's indeed something broken here which needs a fix: the usefulness and attraction and ease-of-use of the site. This I consider to be broken.
  • (e) If I need to scroll-down every page I open here to get past the vertical list to the essence of the matter, then something is feeling really wrong. Mariusm 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One simple reason (among many others) for why not doing that:
Taxonomical navigation is logical tree. Unordered list (with or without nested items) is one of the best representations for the tree. You are trying to cut that tree about 1 (or more via other proposals) meter above ground and represent the roots and stub in shiny glass box and have the rest of the tree standing aside without any base. So instead of working with one complete piece everytime, now you would have to handle two parts of which both are predisposed for often breakages. The box is too fragile and the tree can fall anytime since having no base nor roots. (In a technical terminology: it will be much more difficult to handle and work with the data from this point further.) Please, do not succumb to polished apples which are in fact rotten to the core. Do not break existing fully working functionality with something injudicious and not thought-out.
Danny B. 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not too bothered one way or the other, but I think you exaggerate wildly! The proposal is basically only to make the top part of a list that was vertical, horizontal! I really fail to see such dire consequences from something so simple!

Stho002 00:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's of course not about the orientation only. It's way so much about the code behind. You are splitting one list (which should stay tightly consistent) to two "sublists" and on top of it even making both of them represented differently. If it really was such simple change I wouldn't care. But this is going to break many things.
Danny B. 00:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't know much about the underlying code. If you are correct, then I may need to change my vote. My uderstanding was that we just change a few templates for the higher taxa, but if there is more to it, then I may need to rethink. However, the readability of the pages really would be greatly improved by horizontal taxonavigation ... Stho002 00:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting is not a good idea. Stho002 has proposed fully horizontally layout (sorry for my English). I agree with Stho002, and Mariusm's proposal is going the same way, I think. We need a little time to convert the code. And I don't understand what is wrong in this or what is difficult in code converting? Here is next proposal drawing final conception, with simply looking code. We have tools to do it. We can change colors, fonts, layout etc. Look at it, please, and comment. Ark (talk page) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (and feel free to test on it)Reply[reply]

Ark, your version is very interesting, and the concept is very elegant. I personally would adopt it with a few minor changes (like perhaps adding rank-names). The main problem is it requires a lot of work converting all our existing pages, (but A bot might do it well). Also our users will need learning and adapting to the new format, which will take time and effort. Well done Ark! Mariusm 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Mariusm :) I'm ready to help with this work if this concept will be accepted. Ark (talk page) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued below, in COMMENTS section. Ark (talk page) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Mariusm 05:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Stho002 06:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC) RETRACTED in favour of show/hide proposal below - Stho002 05:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ark (talk page) 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (and without "Main page" [there are links to main page in navigation section and in logo], and without ranks [most of them will be "Cladus"]; like in Stho002's proposal, e.g. Eukaryota > Unikonta > Opisthokonta > Animalia > Eumetazoa > etc.; provisionally to phylum level).Reply[reply]
  • Accassidy 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The clades in Insecta/Lepidoptera templates are interminable; see Tarucus for example. Anything that cuts to the chase with less scrolling is welcome. I'd be happy to see the horizontal layout down to Insecta.Reply[reply]

I agree with Ark that simplicity is best, and we really don't need to display the ranks Stho002 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, go ahead, you're right, the present layout is ugly. I would even cut off more from the vertical axis and place it horizontally. Greetings, --Haps (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - it will hardly complicate accessibility, very decrease usability and therefore lower down so much (if not even disable in certain cases) re-usability of the data on the page. Please do not apply such kind of changes, which rapidly decrease the quality of the project. Thank you.
    Danny B. 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this doesn't make sense, and sounds way too dictatorial. Fact is, the opponents of this proposal have one thing in common - they don't understand taxonomy ... Stho002 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please mind your words before writing them. Arguments ad hominem are not appropriate to the wikietiquette. Also please stay on the topic. I may not be fully familiar with taxonomy (I do know enough of the basics of the system though), however, I am very familiar with usability and accessibility aspects of the web. And this change is – when speaking about real facts – going backwards in these aspects.
Danny B. 00:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is not an ad hominem argument to point out that the opponents of this proposal don't understand taxonomy - on the contrary it is highly relevant! The single overriding complaint I have heard from actual taxonomists about Wikispecies pages is that the long (vertical) list of ranks detracts from the useful information on the pages ... Stho002 00:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a) What exactly does detailed knowledge of taxonomy got to do with this? Please provide the description of why it is "highly relevant", particularly where, on which part of the representation of the data and its coding.
b) Random people - random displays. For somebody it's long, for somebody wide. You can display the page on widescreen display, as well as on mobile devices. It won't be the same for everybody. Also mind there are couple skins available too. (And not speaking about different user agents on different systems.)
c) There are many other, better and cleverer, ways how to solve this and make the majority of users satisfied without lowering down usability and accessibility and without breaking anything. I definitely prefer any of those ways.
Danny B. 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a) if you were experienced in taxonomy, you would appreciate just how CRAP the current layout is, by concealing the important info at the end of a long and useless vertical taxonavigation
b) I'm not sure you understand the issue - it doesn't matter if the proposed horizontal taxonavigation spills over into two or several lines, it is just about it not dominating the whole page and hiding the important stuff
c) Ideally, I would go for a taxonavigation show/hide option, with hide being the default, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented. Stho002 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you be interested in demonstrating or explaining some of those ways? I think there's something we can improve on here I'm just not sure how to do it. Rocket000 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
perhaps I will change to oppose, just to watch lycaon change to support! Stho002 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some issues which arise from this debate:
  • The current situation isn't perfect and can be improved.
  • We can never have here a unanimous agreement on anything.
  • To reassure everyone, we can proceed in small increments: Modify for a starter only 10 templates (more or less), which represent 2 ranks, and see what are the implications and reactions are. Let this be for a month, and then decide what to do next. To modify 10 templates is a 10-minute work, and there will be no problem reverting this once we decide it is a no-go. Mariusm 06:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Doing this for only a few ranks will make our pages look inconsistent. Doing it for all will make them look ugly. Ucucha 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose As noted before horizontal layouts are problematic at best due to different screen layouts. We also still have pages with Cruft left over from the last layout change back in 06. --Kevmin 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'm not sure yet. I'm willing to give it try though. Rocket000 12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • One thing we can do is make the "Taxonavigation" heading part of the templates at the top. That way we wouldn't need to add it to every single page. As a bonus, we can auto-translate it into the user's interface language making 'Species more multilingual. The only negative side of this is that we would either have no headings or duplicate headings for a short time while my bot (and possible others since it's a really simple task) remove the hard-coded ones. It would be for less than a day. Rocket000 15:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The example doesn't work for screens smaller than 800x600 (think mobile devices). It goes off the screen. Rocket000 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure that I support proposals which require major changes to large numbers of pages. I only support proposals which involve changes to minimal numbers of templates. Stho002 20:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps we need to do this in a step by step process, making one change at a time, and rendering all pages consistent with that change before moving on to the next change? Stho002 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm saying exactly the same thing: lets make a pilot of a small group of 10 templates, and see how the change is received. It won't do us no harm to make this simple trial and see the consequences. One very interesting fact: most opposers are from the "administrative" ranks of WS while most supporters are from the "taxonomist" ranks. This only makes it clear that you have to get your hands "dirty" and engage in the editing and reviewing of many pages to realise how this change will really benefit us. Till now we have 5 supporters, 4 opposers and 1 neutral, who's willing to give this proposal a chance. I encourage others WS users: please come and vote and express your opinions, so that we could together make WS a better site! Mariusm 05:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unless someone sets an end date for voting, nothing will happen ... Stho002 06:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree strongly with the original premise of Mariusm that the exceedingly long recitation of Taxonavigation at the top of every page detracts from the presentation of the species information, which is the heart of our site. Notions of supra-specific classification change, but species remain relatively stable. Of all the ideas and reservations that have come out of this discussion, the most elegant is the concept of a Taxonavigation section with a show/hide option. I do not have the knowledge of Wiki markup language to know if this is feasible, but Sevenseas seems to suggest that it is. Could someone with this knowledge explain whether and how this might be implemented. Thus with just one click we could satisfy both those who like to see the whole descent as well as those who want to cut to the chase with the species information. Surely no-one could object to this as a flexible solution. But someone has to explain the coding implications. Accassidy 11:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In some articles, starting from Berycoidei and down Berycoidei, Berycidae and Beryx, I've changed code using new/test Template:TN Template:TN. Template:Berycoidei Replacement of Template:Berycoidei is not correct now. Let me explain why. We can change all articles starting from down (nearest level) to top. In User:Ark/test3Beryx I've changed:

Old code New code
== Taxonavigation ==
=> {{TN|Beryx|Genus|''Beryx''}}

where syntax is {{ TN | TemplateName| Rank | Spelling }}

Needed code in Template:Beryx is "{{Berycidae}} > [[Berycidae]]". where first is ParentTemplate and second is link to parent article, etc. up to next level. So, bot can do it step by step, and we can stop it each moment. What do you think? Ark (talk page) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Updated Ark (talk page) 18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer if you don't change actual pages for testing purposes, so please use a copy of Beryx in your userspace and revert the actual page back to how it was ... Stho002 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. I choose only few articles, and marked them as "test". I (or anybody) can revert them in a moment. Here is list of changed pages, but, please, give us some hours to discuss. List of changed pages to control/revert: Template:TN, Template:Berycoidei, Berycoidei, Template:Berycidae, Berycidae, Template:Beryx, Beryx. Ark (talk page) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed, and reverted. Ark (talk page) 18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is another related issue we need to decide on first. It is hard to know whether or not to adopt only a purely Linnean (ranked) classification, or incorporate a more cladistic classification into the upper levels at least. I have introduced a lot of clade names into our pages, but we could simplify the taxonavigation quite a bit by getting rid of them again? There are pros and cons on both sides. One reason which makes me think maybe we should go back to purely Linnean is that I have advance knowledge of a planned huge publication to give a complete Linnean classification down to family of the animal kingdom, written by hundreds of taxonomists ... Stho002 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing it, Stho002 :) IMO we have no choice. Now we are debbating on converting about 200k articles. What we could do when their number surpass milion? This proposal uses only one parameter showing a rank of the taxon. Making this param conditional, you can show it (rank) or not. Rest is, IMO, universal. Ark (talk page) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Removing clade names would only require relatively few changes at the higher levels - the vast majority of the 200K pages would be unaffected. Stho002 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be I understood you wrong. My English is poor, I know. Sorry. Ark (talk page) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beryx has been changed as a "test" when there's not a clear consensus to even give a go-ahead signal. It's now so ugly, unable to identify which name is family and which is a tribe, and hard to navigate that I refuse to see this test to continue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I agree with Ohana - it isn't exactly what I had in mind. One thing though, I just noticed that the automatic Contents box has a show/hide option. Now if we could do that for the taxonavigation section somehow, we could leave it as it is, but you would only see it if you pressed 'show' ... Stho002 02:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could adjust the code of the taxonavigation box on this page this page to get the show/hide option. Also, I think it may also be possible that each user can personalise it and choose whether it loads shown or hidden by default.  Sevenseas Talk Contribs  02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but could we add a show/hide option to the taxonavigation section as we currently use it? Could it be done globally, or would it have to be done page by page? Stho002 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has strayed way beyond its scope. Let me reset it back to its basics, which are:

  1. Are we going to commit ourselves to a change in the aspect of our basic page-format?
  2. If the answer is yes then the next question to ask would be: What kind of change? Radical or moderate?
  3. I've proposed a very moderate and incremental change, which will give the users time to adjust to the new concept of a more streamlined format.
  4. Of course anyone can come forward with a proposition of their own, but we'll be stuck in endless debates and trials which will lead us nowhere.
  5. The majority of users here are totally indifferent to this discussion, which is very sad. I would expect that more than 10 users would be engaged in this effort to improve WS.
  6. Lets stick meanwhile to the original proposal. If eventually we can carry it out, then we can evaluate it after it is accomplished, and see if we can improve on it, abandon it, or take a new radical step. Mariusm 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need a definite vote, which will require a precisely stated proposition to vote on and an end time for voting ... Stho002 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10 user turnout is already very good. If we don't like the proposal, we already said no. 5 out of 9 said yes is nowhere near consensus unless we're dealing with a poll like this one that has 300+ votes. And we've given a lot of leeway to let you guys try and proceed. It first shouldn't have started at all, and you guys shouldn't be playing with live pages either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohana, what you're saying doesn't sound at all like a democratic set-of-mind. More like a "I don't fancy this, so it's no good." In this situation no decision will be ever taken unless you signal an approving OK. Ten is indeed a meager number, but this is what we got, and with this we must proceed and improve on. I don't see it an excuse for not acting. On the contrary: it signals that something is fundamentally wrong with WS. One of the culprits for our low popularity is exactly this stagnation of "don't fix it if it ain't broken." Ohana, you're doing a fine job for WS, and I appreciate it very much, but please let us try and breath a little life into it. Mariusm 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ask again: is a show/hide option a possibility on the taxonavigation section, as we have it at the moment? Stho002 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, right now 50% (less if you don't count the newest user) of the user have my so-called non-democratic mind set. Instead of wasting energy on trivial layout, we should be seeking bot owners to write scripts that retrieves various database info. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't we do both? Stho002 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohana, I was refering to not giving a fair chance to new ways-of-thought. As to layout - it isn't trivial at all. First looks determine if a user will abandon us or will stay will us. Ease of use is also of major consideration. Mariusm 04:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stho002, the proposal fell well short of the 80% mark required as consensus. It doesn't even get close enough to the 70% discretionary threshold. @Mariusm, Layouts can be trivial or not trivial. Changing the main page is, funny enough, trivial in our case because most users dive right into the search. However, looking at this layout change, it's affecting virtually all pages minus WS-namespace or taxon authorities. And more than half of the community has spoken and voiced against the change. I don't deny ease of use is a factor, but ease of contribution should be factored in (especially when a lot of scientist don't know html or wiki markup). OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the vote below is currently 4 in favour to 1 against. Ease of contribution is irrelevant if we can make a new template to handle the new taxonavigation format... Stho002 04:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I was referring to the one on the top. I assume this "show/hide" vote means that the previous proposal is retracted, no? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have retracted my vote for horizontal, so I think we can put that idea to rest now, and persue show/hide ... Stho002 05:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YES! It can be done. See below. Mariusm 07:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or this so that minimal template changes should be needed. (hiding to Classis) -- 12:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classis: Reptilia
Subclassis: Diapsida
Infraclassis: Lepidosauromorpha
Superordo: Lepidosauria
Ordo: Squamata
Subordo: Sauria
Infraordo: Gekkota
Familia: Gekkonidae
Genus: Phelsuma

Or this to make good use of the current nested template structure.

 Sevenseas Talk Contribs  23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New vote for show/hide Taxonavigation[edit]

End date for voting: 26 March 2010


  1. Stho002 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support  Sevenseas Talk Contribs  00:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Accassidy 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Mariusm 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Ark (talk page) 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. in principle ;) Rocket000 01:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. AndrewT (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Arachn0 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing to conditional oppose if user preference will allow users to choose between show or hide option. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, the proposal on the table explicitly accommodates user choice - Stho002 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can we see a working demo of this? I assume it would be similar to the TOC show/hide feature already present, where if you hide it on page it will be hidden on all pages until you click show on some page, then all the pages would show it by default. If this is technically possible, I will surely support. Rocket000 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This vote is "in principle", with details to be hammered out later, so it sounds to me like you should add your support now ... Stho002 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to see a working demo first. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are working demos above of show/hide taxonavs - Stho002 (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think he meant with the user preference like I was talking about. Rocket000 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, if you can do something like that, fine, but I can't quite see how you would make a "demo" of that? Stho002 (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just want to know if it's even technically possible and if we have the resources (i.e. someone knowledgeable) to implement it. It should be possible since the auto-generated TOCs do it, but who here knows how to make that work in a template? Rocket000 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The solution should be located somewhere here in the Collapsible tables section. I think the idea here is to override the default value for the variable that switches the state of collapsibility.  Sevenseas Talk Contribs  19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Ucucha 18:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC) In my view, the taxonavigation is the single most important part of a Wikispecies page, and should be the last candidate to be hidden.Reply[reply]
  3. Kevmin 06:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC) per my entry in the comments section.Reply[reply]
    Kevmin has put his vote in the wrong section! Given his comments, his only "objection" is that it isn't necessary, which makes it properly a neutral vote ... Stho002 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Umm, thanks for not assuming you know more about my mind then I do, I placed my vote where I wanted my vote.--Kevmin 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know this is where you wanted your vote, and I don't know your mind at all, but my point was that your reasoning only constitutes a neutral vote ... Stho002 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. lycaon 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) per Ucucha.Reply[reply]
  5. Ed Uebel (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC) My Show/Hide example was working; then it stopped. More trouble than it is worth!Reply[reply]
    Refresh your browser cache. It was a simple mistake on my part and is no reason for opposing. Rocket000 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • this first vote is for or against the idea "in principle" - details can be sorted out later Stho002 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about moving the taxonavigation to the right, as in the Wikipedia taxobox? Ucucha 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aligning to left or right is probably personal preference and doesn't do much. Modifying 200,000+ pages just for preference may be an overkill. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment above by Ucucha (In my view, the taxonavigation is the single most important part of a Wikispecies page, and should be the last candidate to be hidden) is NONSENSE! It is self-evident that the single most important part of a Wikispecies page is the information about the taxon (name, references, links, images). Taxonavigation is also important, and with this proposal a user HAS THE CHOICE to see it when they want it, but not have it cluttering up the page when they want to see the other information ... Stho002 21:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, what I suspect Ucucha et al. don't understand is that there isn't a single correct classification (taxonavigation) for a species (or genus, or ...), so the taxonavigation for a species means little or nothing without citing which references are being followed, so the references become the most important thing on the page. Stho002 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support reasoning of Stho002 above. Accassidy 21:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The taxonnavigation is exactly like a book location in the library. Ucucha, what you are saying is: the book location is more important then the book contents. Mariusm 05:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Wikispecies is a library catalog: it does not cover the contents of the books, such as their characters and ecology (Wikipedia does). Stho002, I see no proposal to move the reference section to the top of the page. Ucucha 03:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your vision of Wikispecies as merely a library catalog for Wikipedia is a narrow one, unlikely to be shared by many here. Wikispecies is what we make of it, and has certain advantages over Wikipedia. It would be unnecessary to move reference section to top of page ... Stho002 (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • one option will be to keep the taxonavigation level immediately above the pagename level (and, of course, the one below) showing, so that it is still possible to navigate up and down a level at a time, regardless of whether taxonavigation is hidden or showing - Stho002 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of curiosity how many pages is the collapsed taxonavigation needed on? I have not seen many (any??) Plant or fungus pages that are overly long. I dont think bacteria or Protista get long either. In fact looking through the taxa the only place where extremely large taxonavigation sections appear are in some areas in Bilateria all other taxons are less then a screen in length.--Kevmin 06:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kevmin, look at Jamides. In the insects, we have 8 ranks between Class and Order, and my laptop screen, for one, does not show all ranks this list from top to bottom. Someone browsing on an i-Phone would surely struggle. I think this makes the concept of a collapsing list really attractive. Can you still disagree? Accassidy 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue isn't just about taxonav. fitting on the screen. It is about taxonav. taking up more space and looking more prominent on the page than it deserves ... Stho002 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that the majority of taxonav sections in WS are the same size or smaller then the taxon information sections. Why change all of WS for a minority pages?--Kevmin 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point was not necessarily that Taxonav. takes up more space than the taxon information sections, but that, as I said, it takes up more space than it deserves (given that it is only for moving between pages) ... Stho002 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kevmin's point above regarding the "majority" of pages must be challenged. On the main page top menu we can select Random Page a few times and see how often the species name is visible without scrolling down at all. I just did this 10 times and had to scroll down on 7 of them. Others might like to add to the sample size. The pages that passed the test, where I could see the species name immediately, were 1 Fungus, 1 Mollusc and 1 Bacterium. Those where I had to scroll down were: 3 Insects, 2 Arachnids, 1 Mammal and 1 Crustacean. My screen (I use only a laptop) is 1280 x 800 resolution, so sits between a top-end hi-res system and a smaller hand-held browser.
When we look up a species, we generally know that it is a bird or a bee or an Antelope, and might have an immediate interest in its Genus and perhaps Family. But we probably don't need to see all the super-familia hierarchy up to Orders and Classes every time, let alone be reminded it is a Eukaryote. Hence I see no harm in hiding the taxonavigation, preferaby from the top down to the Family level, knowing that it can easily be accessed by a single click if I need to see it. Are we going to argue into stagnation again? Accassidy 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The vote is clearly a majority in favour. It is predictable that Kevmin and Lycaon will vote against. IMHO, neither of their votes should count - Kevmin's reasoning only constitutes a neutral vote, and Lycaon has not contributed anything much to this site for a very long time ... Stho002 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, that's how democracy works. Just ignore the votes you don't like, or am I missing something here because I'm less active at the moment? lycaon (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be foolish not to try to discredit votes one doesn't like if there are good reasons why they might be discredited - such as someone who has added virtually nothing to the project over the last year or so suddenly returning with strong views on how the project should be run, which go against the views of the main contributors ... Stho002 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just found time to do the 10 random pages test again. This time 8 needed scrolling down to get to the species name. I reject the odd page that relates to higher groupings than species. This time 6 insects, a Mammal and a Reptile needed scrolling. Only 2 Fungi allowed me to read the species name as originally loaded. Accassidy (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, that's worst than I thought. I'm normally on a 1680 x 1050 screen so I never have to scroll, but I tried browsing with a window open at 1280 x 960 and pratically every insect page was cut off (not to mention 1024 × 768 - what 20% of users have). Rocket000 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone disabled the show/hide function. How can it be restored back?? Mariusm (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shakiness of javascript on wikimedia is yet another reason no to implement this proposal. lycaon (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I added some code to be able to test some js without having to edit Common.js (or the personal js) every time. Looks like there was something wrong with it and it interfered with the show/hide code. It's back to normal now. It has nothing to do with the shakiness of javascript, just my own carelessness. Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't contributed much, but I got pretty frustrated with Wikispecies for a number of reasons. I'm more or less neutral (weakly favor collapsible) on the collapsible Taxonavigation, but one of my frustrations was the amount of attention being paid to Taxonavigation in the first place. Wikispecies will add value as a resource more quickly if most work occurs from the bottom up; adding species is FAR more important than messing around with the higher classification. If it were up to me, I'd deprecate adding anything but the basic Linnaean ranks (KPCOFGS) in most cases. Extra ranks clutter the page as noted above. On pages with long Taxonavigations, many of the higher ranks/clades lack references; there's no point adding extra ranks if there is no reference to back up the placement of the subordinate taxa in that clade. The people who care most about having names for every node in the tree of life (cladists) generally don't like rank-based names, so you're still not going to make them happy by adding in Infrasubclasses or whatever. Those who do accept rank-based names aren't going to be impressed when these ranks aren't referenced. Additionally, combining lists of taxa from disparate references gets more and more complicated as you add ranks; if one reference doesn't recognize a rank used in another reference then placement of the subordinate taxa is difficult and you end up with orphaned pages. I.e., if you've got a regional list of species that uses subgenera and sections and another list that doesn't use ranks between genus and species than you can't place the species on the second list. In short, collapsible Taxonavigation is good, but it's a fix necessitated by an undue amount of effort being focused on an overly detailed taxonomic hierarchy to the detriment of actually adding more species to Wikispecies.AndrewT (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is true to a point, but I think it is also very important to have a good higher classification. There are pros and cons to using clade names. One pro of using clades is that if Linnean classification becomes more and more "old hat", as current trends suggest, then Wikispecies would be widely seen as just another dinosaur ... Stho002 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

END OF VOTING: I'm not sure where we go from here, but we have a 7 in favour to 5 against result (with little in the way of good reasons against), so I say go for it, and if we strike resistance, we will take the issue to the stewards to decide ... Stho002 (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the preference script ready to roll out yet? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1.Ed Uebel (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)   (Herpothallon)Reply[reply]
functionally fine, but needs a bit of polishing in presentation - perhaps both buttons (show, hide) should be always visible and on the same line after the word Taxonavigation? Stho002 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, we only need one button called hide/show, which toggles between the options, but I think it needs to be after the word Taxonavigation (on the same line) Stho002 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cryptic species complex[edit]

I've a small question concerning the problem of the cryptic species complex : is it possible to indicate, in Wikispecies, that different species from a genus belong to a complex of cryptic species ?
Even better, is it possible to indicate that some species are considered as sister-species or geminate-species ? Thanks for your help :-) Ndiver 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. There is a well-established way of dealing with sub-genera or species groups within a Genus. Have a look at Udara and Jamides for examples in butterflies. Cryptic species complexes, or sister-species are not as far as I know universally accepted groupings. The Wikispecies pages should include all the described species rank names from a Genus, and these may be organised into sub-groups as above. If you want to list infra-specific names that are not described races (sub-species) it is probably best to do this on the Talk page for the species that gives the complex its name. Similarly, if two described species are thought to be especially close, but still distinct, perhaps due to theories of recent speciation, then it would be best to make a comment about this relationship on the talk pages for both species. Cheers. Accassidy 20:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering hyprids[edit]

Hybrids or Bastard[edit]

In witch way are hydrides or hybrids considered. Most of them are verry seldom and there is no need to point this out, surely. But sometimes they are more common.
I am still looking at Salix, a spacies with many hybrids. Salix multinervis is mentioned as an species, but it is an Hyprid of Salix aurita and Salix cinerea. Other Salix-Hyprids are missing e.g. S. x rubens (Salix fragilis x Salix alba).
Shall we handle hybird as well as species (marked with an x: Genius x species) or shall we leave them away, generally. --Bernd 09:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Eonsidering Nypha hybrids are listed as species. I will to this Salix, later on. ok --Bernd 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature change[edit]

Just noting here that I changed the default signature to include a talk page link. Hope that's ok. Rocket000 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long overdue. Now we can do less clicking. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania Scholarships[edit]

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference.

To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply.

For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Yours very truly,

Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

User edits[edit]

These contribs needs verifying. Ark (talk page) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsible Taxonav Implementation[edit]

Its now been a few days since the discussion on collapsible taxonavigation. I have made collapsible templates for some of the groups I am working on, and they seem to me to be very helpful. The most recent of these is the Tribe Miletini, of the Lepidopteran family Lycaenidae, one of the groups with a large string of Clades in the higher taxonomy. I have made collapsing templates only at the next higher level above Genus, so that anyone looking into the structure at a level higher than this will see the full Taxonav list, while anyone searching at the species level will see only 2 or 3 higher groupings. I would be grateful if (especially) those who were against the idea have a look at Miletini or Curetinae and see the result. If you guys can live with these changes, I think they will help the wider audience. Accassidy (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just holding back a little because I don't like the presentation, and I think it needs a little bit of polishing. I think a single button called show/hide which toggles between the two options would be best, and I don't like it placed above right of the word Taxonavigation. If we can align it to the left margin, that might be better ... Stho002 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure there might be a better implementation, as you describe, but I can't create the code for this myself, as I do not have any guide to the markup language. If one of the others can write something, I'll use it. There are only 3 or 4 Templates for me to update. Accassidy (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this to make the list sit in a table, but otherwise it is much the same... Accassidy (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is somewhat nicer ... Stho002 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to do it like this: Braconidae. I also think we need the Taxonavigation header as well as the table, because it would require too many edits to remove it ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tribus: Miletini

CAUTION: there could be a problem with nesting these taxonavigation boxes? Stho002 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC) We really need to be able to use it top down, not just at the lowest levels ... Stho002 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My logic is that someone interrogating the database at the Family or Sub-Family level may well have an immediate interest in the higher classification. Hence finding the taxonav collapsed might slow them down. On the other hand, someone interrogating the database at the Genus or Species level is almost certain either to know the higher classification already, or to be less interested in it, and to be more interested in fast access to the detailed Genus or Species information. Hence my collapsing of the taxonav at the level 1 higher than the genera. I see now that User:OhanaUnited has reverted my changes to Template:Miletini, without discussion, which is somewhat disheartening. I await his response to my challenge on his talk page.Accassidy (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From previous poll, there're 7 supports and 5 opposes (58.3% in favour) and doesn't reach the minimum 75-80% consensus required. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not an answer. After the 7:5 poll, you actually asked if a preferred script was ready to roll out, and then EdUebel who had voted against suggested a script. So this seemed like now 9:3 by vote. What really is your objection to this useful change? Accassidy (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the script that EdUbel was talking about is nowhere to be found in Preferences. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A number of animal taxa link to Martinez. This was formerly, but incorrectly, a redirect to the botanist Maximino Martínez. For the moment I've changed Martinez to a circular redirect (can't think what else to do with it!), but it needs to be changed into a disambig page. From the dates of the taxa linked (spanning at least 1873-2008), more than person named Martinez must be involved; I've no idea myself who. Can someone who knows which people named Martinez are involved, please do so? - MPF (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and created the DAB. Feel free to add anyone I missed. --Open2universe | Talk 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated! MPF (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism by Bhagwatilal[edit]

I've just found a vandalism on template [Template:VillagePumpLang] ‎(see version: [4]) by user:Bhagwatilal, and so I correct his modification. Is it the right thing to do or, in these case, I've to point out the problem to administrators? Thanks. Coccilino (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, there are news about the Spanish Chapter of Wikimedia, regards:

Revisión definitiva de los Estatutos del Capítulo de Wikimedia España[edit]

Se ha terminado con la redacción definitiva de los estatutos del futuro capítulo español de la Fundación Wikimedia. Se ha pretendido realizar una redacción simple y lo suficientemente flexible para que no sea necesario modificarlos en una buena temporada. Algunos de los detalles del funcionamiento de la asociación se incluirán en el futuro Reglamento de Régimen Interno para facilitar su modificación, ya que ese documento no necesita ser presentado en el Registro de Asociaciones y nos ahorramos ese papeleo.

Esta versión de los estatutos se va a someter a la votación de todos los interesados para lo que se abre un período de votación del 28 de abril al 5 de mayo, ambos inclusive. Oportunamente se hará saber el link donde se puede votar. Se ruega encarecidamente a quienes deseen proponer textos, artículos o frases alternativas, que no las intercalen en el texto del borrador de Estatutos, para no hacerlo ilegible, y que trasladen sus propuestas a la discusión de la página.

Queda convocada una reunión para el día 8 de mayo de 2010 en Madrid, reunión a la que podrán asistir todos los interesados, pues en ella se procederá a la firma del Acta de Constitución. Se ruega a todos los interesados en firmar que acudan con sus DNI o identificaciones oficiales (Pasaporte o Carné de Conducir), a ser posible en vigor.

Cualquier duda o sugerencia puede realizarse en las páginas de meta o en la lista de correo. Saludos, Elisardojm, -- 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2010[edit]

Wikimania 2010, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, and tutorials related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from July 9-11, 2010 in Gdansk, Poland. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 talk 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding the name of a tree[edit]

Hello guys,

I took some pictures of a tree in Kish island - Iran. I want to know if anyone knows its name.

I collected some of its seeds from beneath the tree and planted them in a vase in my home in Tehran. Now after three months and several days, three of the seeds are converted to small plants. :D If you want, I can also upload the pictures of those baby trees. :-) It would be very nice if anyone here could tell me, what's the name of this beautiful tree? Thanks...--LSSAH (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albizia julibrissin - MPF (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thank you very much! From the English Wikipedia's article, it looks like that its English name is Persian Silk. So truly an Iranian tree... :-) In that article, it says that this tree can be found in Japan and Europe and the United States. What amazes me, is that the article says the tree can be found in New York, which is a relatively cold place. Since this tree grows (normally) in the southern Iran which is a warm place, I wonder if it can stay alive also in cold weather. Do you think, it is OK to plant it outdoor in the yard in my home town, Tehran, regarding the city's relatively cold winters where the temperature goes below zero degrees centigrade in winters?--LSSAH (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! It should grow well outdoors in Tehran. Some seed origins are more cold tolerant than others; the species is native to a wide range across Asia from Iran to Korea, and the hardiest origins are from northeastern China and Korea. These are the ones grown in New York, where temperatures can go down to below -20°C. - MPF (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest open![edit]

Dear Wikispecies users,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2009 Picture of the Year competition has now opened. Any user registered at a Wikimedia wiki since 2009 or before with more than 200 edits before 16 January 2010 (UTC) is welcome to vote.

Over 890 images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are fighting to impress the highest number of voters. From professional animal and plants shots, over breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying world's best architecture, maps, emblems and diagrams created with the most modern technology and impressing human portrays, Commons features pictures for all flavours.

Check your eligibility now and if you're allowed to vote, you may use one of your accounts for the voting. The vote page is located at: Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting.

Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. In the final round, when only 20 images are left, you must decide for one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Wikimedia Commons is looking forward for your decision in determinating the ultimate featured picture of 2009.

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


This needs botany verifying. Ark (talk page) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this. Ark (talk page) 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except for the "Lamack." typo and some extraneous text that shouldn't be there, it looks sound to me. Circeus (talk)
Someone who's free can drop a message on his talk page and show him the proper formatting and what contents to be included in the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next to verify (Insecta this time): Dosa & Alatophasma ([5]). Ark (talk page) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dosa checked, but Alatophasma seems to be a hoax. Keep an eye on edits. Ark (talk page) 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP blocked, but another user needs help/instructions (probably in German). Ark (talk page) 18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll add the page to my watchlist, in case he returns, but he's only edited a very few times here. I've reformatted the page to standards, as best I can right now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To simplify the use of collapsed taxonavigation sections, I've created Template:Taxonav. You can see here an edit to the Carabidae template to show how it works and how much simpler it makes things. The template also makes it possible to standardize appearance and to make the "taxonavigation" text international through customization (in the future, since I don't know how to say "taxonavigation" in many languages myself). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't supposed to be collapsible navigation since technical workaround was not explored and ultimately rejected by the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohana United - lone voice in the wilderness ... ! Stho002 (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm... we suspended all testing because it wasn't ready? The discussion is still open, and using a template makes changes to the design easier to try out than manually adding the code to individual pages. I didn't see any evidence that the technical workaround was "rejected by the community". I saw a majority in favor along with some specific objections, a few of which have been addressed, such as displaying on the collapsed box the name of the lowest-rank taxon in the collapsed hierarchy. I have made some comments with regard to that below. I see no reason not to continue trying out possibilities. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phylogenetic tree?[edit]

I've been wondering whether phylogenic trees (whether as images or using a set of templates similar to en:wp) are appropriate content for Wikiespecies?

Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you point to a page where such trees are used? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose the use of such trees - any phylogenetic notes can be put on talk pages using simple indentation, like here: Talk:Braconidae Stho002 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See w:Moss#Classification and w:Buxbaumia#Classification, where a cladograms have been included. I find the cladograms much easier to read than indented lists. This is espacially true for plants, where very few of the clade groupings have names assigned to them. A cladogram also allows the closest related outgroups to be displayed, without implying that they belong to the ingroup.
There is also the common problem exemplified by w:Metzgeriales#Phylogeny, where the plant taxon is grossly para- or polyphyletic, and the component pieces have no extablished name under which to place them. This is extremely common among botanical taxa, but is less common now for angiosperms since the APG II and APG III have come out. It is still very much a problem in a number of other plant groups. The liverworts, for example, has several competing systems recently published, none of which was authored by a collaborative group, and none of which have yet been rigorously supported by phylogenetic studies. So, we don't know which system (if any) will be adopted widely or stand up to more than a couple of years of testing. The last two major systems to revise liverwort classification fell flat on their faces once molecular studies began in earnest. So, a tree can help to elucidate clearly the problems of a current classification. I would like to see trees included somehow, but only with citations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much agree that indented lists are verging on the useless. Given the choice between using them or not presenting the data, I'd do the latter. Circeus (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a cladogram is useful and authoritative, I see no problem is using it. I did this in Caleta and incorporated it into an image that also shows key phenotypes. The key word here is "authoritative" rather than "putative". We should not be putting contentious arrangements on species or genus pages, although they might certainly have a place in discussion pages. I can read Stho002's indented list much as a cladogram, so either may be acceptable if it conveys the information. We must be of the mindset that some flexibility might be required between appropriate formats for such different classification as liverworts and beetles. Accassidy (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsible Taxonavigation - is it on?[edit]

I noticed that Stho002 is using collapsible templates for the taxonnavigation section. Is this feature the agreed policy of WS? As I understand from the discussions it is not. If it is, then everyone should employ it, if it's not, well, we need to abandon it. We can't play this game on both teams... Mariusm (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the points made on 12 April above. All that has happened since then, when my last question received no answer, is that a limited experiment has been made to employ collapsible taxonav in some Families of Lepidoptera and other insect orders. It is especially useful for these groups as the full, un-collapsed cascade of names takes up an enormous amount of screen and is not at all necessary for most people who want to look at small groups of species or genera in detail. I cannot see why you seem to insist that this is an all or nothing decision. Collapsed boxes can be easily expanded. In groups where it clearly eases information gathering, let us use collapsible taxonav. In groups with shorter classifications, then let the full-scale descent be there all the time if that is what the editors want. We should spend our time contributing more to the species pages and less worrying about the ease of display of higher classification. Please, let us just get on with adding to the knowledge base without having drawn-out, bickering about a small detail of presentation. Accassidy (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed there are some taxa (notably in the insects and vertebrates) that could greatly benefit from collapsible boxes. However, for most plant groups, this would not be beneficial, since there are few plant systematists naming clades. Plant phylogeny is still so unstable that most classifications focus on the primary Linnean levels, although there are a few large angiosperm families with subfamilies, tribes, etc. So, the boxes could be used for some taxa, but not for others, depending on the length of the taxonomic hierarchy burdening the page.
I do wonder, though, whether it would be better to apply the collapsible boxes to insect orders rather than to superfamilies. That is, apply them such that the box contains the hierachy down to order and displays the ordinal name. For non-entomologists, the ordinal name is more likely to be recognizeable than a superfamily. I know that, when there is no photo, and the taxonomy is collapsed, I sometimes have no clue what kind of taxon I'm looking at until I expand the box and hunt around in the listings. It would therefore seem to me a good idea to apply the boxes so that a more recognizeable taxon name appears on the box, e.g. Coleoptera, rather than a superfamily. People in general biology classes are more likely to have learned insect orders than superfamilies. This would, of course, not need to be done at the ordinal level for other taxa, but seems the best level to use the box for on the insect pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I advocate editor discretion in the use of collapsible templates, with a recommendation to use them sparingly. I see no problem with some pages having them and some not. Accassidy, myself, and a few others are using them with good results. There is no problem here, so please don't make one ... Stho002 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, but I do suggest that, if they're going to be widely used, then they should be applied at a consistent rank within a single group, and that rank should be identified clearly in a style guide somewhere (such as in the template documentation). So, if superfamily is to be the choice for collapsing insect taxa, then that should be used consistently among insects (when used at all), and would be identified in the guide as the preferred rank to apply the collapsible box. However, I also advocate placement at a more recognizeable rank than superfamily, though, for the sake of those who have pointed out in previous discussion that the taxonomy is one of Wikispecies' stengths. If a collapsed box hides all the information meaningful to the general user, then it's less useful. My only recommendation is that a recognizeable rank be chosen and used than superfamily, unless that would result in lengthy lists remaining outside the collapsed box, and thus defeat the purpose of using the collapsible box in the first place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think family should actually be the rank of choice for it. Someone started doing it with the Coleoptera superfamilies and I followed, but I'm not so sure about that now... Stho002 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Collapsing for some ranks and not others is very inconsistent and anaesthetic OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aesthetics is subjective, and some of us value scientific content over aesthetics --Stho002 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving aesthetic choices aside, I do not consider that consistency for its own sake is an asset. I strongly suggest that clarity is what we are seeking, and this may require a different approach, what Ohana is calling "inconsistency", for subjects with vastly differing hierarchies. Accassidy (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global rights[edit]

Hi, I see the policy here:Wikispecies:Global rights usage, allows Global sysops to use their tools here, however, with the current setup on meta, this requires removing wikispecies from the opt-out based Global sysop wiki set. (I'll not get into all the technicalities of a wiki set, see meta for more on that). I thought I would post here first, and then if no one objects, I'll leave a note on meta about it. (thought I should let the community give input since the aforementioned policy was put in place before global sysops went live). Kind regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We reached a no-consensus result as shown in Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_14#m:Global_sysops. I have edited Wikispecies:Global rights usage for clarity. In short, please do not remove us from the opt-out list. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks for pointing me to the archive. I didn't think of looking in the archives as I thought Wikispecies:Global rights usage was an established policy, but I see it's not. Thanks for the reply, and regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species of the week[edit]

I notice that, on the Main Page, Thunnus thynnus has been "Species of the week" since February. Is anyone maintaining such a thing? Would it be better to go to a "Species of the month"? Does anyone mind if the images selected to feature on the Main Page are rotated? (I mean selecting different species with different images, not physically reorienting the ones currently there) Thoughts? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nobody wants to maintain it, then it should be canned. I am happy for you to handle it as you see fit ... Stho002 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the lack of updating, I see two other issues that bother me: (1) None of the listed information appears on the page about the listed species. (2) The "Species of the week" and images appear only on the English language Main Page, and not in any of the others. While I like the idea of "Species of the week" (or month), it would only make sense to continue if it presented information in a format easy to include across multiple translations of the Main Page.
I doubt I would have time to update a Main Page feature regularly, since I'm already handling a daily feature for the English Wiktionary. However, I would be willing to help rotate Main Page images a bit. I think the strip of pretty images with taxonomic names underneath would be easy to implement across several languages, and would not need to be changed on any regular schedule. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, if nobody has time to do it, then it must go ... --Stho002 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always want to update it, but keep forgetting. I'll do the updating soon. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the "Species of the week", the images, or both? On just the English page, or do you mean that you also plan to update the style in other languages? I want to know which you mean, so that I know what parts will still need to be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both. Are you looking for something to do? We're currently really backlogged in cropping and uploading ZooKeys images to Commons. It would be nice if you can help us on that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only have minimal image software. That's one reason that most of my Commons contributions are audio pronunciation files. Even simple actions like rotating an image can be a hassle with my software. My concern was for the Main Page, which seems to have been neglected in favor of doing things that most visitors to Wikispecies will never see. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All it needs is an Adobe Professional (with crop feature) and MS-Paint. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I suppose it's my fault: My intention was to update this page regularly, but other engagements kept me off the track. Anyway, I updated the "species of the week" with a wonderful bird. Mariusm (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]