Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 21

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I urge you all to oppose the adminship request of Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) , for although he is a taxonomist (in herpetology), he IMHO has an aggressive bias in favour of his own personal taxonomic opinions, and refuses to aknowledge that issues may not be as simple as he wants them to be, thanks --Stho002 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to this, some user (User:Hesperian) who has contributed almost nothing to this project has now come out of the woodwork in defence of Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) , and is threatening to take action against me for preventing Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) from editing the Wollumbinia page, see: User_talk:Hesperian#Re:Wells_again and my talk page here User_talk:Stho002#Wells_again. Under the circumstances of a well-known heated dispute over Wollumbinia (Wells vs. Thomson (=Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) ) & Georges), I believe I have rightly protected this page --Stho002 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I have over 4000 edits to this project. And over 150,000 edits to Wikimedia projects. And administratorship on three sister projects. I don't appreciate Stho002 running off to this board without telling me he had done so. I told him that I intended to take the matter further—"I think there has been a gross error made here, and I am pretty sure that it would be overturned if we had more eyes on it. I will have a think about how to proceed from here."—and it rather looks to me as though Stho002 has tried to preempt that by running off here to tell his version first, needlessly running me down and belittling my contributions here, and canvassing for support. Hesperian 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
>Actually I have over 4000 edits to this project< Special:Contributions/Hesperian: only 50 edits since Nov 2006, anyway. It is clear that Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) has run off to Hesperian (talkcontribsblock logall projects) for support when things didn't go his way --Stho002 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Gosh, sorry I needlessly and nastily called your 4000 edits 'almost nothing', Hesperian." "Apology accepted, Stho002". Right, I'm glad we got that out of the way. Let's move on. I give you my word of honour that I have never communicated with Faendalimas. This issue was brought to my attention by a third party. I saw what appeared to be a gross error of judgement, compounded by misuse of administrative tools, and decided to address it. Stupidly, I failed to anticipate that my polite disputation on the topic would be met by nasty ad hominem attacks behind my back on a public notice board. Silly me. Hesperian 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Third party, eh? Who? If they are not willing to be publicly named, then we can safely ignore them as likely biased. I reiterate two things: (1) the taxa in question are searchable under both names; and (2) the unavailability of the name Wollumbinia has not (and cannot be) proven. I have flagged the issue on the Wollumbinia page, using the 'Disputed template', but Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects) and others will clearly not accept that, so I have locked the page on the current version, as there is no reason to change it at present. Thomson & Georges can call on as many friendly editors as they like to publish claims about Wells, and call on as many Wikimedia admins as they like to get heavy with me, but it changes nothing ... Stho002 (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we'll see about that. You go right ahead and publicly insult me, attack me, belittle my contributions, question my motives, etc. That'll achieve plenty. Meanwhile, I'll do what I said I would do, which is to go away and have a think about how best to proceed to address the issue. Hesperian 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and you go right ahead and deflect my questions, make idle threats, and try to twist this into an issue about me, which it isn't. >Meanwhile, I'll do what I said I would do, which is to go away...< By all means, go ahead! Stho002 (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure this has been discussed before, but I seriously think that Wikispecies needs multilinguality in the way Commons has it. 'Species doesn't have multiple languages, so it's imperative that all (or as much as possible) languages be represented here, just as it is on Commons. I'd like opinions on this proposal. Pikolas (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's possible and desirable to do so. Ucucha 05:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created {{LangSwitch}}, {{GetFallback}} and {{GetFallback2}} copypasting it from Commons, but LangSwitch is apparently not working as it should. Can any administrators take a look at this? Pikolas (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think User:SergeyJ was doing it but stopped midway. He's inactive now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone resume this? I would do it, but it takes an administrator to do that. Pikolas (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you need an admin to do it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, yes, because someone needs to create the MediaWiki messages like these ones on Commons: MediaWiki:LanguageHandler.js, MediaWiki:Lang, etc. Pikolas (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User: Contribs has been making a lot of peculiar edits, some plain vandalism, others superfluous (e.g. adding categories to numerous pages, as if they were wikipedia pages), mixed in with a few edits that are good. Needs a careful check-over by an admin. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified Sciurus[edit]

Yann posted this to Commons --SJ+ 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please could you help identifying this squirrel species? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies might be a good audience to help with this.
Not Sciurus, rather Funambulus palmarum. Ark (talk page) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Ucucha 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synthetic life[edit]

Have you addressed how to list synthetic life forms as they begin to be created? im thinking of craig venters recent research, and im not sure if its considered a viable new organism. if it is, then it violates the evolutionary tree, with branches combining again. (though i know genes are swapped outside of reproduction in nature). link here: [1], and i posted comments at Mycoplasma capricolum and Mycoplasma mycoides. Mercurywoodrose on WP. 07:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can ignore Venter's organism. Venter is a self-aggrandizing egomaniac (to be fair, he also a capable scientist). He attracts way more publicity when he claims he's created a new species than by being more realistic about what he's done. The rules for naming bacteria are more strict than for plants and animals. Until he publishes a name in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (the only place new bacterial names can be published), it has no standing (I'd guess it'd be a nomen nudum until then). The question of whether he's created a new species isn't something Wikispecies should address; that's for the microbiological community at large to determine (and I'm not at all up on species concepts in asexual organisms). I would say that the minimal genome he created is no different from human modifying the genomes of other plants and animals through artificial selection/domestication. The story you linked to sounds like it could be considered a hybrid, although microbiologists deal with hybrids at all (since bacterial hybrids don't exist naturally). Venter's organism could be considered a new species, perhaps, but hasn't achieved that recognition yet, and I think is likely to ultimately be considered nothing more than a particular strain of Mycoplasma gentalium. 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thorough answer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unidentified animals from India[edit]

Hello, Could you please help me identifying these animals? Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the unknown insect is a male ant - you could perhaps try Brian Fisher ( for more help on this --Stho002 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A male ant? It is about 5 cm long... Yann (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, check this out: [2]
The bird is Turdoides striata - MPF (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some more. Yann (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference desk[edit]

Hi, may I ask if you have any page similar to en:Wikipedia:Reference desk here on Wikispecies? Regards, Höstblomma (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the place =) OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norwegian Nynorsk, Hovudside & Talk:Hovudside[edit]

This page & comment are waiting for our decision since 23 July 2010. Anybody knows this language? Ark (talk page) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IUCN red list and distribution maps[edit]

Hi. Just to announce a collaboration between Wikimedia and the IUCN red list to produce distribution maps for 25,000 species of animals and upload them on Commons. Please check the page Commons:Commons:IUCN red list for more details. Any help is appreciated, of course. Regards, GoEThe (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, could someone please confirm that Wikispecies does NOT use distribution maps on its pages? We are drafting a press release at [3] and I thought I would mention Wikispecies, just because it is a biology-oriented Wikimedia project, but I don't think it is accurate that these maps will be used here. GoEThe (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not indeed AFAIK. Some users put related data (mostly distribution, as it happen) on teh talk pages, but thatd be too complicated to mention. Circeus (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Circeus said is correct but thanks for letting us know. Instead of mentioning how we might use the spatial data (which is probably not correct to say), you can briefly mention that we do use IUCN red list classification on Wikispecies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't currently put distribution maps on Wikispecies pages, but I'd suggest this is a policy that would be worth re-thinking. Natural distributions are a very important aspect of taxa. - MPF (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome template(s)[edit]

Our Template:Welcome is not good (first of "few things that may be interesting:" is "If you haven't done so, we strongly recommend you to create an account"). I am uncomfortable inserting this on logged user's page.

We need two templates: one for IP's (something like en:Template:Welcome-anon) and another for logged users (without text about creating an account). Could somebody please write adequate text (you know my English :) Ark (talk page) 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikispecies Twitter account[edit]

I've started a specific twitter account (@Wikispecies) for my Wikispecies update (previously on @Circeus). I'll probably broadcast anything interesting I see (primarily new featured species, I assume) alongside with whatever my current editing is. Anybody who'd like to have access info (I'm thinking User:Stho002, of course, if he's interested) can PM me on the Twitter account. @Wikispecies and #Wikispecies tweet will be scanned for retweets. Circeus (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know much about Twitter. I just knew that someone made a @wikispeciesbot for displaying Wikispecies entries. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes I came across it by accident while checking for accounts to follow. Circeus (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, should anybody complete a project (be it a comprehensive addition of names from a genus or other taxon group, all the names from a journal issue or paper etc. etc.), just leave me a not and I'll tweet it. Circeus (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our popularity[edit]

Here are some stats on the popularity of wikimedia sites (wikipedia proper not included):

popularity of wikimedia sites[edit] 55.4% 38.3% 1.9% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
OTHER 0.6%

Popularity rank of Wikimedia in some countries: (1 = top rank)[edit]

Austria 75
Germany 99
Sweden 99
Switzerland 107
Romania 109
Netherlands 145
Colombia 145
Poland 172
United Kingdom 185
Belgium 186
Canada 193
Australia 193
South Africa 195
Philippines 201
Italy 208
Ukraine 213
India 218
United States 223
Pakistan 225
Greece 228
Iran 234
Russia 235
Argentina 237
Spain 254
Mexico 271
France 329
Indonesia 405
Turkey 441
Brazil 459
Thailand 527
Egypt 572
Saudi Arabia 614
Japan 773
China 2,732

(Taken from

So we must try harder to improve out content... Mariusm (talk)

How is "popularity" measured? The limiting factor is probably the subject matter, not quality of content ... Stho002 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't you know that popularity and quality are inversely related??? Stho002 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an issue of interconnectedness mostly. I don't think wikispecies shows very prominent in the results of any taxon search. There are just too many interconnected databases (most of which are not even THAT useful as they usually only contain a binomial, it's author citation, and a sometimes incorrect classification). Circeus (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikispecies is near top in most Google searches for taxa (except very well-known taxa). Much of our competition (other general online databases of biodiversity) has inferior data masquerading as the most reliable. We need to create more links between ourselves and corresponding Wikipedia pages (I have made a start) ... Stho002 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With so many Interwiki bots around, aren't there any who add interwikis from wp to wikispecies? Circeus (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, if we divide the average multimedia rank, which is 174 by 0.8%, we get that wikispecies is ranked overall #21750, which is not too bad considering the estimated 122 million (see here) websites out there... Mariusm (talk)
Yes, and we should compare apples with apples, so it would be unfair to compare a specialised database like Wikispecies with other sites with more general/populist information Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, you're right! ranks #63,079, so we ought to be proud of ourselves. Mariusm (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really good news. We should develop a strategy to convert more visitors into contributors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate to be a party pooper, but web site rank stats don't work like that. Distribution of site popularity doesn't drop off linearly, so you can't just divide the hits to Wikispecies into the overall rank for Wikimedia to get a rank for Wikispecies. You should be able to compare page views though. Wikimedia gets 0.013% of global page views. Multiply that by .008 gives a 0.000104% share of page views for Wikispecies. EOL gets 0.00014 (i.e., 40% more).AndrewT (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who cares anyway? This isn't a popularity competition - as everyone knows sh!t sells ... Stho002 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(as of 2010-08-30) The page at offers a link to multimedia which no longer exists. That destination was deleted by user MPF, so I hope s/he can change to link to point to the new location of the deleted item.

ALSO... The same photo is used on the Species pages for Pica hudsonia and Pica pica -- different name but same bird.


DavisWiki user LoisRichter

 Done Thanks for pointing out the error. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV policy?[edit]

On Meta, there is currently a discussion questioning if the neutral point of view policy is applicable to all projects. This is one project where the application of the NPOV policy is in question. If any long-term contributors could give insight as to the local view of the policy as applies to contributions here it would be appreciated.
Thank you. Kylu (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW I think a special form of NPOV must be adapted in Wikispecies. When there is significant disagreement about an organism's placement... we still have to pick one so that the data (or some data) can be presented at all (even if that placement ends up being an "incertae sedis" whereas no actual pubnlished classification uses that). I am faced with exactly this type of problem in Dendrophorbium, for which, in the absence of a desperately needed revision, I state the given circumscription to be "tentative". I've made a shorter comment in the discussion. Circeus (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a wiki bug?[edit]

Since the wiki new release has emerged, I'm experiencing some bizarre behavior with the link-colors: Some links which should be blue (unvisited valid links) are colored a pale mauve, very similar to the red broken-links color. This confuses me, and I can't fathom the logic behind this coloration scheme. Anyone else experiencing this? Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't had that problem, but I'm highly annoyed at this big box which appears every time I press edit, and sometimes goes away again quickly, but sometimes very slowly ... :( Stho002 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the some pages' source codes, I now understand what is going on: some articles are classified as "stub", and their links appear in this reddish color. I can't see what are the criteria for classifying an article as a "stub". Obviously it should be the length, and perhaps it is automated. Does anyone know how to turn the "stub" color off or how to change it to blue? Mariusm (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I got it: At My preferences/Advanced options/Threshold for stub link, set it to 0B. Mariusm (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the purpose of Wikispecies?[edit]

What is the real purpose of Wikispecies? I read Wikispecies:Charter and I learned only that:
a) it is for biologists
b) it should work to strongly support integration with wikipedia, to help avoid duplication of effort.
The second assumption is obviously not implemented, as adding another species here means I should also add it to Wikipedia, perfectly "duplicating the effort". I thought WS should work like Commons work for media - that the data from WS would be automatically imported into Wikipedia and any change made here would also update the relevant page in Wikipedia. Isn't it what Jimbo Wales had in mind writing the above statement? Now it is opposite and the only effect of WS existence that I see is doubling the workload for people who want to include biodiversity data in Wiki* and as the result - slowing down of the process.
So now we return to the point "a)". I assume that if "b)" is not working, than great usefulness of WS for biologists must justify this redundancy. Unfortunately I don't see it. So my question is: What feature(s) of Wikispecies justify redundancy of data on WS and WP, general lack of synchronization between both projects resulting in heavy ambiguity when WP says one thing and WP another, and finally slowing down the development of Wikipedia? Could someone briefly describe what is being done here on WS that is not being done (or could not been done) on Wikipedia instead?
I'm sorry if it has been already addressed somewhere on one of the 20 archived pages - I don't have the courage to go through them. You can point me to the right page then or simply answer in a few sentences. I'm not trolling - I just want to understand. Thanks in advance. Marac (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no quick and simple answer to this, but let me make a start: Wikipedia is not designed to have articles for every species of everything - it has a criterion of notability, which means that only notable species deserve their own article (and also higher taxa). On the other hand, Wikispecies is designed to have an article for every species. For example, I have just now added names for over 2000 species of Onthophagus. There is NO WAY that most of them will ever have anything written about them on Wikipedia ... that's all for now ... Stho002 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) PS: There is no point complaining about Wikispecies - if you don't like it, just don't go there ...Reply[reply]
Actually, last I heard Wikipedia considered all species notable (with a few stylistic exceptions: in dinosaurs, it tends to stop at genus level). Whether all ranks DO end up having their own articles and how long it would take to reach full coverage is another issue entirely. Generally I'd say we collate more nomenclatural information (i.e. full synonymies with protologue citations and type informations, and CITED SOURCES) than either Wikipedia (whether such information is either absent or drowned in the prose) or any general database out there (I don't know of any nomenclatural database that includes type information). Look at Rhododendron farrerae. You'll never find that level of information in any database outside Wikispecies and the articles that produced that synonymy. Circeus (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At any rate, Wikispecies should be thought of as the PART of Wikipedia which deals with all species ... Stho002 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I don't understand why there is no integration (no, interwiki is not integration)? Just like with Commons... I thought the goal would be to have WS data imported automatically to WP. I mean, semi-automatically - something like you put e.g. {{taxonav|Rhododendron farrerae}} in a corresponding WP article and the infobox is imported from WS. I think it's quite fundamental... WS could easily be a REAL PART of Wikipedia... Or a great supporter, whatever you'd like to call it. Marac (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no integration because nobody has taken on the task Things only happen on wiki because "I" do something, rather than waiting for "them" to do something. The only thing I have done is to add external links to some WP pages saying more info is available on WS. I don't have the coding knowledge necessary to create links that will, say, import Taxonav data from WS to WP, but I would rate that as an important project for someone with the ability. One problem that I can forsee is that of identifying a page on WP as actually being a description of a biological taxon, and therefore deserving of a link, but even that might be possible. My moral support to anyone who takes this on. It would be valuable. Accassidy (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to read I'm not the only one who thinks it's important. Unfortunately I lack skill to do this too. What I cannot understand is not why any of the present editors don't do it, but why the people that decided on starting the project haven't done it! They started the thing, had the skills, they put on the website, placed it in the "wiki universe" and... what has happened? I repeat: they did it with Commons - why not here??? It's completely beyond my comprehension... Marac (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't think it is necessary. WP should be for "wordy" articles, not lists of taxa. If someone reading a WP article wants to know the list of included taxa, then they should just click the WS interwiki ... Stho002 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... but the fact is that people at WP do build taxonomy trees and taxo-infoboxes there... So probably there is a consensus they should be included. And both projects unnecessarily do the same work twice. Marac (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One might argue all the non-English projects "unnecessarily do the same work twice". After all, they present the same information, right? You're confusing incidental duplication of information and unnecessary redundancy. Circeus (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anybody help me find out which plant this is [origin: china][edit]

Can anybody help me find oud which species this plant is.

<a href=""><img src="" /></a>
Van <a href="">Planten</a>

It origin is from China.


Admin nomination[edit]

see here --Stho002 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please vote now (on linked page) --Stho002 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain the rules[edit]

One of the admins corrected (?) my contributions by:

  1. removing the name section from the phylum page
  2. changing "genus" into "genera" on a page where there is only one genus.

I was surprised knowing that:

  1. "Every content page on Wikispecies should contain a Taxonavigation section. (...) Besides the taxonavigation a page should contain a Name section."
  2. "One other thing to note is using singular taxon naming convention when there's one child".

Because he's an admin and the above rules are from the general help pages I thought he's probably right and the above rules are obsolete. So I asked him kindly if he could direct me to the pages where the new rules are explained. I want to make valuable contributions, made according to the rules and consistent with those of others. I've seen here heavy arguments over much smaller issues than the above mentioned, so I thought these rules couldn't be meaningless.

To my surprise, the admin answered, but in a very rude manner, and not with the explanation but with the warning that I should mind my own business (he did not use such words, but the underlying intention was very clear). Further, in his opinion these are not rules but "rules", which are trivial and do not have to be followed.

So, I would like to ask the community:

  1. Does such behavior represent the usual manners I can expect to meet in contacts with admins here?
  2. May someone direct me to the page explaining the rules of page creation that are currently in force, because I want to make contributions according to the rules?
  3. Shouldn't you change the obsolete rules on the help pages, because you add yourself work of correcting mistakes of people creating pages according to them.
  4. If there are no established new rules in this regard, but the "rules" on the help pages are just suggestions that do not have to be followed, can someone with the authority confirm this?

Thanks. I hope I won't be banned for asking those questions. Marac (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bear in mind that this user, Marac, is the author of the section above entitled What is the purpose of Wikispecies? - a very critical and negative opinionated piece on our project ... and now he is getting shirty over trivial issues ... hmmm ...
Bear also in mind that this user, Marac, is the author of more than 500 edits on WS. Maybe he's not so negative about this project? ... hmmm ...
Maybe he's also not such a troublemaker, when he's not been provoked into an argument by the words There is no point complaining about Wikispecies - if you don't like it, just don't go there ... which someone wrote him in answer to his I'm not trolling - I just want to understand.
Maybe also some of his other statements in the above thread suggest he wishes all the best to this project, but just wants to understand it's reason, scope and it's place in the wiki-universe, 'cause it's not really explained here. Marac (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
anyway, the rules are guidelines and open to modification as admins see fit. As for One other thing to note is using singular taxon naming convention when there's one child, this is unclear and Marac's interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. I interpret it to mean that on a genus page, for example, you must use the singular, but when listing genera on a family page, you must use the plural, even if there is only one genus in the list. This makes perfect sense, and has the advantage that editors don't need to remember to change from singular to plural when a second genus is added (which is very easy to forget to do). I have now reworded the guideline appropriately: Help:Taxonavigation_section#Multiples_of_a_taxon
Thank you. Now I know how to proceed. Marac (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as for the name section on a phylum page, I have had this argument with others like Lycaon, but in zoological nomenclature, there is no meaning to author/date for names above superfamily - it is meaningless and pointless information...
Stho002 will say I again try to wreak havoc, but I'm not a taxonomist and I just don't know that, so I'll ask anyhow. Why is it useful in botanical nomenclature then? What's the difference? Marac (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
none of this prevents Marac from being able to contribute usefully to the project, so I suggest that he/she either does so, or goes away, but continuing to complain about this and that isn't doing himself or anyone any good ... Stho002 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you just check if I do so.
By the way... You may not like me for whatever reason, I don't care, but please stop trying so hard to make me leave this project. You won't succeed and it will only look strange in the eyes of the others. You can just ignore me from now on and everyone will be happy. I won't bother you again on your talk page, either, that's for sure. I'll leave only if others confirm it would be better for the project if I did. Marac (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not either like or dislike you, and I'm not trying to make you leave (and you have no valid reason to suggest that I am, so please don't try that), as you do good edits, but if you are going to continue to waste all our precious time on pointless criticisms and arguments, then I may have to rethink ... Stho002 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we go again - one more disguised threat... And I'm not the one who tries hard to start arguments here. I try to discuss things and not to be provoked into arguments. Marac (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Until I look up the history of this page, I was totally confused because I thought Steven is talking to himself in the first response section. Marac, you're an experienced Wikipedian, you know perfectly well not to add comments inside someone's comments. If you want to rebut, start a comment afterwards. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... In fact I didn't know that. Moreover, I saw many discussions on various wikiprojects conducted in such (Usenet-like) manner. But OK, I will try not to do that on WS. Thanks. I added my signature on my comments above, to avoid further misunderstandings. Marac (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: possibility of including correct pronunciation?[edit]


I wonder if it would be possible to create a link to an audio file of the correct pronunciation of latin names (similar to wiktionary or Do people think that would be helpful/important to include for species names?

Whether it is worth doing, not sure. I've seen several incorrect pronunciations added at en:wiki from the "Sunset Western Garden Book"; we definitley don't want those. For general guidelines on pronunciation, see W. T. Stearn, Botanical Latin. - MPF (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd stay away from pronunciation. It's not really standardized (as Stearn notes). US/UK/Continental European/etc biologists all use slightly different rules from pronunciation, none of which truly follow classical Latin pronunciation rules. 21:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
..none of which truly follow classical Latin pronunciation rules... No, that is true, but they are usually pretty close to Church Latin, as still practiced by the Vatican today. And yes there is a quite difference between the Latin of Julius Caesar ("Kaisar") and Benedict XVI ("Tsesar"). So, if you do want to come up with a 'standard pronunciation' Vatican Latin would be a good candidate. Jcwf (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fundraising 2010: Beat Jimmy Challenge[edit]

The Fundraising Committee is issuing all interested community members a challenge: we want you to beat Jimmy. The appeal from Jimmy Wales and the corresponding banner have been tested head-to-head with other successful banners, and the results are clear: it's our best performing message... by a lot. This year we have a lofty fundraising goal; we need all of our banners to bring in donations like the Jimmy Appeal, but no one wants to keep the Jimmy banner up for two months. We want to run donor quotes, and other wonderful ideas, but we have to have banners that work as well as or better than the Jimmy appeal.

We've just released the highlights from a donor focus group, and the results of our donor survey. With one month to the launch of the fundraiser, the messages we test must be driven by data from our tests and surveys - we can no longer rely on instinct alone.

We've redesigned our fundraising meta pages with the Jimmy challenge; check out the survey results and propose/discuss banners that reflect these findings. Add the banners you think will 'beat Jimmy' here to be tested Tuesday October 12 against Jimmy. -Dgultekin (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archaea is in an unsatisfactory state, but is also blocked. I have detailed the most urgent edits on the discussion page. --MarioS (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done (though you could have done it yourself, it is only locked to unregistered IP-number edits) - MPF (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strange block[edit]

I am logged in, but my options for the page Archaea are: "Read|View source|View history". Is the page blocked for normal users or is there a problem with my account? --MarioS (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page is set at autoconfirm, which means they look at your account to see if the account is 4 days or older and contributed at least 10 edits. If you don't meet either one of the two criteria, you cannot update that page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May someone explain to me how to use a template {{unverified}} and what does it really mean or direct me to a page with such description (I tried to search but couldn't find anything)? In particular:

  1. when we use it,
  2. who and how may verify it,
  3. should such pages be edited as usual or rather left alone until after verification.

I see this template more and more often recently so maybe there is some verification project underway and I don't want to get in the way. I assume it has nothing to do with lack of references, as it is present also on pages with references (e.g. Palaeacanthocephala). Thanks in advance. Marac (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is something I am trying to develop to address one of the major problems of the project - reliability of information. Basically, we need to distinguish between pages (for example, genus pages) that just have some of the included species listed, and/or details which may not be entirely correct, from those pages which are done as well as we can possibly do them, with all details checked and all species listed. Many (secondary) sources of information that we might use for this project disagree with each other (CoL, ION, etc.), so getting this all sorted out is the main challenge, as I see it, of the project. As for your specific questions:
  • when we use it

whenever you see the need

  • who and how may verify it

anybody may verify a page, but they MUST sign it

  • should such pages be edited as usual or rather left alone until after verification

yes, unverified pages should be edited as usual

--Stho002 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Marac (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: is vandalizing WS and he removes {{delete}} templates from the pages he created. An admin should check his activity log to find all his "contributions", I guess. Marac (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We need to keep an eye on this new User. As yet he has done nothing bad, but it doesn't appear from User:TEK1999 as though he will be much of an asset to WS. Accassidy (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF - Projeto Brasil Catalisador[edit]

O Projeto Brasil Catalisador (Brazil Catalyst Project) visa desenvolver e abrir abordagens de colaboração pelas quais a Fundação Wikimedia pode apoiar o fortalecimento e crescimento da comunidade dos projetos Wikimedia no Brasil. A Fundação Wikimedia não tem agenda definida para além de ver o crescimento da comunidade contribuinte e de leitores no Brasil. Em última análise, o projeto vai criar um plano que recomende um conjunto de iniciativas e projetos-pilotos com o potencial de nos ajudar a avançar em nossa missão coletiva no Brasil e para possivelmente gerar exemplos de sistemas, processos e métodos para o avanço dos projetos dos projetos da Wikimedia no Brasil e no mundo. Participe! Acompanhe Projeto Brasil Catalisador (Brazil Catalyst Project) ou entre em contato direto com a Carolina Rossini.

--Carolrossiniatwiki (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request[edit]

Hi, Would you please help me to identify the species? This flower is from central México.

Thanks,--Cvmontuy (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acording to Penarc it seems to be a Mandevilla sanderi, regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing publications in authorities articles[edit]

Hi, I just modified Wim Crusio modeled on another article (Chris Funk). I noticed that the header "Publications" in the latter article is plural. Is this section supposed to give (a) representative publication(s) or is this supposed to be exhaustive? I can't find any guidance on this in the help articles. I'm still rather new here, so some advice is welcome. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think bibliography is part of Wikispecies goals at all myself. I nuke those when I see them. Circeus (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asian genera, species and subspecies[edit]

I have many species and subspecies described in different Asian bulletins. I can't find a reliable side on internet where I can check if those species and subspecies are correct. Therefore i have decided to add this species and subspecies in species.wikipedia. If there are more reliable publications we can change the species and subspecies.

PeterR (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalization of vernacular names[edit]

I do not know if this topic has been discussed before, if so, I'd be happy to hear the outcome. I mostly contribute to nl.wiktionary and I am in the process of linking pages about living creatures that have a scientific name to the corresponding page here. While doing so I was also adding some vernacular terms here, but I ran into a problem. The wiktionaries have chosen to be case sensitive and to represent words that are typically lower case unless at the beginning of a phrase simply as lower case, in order to distinguish them from words that are always capitalized. In some languages, like Dutch, species names are of that nature. E.g. a woodpecker is "specht" but in German it would be "Specht" because the orthography rules are different. I noticed that Wikispecies does not even try to indicate the distinction and that is a pity because it is not at all an obvious thing when compiling translations into other languages to figure out which convention they follow. In English there seems to be considerable confusion on this point. Audubon e.g. advises to write "a woodpecker", but "Downy Woodpecker" for the species. It would be a great contribution imho if Wikispecies could help to sort out this mess, by cataloging what the appropriate spelling is for each language. Jcwf (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, most languages don't capitalize vernacular names of species. German is an exception, but in that case, all nouns are capitalized, not just species. As a rule, vernacular names in English are not capitalized. However, some groups of organisms have lists of standardized "common" names promulgated by scientists studying that group, and these lists may insist on capitalization. Birds are one such group in English (mammals are another), with the rules for capitalization being laid out clearly, and with fairly wide acceptance of the standardized names & capitalization. Even with birds, this usage is context dependent. If I saw "Downy Woodpecker" (rather than "downy woodpecker") in a novel, it would seem out of place. However, I would expect to see the capitalized form on a birdwatcher's blog.
There are other official lists that are less well accepted. The American Fisheries Society has proposed standardized common names for fish found in the US. I raised this capitalization issue on the Village Pump awhile back for the fish list.
The safest route is just to copy the capitalization exactly as you see it in a particular source (checking for instances of the name in the middle of a sentence). I would assume that most databases of scientific names with vernacular names will use the appropriate capitalization for that group. Again, keep in mind that the common name will often be uncapitalized in non-scientific sources (novels, etc.) even if the "official" name is capitalized. I would not call uncapitalized names in lay sources wrong; in less formal usages the capitalized name looks wrong. 16:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spider with babies in the fur?[edit]

I found this puzzling spider with hundreds of little spiders attached to it.


I uploaded the photo to the Commons and would like to find the species and maybe a suitable article in WP. Any idea about the species? Are these actually baby spiders?

Thanks for your help! Zeptomoon (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a wolf spider (family Lycosidae) of some kind. The female carries its egg sac on its back, and the young spiderlings are hatching --Stho002 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I just read through the WP article on spiders and they have a section on reproduction where a similar species is shown. Zeptomoon (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free biodiversity trading cards[edit]

Just saying a quick hello. I recently attended a wikiGLAM event in London, and got inspired and all. Was curious whether a free resource from an educational non-commercial project of mine is of interest. Basically, it's a crowd sourced biodiversity trading card game, modeled after the Pokemon craze. You can take a peek at

The cards are all NC-ND-AT and basically free for non-commercial use, and even currently link to wikipedia as their main source of narrative info (also the EOL).

Anyway, if it looks interesting, do let me know. I can be reached at

cheers dave ng University of British Columbia

Takes too long to design card format and rules for the game. Looking at Wikipedia's trading card game, it took a year just to design the look-and-feel. Right now theirs' are at phase 2 and there're 6 more phases before the card game rolls out. Instead of wasting years of time and effort, we could have done something else. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of interest to botanists[edit]

I am posting this here for all who are interested in botany, not knowing where else to put it. A comprehensive plants list was published by a consortium of botanists from around the world and the portal is here A working list of all plant species.Ineuw talk page on English Wikisource 16:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Even a quick look shows it to be full of errors, unfortunately; e.g. Cupressus funebris and Chamaecyparis funebris are both cited as accepted, despite being homotypic (Cupressus funebris being the name generally accepted as correct). It could eventually become a valuable resource, but there's a lot to be cleaned up there first. - MPF (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]