Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 3

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Taxon Template

Would it be possible to work on agreeing to a standard Taxon template? The one that shows up under templates (which is actually current events?) is not very instructive. Yes, it gives a basic outline but does not handle formatting. I see poor UtherSRG changing Vernacular Names to Vernacular names etc. Thanks Open2universe 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attempt for revision of the templates

In light of recent discussions about the use of templates, I propose the following

An ideal page should include the following information, each under a separate section heading:

  • Taxonavigation:

Start with the Main Page and use as many taxa as possible in the full list. Please use templates for higher taxa, like [Template:Placentalia]] and [Template:Primates]]. See for an example Homo sapiens.

  • Name:

Give the full and original scientific name for a taxon, including author and citation.

  • Taxonomic information:

Give full original citation, with page number of description enclosed in square brackets, type locality and type specimen

  • Synonyms:

Give the scientific synonymy of a taxon, with information like that under "Taxonomic information".

  • Distribution:

Give the distribution of a taxon.

  • Vernacular names:

Give lists of common names in as many languages as possible.

  • Interwikis:

Give interwikis to relevant Wikipedia articles.

You can make small edits (grammatica, spelling, wording) to this proposal, but please discuss large/significant edits. I'll write an article about Lonchophylla orcesi to give an example. Ucucha 15:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like it Open2universe 23:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :). Aren't there more people to react? Ucucha 13:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't like the splitting of "vernacular" and "interwiki". The point of the current system is that the interwiki articles will have the vernacular names. If anything, the current "vernacular" section should be renamed to "interwiki" and the "new" "vernacular" section be abandoned. - UtherSRG 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. We have some great (yes I'm arrogant) articles at nl: about for example Cryptonanus. But that isn't a vernacular name. It's a scientific name. Furthermore, almost all mammals have common names in English. But they don't all have an article at en:, so we can't list them. That's the reason I split them. Interwikis are different from vernacular names. Ucucha 14:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not disagreeing on the difference. I'm disagreeing on what is better served by Wikispecies, and what is better served on the language 'pedias. I think that listing the possibly multitudinous names for (for example) plant species will be overly pedantic for Wikispecies, but would be very reasonable to have as a section of a language Wikipedia article. The section of the Wikispecies article that lists the links to the Wikipedia articles should be renamed (as you suggest above) but leave the common, non-scientific names off of the scientific Wikispecies. - UtherSRG 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. It's bad form to change the format without having reached a consensus on the change. I'm sticking with the old format, even though I do not prefer it, until we reach a reasonable agreement. - UtherSRG 04:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what the old format is. If it is the clunky page listed under templates, then no one is using it. I still see value in common names and would like them to be included. My interpretation is that the old format does include them under Vernacular names. I am new to this wiki business and am wondering what it takes to get consensus? Open2universe 13:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UtherSRG (2nd message): I am not trying to change the format before we reached consensus, but just to give an example.
@UtherSRG (1st message) and Open2universe: I think common names are interesting, even for taxonomists. Imagine that you are a zoologist. You are in Ecuador. The people say that they saw an ucucha or so. Noone knows what it is. But you have Internet. You can search Wikispecies. And you'll find that ucucha is (Ecuadorian) Quechua for "mouse". Common names are interesting for taxonomists. Ucucha 14:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One is an example. Multiple becomes a change. You haven't done multiple, but others have. My apologies for not being clear.

I've been doing a lot of editing to get articles back to the current standard. If I were in Ecuador as er your example, I'd be searching in a Quechua Wiki to find out what the speces being talked about is, then use that to find the data in Wikispecies and create the appropriate interwiki link back to the Quechua 'pedia. In fact, I'd enlist the aid of a local so as to bring them the wonder of Wikipedia. But I do see your point to some degree - where is the Quechua Wiki? How much data does it have? Yes, common names are, to some extent, interesting to taxonomists, but they also can add a significant degree of confusion. In one local area, a Foo could refer to one species, while in another region it refers to a different species. Now we have two species with the same common name in the same language. (You don't even need to consider local variations if you look at the common names of fish!)

If common names are going to be used as a search tool in Wikispecies (which should not have prose), they will be highly ineffective. Better to put the various common names and a guide to them in the language 'pedias (where they will be anyway!) and search there. Wikispecies should not be a fork; it should contain only the minimum amount of crossover with the various 'pedias. Let the 'pedias describe with prose some mixture of scientific and cultural information. Let's keep Wikispecies free from prose and free from data that can often be meaningless without prose to describe it. (Yes, this means I also dislike the "explanation" sections present in some articles, but that's another discussion...) - UtherSRG 02:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting the discussion about a template again - seems like we had some more interest now after the first year. For the taxonomic info, I would also add a taxonomic reference number; the name section can and should include reviews and alterations. Ideally we could merge the template after we had a decent discussion into a template for a database - does anybody know what happened to wikidata? Best, --Benedikt

I'm sorry UtherSRG, I didn't know others used it. Something we can add is a "complete" synonymy, as sometimes given in scientific papers, something like this:

Plecotus harandi sp.nov.
  • Plecotus auritus wardi: Thomas, 1907:311
  • Plecotus austriacus wardi: Bauer, 1960:214
  • Plecotus wardi: Kuzyakin, 1980:321


In Wikispecies it should become:

Taxonomic history

  • Plecotus auritus wardi: Thomas, 1907:311
  • Plecotus austriacus wardi: Bauer, 1960:214
  • Plecotus wardi: Kuzyakin, 1980:321

(This is a fictional example, but it is somewhat based on the real situation)

We should add references too in that case, of course. I'm not so sure anymore about common names. Ucucha 05:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depth of Information

Perhaps I am missing something about the purpose of Wikispecies, but I do not think I understand why so many of your articles list the taxonomy of a species and nothing else. Compare the Wikispecies Panthera tigris to Wikipedia's Tiger. The Wikipedia article lacks detailed taxonomy, but the Wikispecies article lacks everything else - physical description, behavior, range, subspecies...

Overall, and I mean this to be constructive criticism, not just pointless bitching, I find Wikispecies very difficult to use. For example, when I searched for "Lepidoptera", I expected to find a page explaining the difference between butterflies and moths. Instead I simply found a taxonomic tree indicating links to several sub-orders that I have never heard of. So, I tried searching for "Monarch." No luck. Tried "Danaus plexippus" and "Danaus". Again, no luck. What is this project meant to be, if not a directory of information on species? Taxonomic trees in and of themselves, especially when written only in scientific terms (e.g. regnum instead of kingdom), help no one but those who already know the information contained there. Just food for thought. -LordAmeth

23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC):

I agree; Is it not better to build it within Wikipedia as e.g. w:Category:Geography, to concentrate all efforts? /Karl

I strongly agree with LordAmeth's criticism. At first I thought the problem was simply that the project was not yet mature enough, but after looking through more articles, as well as the policies and guidelines, I feel that even the most complete articles on the project do not present enough information to be truly useful. As LordAmeth suggested above, I believe that Wikispecies should definitely include distinguishing characteristics, niche, habitat, behavior, etc. If it was already intended to include this, please forgive me, but with lack of concrete documentation, it is very difficult to determine what direction Wikispecies articles should be going in addition to the basic taxonomy and the occasional picture. I also believe that having to refer back to Wikipedia for the bulk of this information is counterintuitive and certainly will not help the growth of this project. If anything, it should be Wikipedia that is referring back to Wikispecies. On that note, why is Wikispecies now being hosted at a subdomain of Wikipedia ( I was under the impression that Wikispecies was, like Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote, and the Commons, a separate entity from Wikipedia, but linked to from within Wikipedia. Is Wikispecies becoming subsidiary to Wikipedia? If so, why is there not better integration between the two projects (I have yet to see a link to a Wikispecies article from within a Wikipedia one)? If not, why is it at and not, or at least Finally, why is there no distinction between languages? Currently, the Main Page is translated into several different languages, but the it seems that the ability to have articles in different languages, something I strongly feel we need if we are going to be adding field guides and dichotomous keys, is not available, since there is no language code (en, fr, it, pl) in the address. According to Jimbo Wales, "Wikimedia's mission is to give the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in their own language," and Wikispecies should be no exception. -- 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"ass pus" image vandalism

Could an administrator please change the "ass pus" images to the proper images, and block Crusty Butt? I don't feel like registering just to fix one user's vandalism. -- 22:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done --Benedikt

The attack was repeated by Woody Pecker. Reloaded correct versions. (Can images be locked?) --Astronouth7303 20:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do these images even exist here? If they are freely licensed, they should be on the Commons:. If they're not, what use are they in a project like Wikispecies which is supposed to provide an open reusable database of content? Angela 22:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've made a new Template:Commons2. It looks like this:

For more multimedia, look at Odobenus rosmarus on Wikimedia Commons.
Have fun Jonathan Hornung 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there some form of auto-organization possible? (e.g., have all genuses be in the category of the same name as their Subfamilia.) As it stands, there's no indexing or searchable items at all. --Astronouth7303 21:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've made a Template:Noinfo (based on the Dutch template Geeninfo) to put on pages without copyright info. They'll be listed on Wikispecies:Images for deletion. I don't think we should accept any images, I think. We have Commons. We don't need images here. Ucucha 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added the rule that images with {{NowCommons}} on it will be deleted directly. Anyone objecting to this? Ucucha (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

me it causes potential problems with lisenceing.Geni 02:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. In any case, many wikis do the same already, as far as I know. I think it's possible. Ucucha (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just started deleting NowCommons images. I'll be careful; only the most obvious images (such as those that were uploaded directly from the Commons), will be deleted for now. Ucucha (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fyi, I've nominated myself for adminship. Ucucha (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmmm if we are going to limit ourselves to commons only images it would make sense to ask for the image upload feature to be turned off.Geni 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be a good idea, indeed. Ucucha (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiversity Vote

Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.


I'm going to run a bot to add some mammal species, as soon as the bot is working again. They'll consist of the name and a ==Taxonavigation== part. Anyone objecting to this? Ucucha (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many? When you updated the mammal pages, I couldn't verify them all (I try to verify all the mods and new pages) via recent changes. If you are going to be doing a significant number, perhaps post the list of articles you are modifying/adding. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I base my changes on the scientific literature, mostly. I'll post the list; but it'll be very long, I think. Ucucha (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC) What does "bot" mean?Reply[reply]

See en:Wikipedia:Bots. Ucucha (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a Parvordo? Does it have an English name? Spelling snag: Do you mean Pavordo  or Parvordo ? / 20:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As received by e-mail (thanks for the info, leigh!):

"I've just heard your ZooBank project mentioned on Radio 4's Leading Edge programme (, and was struck by some similarities between your project, and wikispecies - the open directory of species (

I imagine you've probably seen this project, but just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Leigh."

To me, it looks like the projects were overlapping very much - maybe we should invite them to merge our efforts? Best, --Benedikt

I e-mailed the distributer: "I would like to draw your attention to, an open species directory run by the wikimedia foundation which was started a year ago under almost identical conditions and with a very similar proposal as zoobank; in fact, reading your proposal stroke me like reading a more detailed version of the proposal I wrote last summer to address people interested in such a project.

I don't know to which extent zoobank differs or has already started, but you might want to consider to join our efforts.

Wikispecies is wiki-based, i.e. open access and monitored by a set of administrators. We are currently still evaluating how to proceed with the project in terms of creating templates to structure our content, but already have a considerable collection of taxonomic names, literature references and links to encyclopaedic articles (at wikipedias in different languages).

Everybody who wants to join wikispecies is more than welcome! Thank you and best wishes..." --Benedikt

And here is the response to Benedikt:

"...Thank you for the link to Wikispecies. If I understand the purpose of > Wikispecies correctly, it has a somewhat different purpose than ZooBank. > There are many efforts to create a web-based or otherwise electronic > listing of all known taxon names (e.g., Zoological Record, Tree of Life, > Species2000, ITIS, GBIF-ECAT, Species Toolkit, uBio TNS, Glasgow > Taxonomic Name Server, etc.). I absolutely applaud the efforts of > Wikispecies -- particularly that (unlike many of the other efforts), it > is completely open access to content development. I also think it serves > a valuable and important role in organizing global nomenclatural > information. However, from what I gather looking through the Wikispecies > site, it serves a very different function from what ZooBank is intended > for. > >Although it would be great if ZooBank eventually contained a complete index >of all zoological names since Linnaeus, that is not its primary (nor >initial) purpose. The purpose is to establish a universal registry of >zoological names, and to incorporate such registration as a *mandatory* >requirement for establishing new names after 200x (tentatively 2007). The >task of retrospective registration of names established between 1758 and >2008 is certainly a part of the plan for ZooBank, but at this time is not >considered a mandatory component for determining availability of pre-2008 >names. > >The critical words in the preceding paragraph are "mandatory" and >"availability". For zoological names, those two words only have meaning in >the context of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature >(, which is charged with the task of establishing and >maintaining the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature >( These are the zoological >analogues of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, and the >International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, respectively (which are >mentioned at > > What makes ZooBank different from other efforts to list, index, catalog, > or register zoological names is that it comes from the ICZN itself. This > is not to say that it is necessarily "better" or is backed by a superior > vision for the electronic organization of zoological names -- just that > it involves the very rules followed by the scientific community in > creating and using scientific names of animals for more than a century. > > There are aspects of Wikispecies that make it unsuitable as a universal > registry for taxon names, as ZooBank is intended to be. One very basic > problem is namespace uniqueness. By incorporating the actual taxon name > as part of the namespace in Wikispecies, there is a problem with > Homonyms. For example, the genus name "Chromis" was independently > proposed five separate times in four separate families between 1801 and > 1862 -- and that's just within fishes (there is at least one other > homonym for "Chromis" outside of fishes). Also, it's not clear to me > whether each name in Wikispecies represents a "Taxon Name", or a "Taxon > Concept", but it seems to be the latter. ZooBank is concerned only with > Taxon Names. Related to this, Wikispecies seems to offer a single > complete taxonomic hierarchy for each of its names (e.g., > -- one of the families > that has had the genus "Chromis" named within it). While it is certainly > useful in some contexts to establish a single classification for each > name (e.g., ITIS), much of the broader bioinformatics community is moving > towards information management schemes that accommodate multiple > different classifications for each name (to reflect diverse taxonomic > opinion -- both historically and currently). More generally, whereas > Wikispecies is intended as a repository for all manner of relevant > information about taxa, ZooBank is specifically (and intentionally) more > limited in scope to just nomenclatural information. > > This is not to say that there are no opportunities for collaboration and > interaction among all of these different efforts which, collectively, > will eventually form the "Catalog of Life". Indeed, the current efforts > by GBIF and TDWG are focused largely on establishing standards and > protocols to allow seamless flow of electronic biological information > across all of these initiatives. In that sense, I think it would be great > if the managers of Wikispecies remain actively engaged in the broader > discussion on taxonomic data and its exchange and representation via the > internet!..."

Revised proposal

I've revised my old proposal somewhat:

An ideal page should include the following information, each under a separate section heading:

  • Taxonavigation:

Start with the Main Page and use as many taxa as possible in the full list. Please use templates for higher taxa, like [Template:Placentalia]] and [Template:Primates]]. See for an example this provisional page.

  • Name:

Give the full and original scientific name for a taxon, including author and citation.

  • Taxonomic information:

Give full original citation, with page number of description enclosed in square brackets, type locality and type specimen.

  • Synonyms:

Give the scientific synonymy of a taxon, with the same information as given under "Taxonomic information" for the valid name.

  • Distribution:

Give the distribution of a taxon.

  • Interwikis:

Give interwikis to relevant Wikipedia articles.

I noticed that Commons has interwikis to Wikipedia articles (for example I think we should ask the developers to add that feature to Wikispecies too. Note the changed taxonavigation on User:Ucucha/Taxonavigation. Ucucha (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where would one go to find out some of the more obscure things that you reckon should be in an ideal page? (e.g. Author, original citation) Are there any pages that you would consider 'ideal' to show me so that I can more fully understand what makes a great Wikispecies page? - 07:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lonchophylla orcesi. Ucucha (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That helps a little, Ucucha, but where would I go to find out the author and full original citation of a species? - 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many possibilities: IPNI for plants, Index Fungorum for fungi, for birds, the MSW for mammals, the EMBL Reptile Database for reptiles... ITIS has much, too. Ucucha (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! :D I've put links to those pages on the template page so that it's clear where to go for that information. The MSW and ITIS sites wouldn't work for me, though.  :( - 02:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the full citation of original publication should go in the name section, at least fro synonyms. Take Ipomoea nil as an example. You should go totaly nuts if you separated the publications from the names. Here are some examples where you can find info on plant taxa. But have a critical, not all thing are correct:

  • The International Plant Names Index (2009). [1].
  • Farr, E. R. & Zijlstra, G. eds. (1996-) Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum). [2].
  • Govaerts, R. & al. 2006. World Checklist of selected plant families. [3]
  • Australian Plant Name Index (APNI). [4].
  • African Plants Database [5].

There are many more....Epibase 09:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muridae - taxonavigation problem

You show family Muridae to be in suborder Sciurognathi. But this suborder does not point downwards to the family - it gets down to superfamily Muroidea, but even that has no downward link to Muridae. 14:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone take a look at Buchonomyiinae, Chironomidae, and Chironomidae:References. These diverge a bit from the norm and I'd like community input before I edit them. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think one could have a name section even at this level that includes the reference and citation.Open2universe 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I agree with having a Name (and reference) section at any level. I'm concerned about the excess text (what should be removed, what should be kept?), images, sections, and about the separate references page. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zoobank, SpeciesBank etc

I agree with the earlier comments relating to ZooBank that this initiative is useful but needs aligning with the very many similar efforts. In particular I would emphaisize the need for linkage with the efforts of the international community through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, its current ECAT work programme (Electronic catalogue of names of known organisms) and its future SpeciesBank work programme. The ECAT work programme is itself aligned with existing initiatives like Species2000/ITIS Catalogue of Life consortium.

I am a mycologist and so I will also advertize the existence of MycoBank which has existed for some time now - before Zoobank started to be discussed.

I also have some nomenclatural expertize and so I would emphasize just one of the comments in the earlier posting - that Wikispecies entries appear to be 'unassigned' taxon concepts. There is a difference between nomenclature (at the root of ZooBank) and the taxonomic opinions delievred by Wikispecies. Deciding the 'correct' name for an organism is an objective process dictated by the application of the codes of nomenclature. Nomenclature is not the same as taxonomy. How you wish circumscribe (describe) an organism (in your opinion) dictates what synonyms (both objective and subjective) you would include in your circumscription. Once you have decided what 'cloud' of names are 'hanging over' your particular concept of the taxon you then apply the rules of the codes to decide which, amongst your cloud of names, is the correct one to apply to your concept. Applying a higher classification to that concept is again something you must decide. What is clear from this brief discussion of the taxonomic process is that the description, set of synonyms, and higher classification of a species is a subjective judgement - it is personal opinion, i.e. a taxon concept that will have relationships with other taxon concepts of the same 'species'. If you are lucky there will be one or just a few taxon concept clouds hanging over a particular 'species', but in general it isn't that simple. Wikispecies as it stands encompasses just one taxon concept and even that is not attributed to any particular source other than the entry itself. I'm not sure this approach will get us far without arguments breaking out.

Jerry Cooper - Manager New Zealand GBIF Node --Cooperj 01:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input, Jerry. I agree that the taxonavigation as it is makes a wonderful source for arguments that won't lead us anywhere - but it was initially meant to create something like a red line for non-specialist users to guide them to specialist information; at no time it should be an ultimate taxonomic truth (which it wouldn't be in any case, as you correctly pointed out). The problem is, that the additional specialist information (e.g. name, list of homonyms and synonyms, type location etc.) comes in very slowly at the moment; which brings us to the other point you raised, the one of collaborations or alignments.

As far as I know, WIkispecies is the only open directory of species; with this concept it is open to contributions from similar projects without restrictions, really - other than those raised by the community of users (and presently, there are none). Personally, I do appreciate every information added and know that there is a wealth of data in other projects - which we might be able to add through bots at some point. Collaborators are welcome - so do go ahead and invite relevant projects to join our efforts! -Benedikt 08:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikispecies isn't the only open directory of all species. Ecoport ( out of the FAO is at least one project that is open to contributions and has been operational for at least six years.-- 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm going to ask the developers to make interwikis from Wikispecies to Wikipedia possible, like as it is in Commons.

This will have the benefit that interwikis can be viewed better, but we will have to delete all headings "Vernacular names". Maybe a bot can do that.

Is there anyone here who opposes to do this? Ucucha (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not I. I'm all for this plan. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fine with adding the interwiki functionality to wikipedia. It still bothers me that we don't include common names unless an article for that species exists in wikipedia. Open2universe 13:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In an effort to be all inclusive in my user page, I have included links to my user pages on all the sister projects. In most of the sister projects, the shorthand prefixes, such as n: for news, for example, work fine. But in Wikispecies, I have to spell out Wikinews: in order to properly link to my user page in that project. If "adding interwiki functionality" will make Wikispecies more like the other wikis then I'm all in favor of it!GraemeMcRaetalk 01:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's another bug: . This will make the interwikis to Wikipedias appear in the sidebar. Ucucha (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vernacular names

Allthough a lot of the groups you edited may have beautiful Finnish names, please don't add interwikis for which no link exists yet. Only when at 'the other side', there is a corresponding page should an interwiki be established. Thnx. — Lycaon 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok! I have understand that Interwikis are "hidden" from "mainframe" (those links there left column in Wikipedia)
How about vernacular names without parenthesis? Is it ok, if there is not yet target?
There should be chance to add "Common name" (=Vernacular name?) here, even if there never become Wiki-article about it.--Gyllenhali 10:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I refer you to Discussion on vernacular names for this?. — Lycaon 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I read it just. There is many users thinking like me. I don't understand why we shouldn't add common names here? With or without (Wikilink)parentheses. In english Wikipedia there is over 800 thousands articles, but in finnish Wikipedia under 40 thousands. It is impossible that we (about 6 million finnish people) make finnish articles about all species and taxons. But we have own common names for huge amount of species. There is very usefull taxon database, with allmost correct information, but there is no common names :( So, Wikispecies could be better, if we found here common names also. This is my opinion.Gyllenhali 13:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved here from my personal discussion page. Gyllenhali 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arabic Wikispecies

Hello Guys , I want to make an arabic mainpage of wikispecies to begin the project in arabic language , so could i start immediately in making this page as any other page , or i have to apply a request . --Chaos 11:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to see/help create a Wikispecies in français--Super cyclist 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we have to indicate (template) on every level? I understand that people would like a way to quickly determine and edit existing templates, but I find it visually very annoying to see (template) after every level. Do you think that there might be another way to indicate this? Perhaps a more subtle symbol that one could click on? Thanks Open2universe 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe just change it to (t) or (e)[dit]? Ucucha (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm good with the general concept of changing the edit tag, but I do't like (t) or (e) alone (too cryptic), although I'd be good with [edit]. How about +/- as is used on the Main Page? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it's cryptic too... I think all shorter things are cryptic, except [edit], which may still be too long. Ucucha (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the +/- but I agree it may be too cryptic. I would go with [edit] over (template). Open2universe 03:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it's not necessary to indicate it at all. The person editing to add another taxon would edit the original page anyway (to copy existing levels), and then notice the template used. I've been introducing quite a few templates for Crustacean taxa, without mentioning the template. I can only see an issue when the top-level taxa change. — Lycaon 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone please take a look at the varanus template? I tried to add the missing (I think) subgenera and I think I created a FUBAR. Lies Van Rompaey 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Deletion

Can an admin please delete all the [Category:Wikispecies:Images noinfo|images without proper source and license information]]? It's a shame for the other free Wikimedia projects, that all these copyvios are still stored in here. Thank you! -Michael 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

They are still on Wikispecies:Images for deletion; I'll probably have to delete them soon. Ucucha (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxa formatting

To achieve a standard look across Wikispecies, we may have to put up some rules for entering new taxa.

When there are more than one of a certain taxon, it may be advisable to use the plural form of the taxon. Multiple taxa of the same level should then be separated by a nonbreakingspace-dash-space combination ( - ).

Latin taxa and plurals
Taxon (singular) Taxon (plural)
Phylum Phyla
Classis Classes
Ordo Ordines
Familia Familiae
Divisio Divisiones
Cohors Cohortes
Sectio Sectiones
Tribus Tribus
Genus Genera
Species Species
Forma Formae

An Excel-file that facilitates input of multiple taxa can be found here: The file has been fixed.

Lycaon 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The spellings of the rank categories are not those used by various codes of nomenclature, in particular the ICNZ[6]. Please change these to the standard names, or at least give a reference as to where you got these names. Lycaon indicated that you have some sort of "consensus" but in fact it is only an idiosyncratic one. If you want this project to be taken seriously, you need to stick to the international standards. By the way, some rubbish is getting into the Isopod classification. If you want to get it right, check it against the Isopod list at the Smithsonian []. --Isopodz 23:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The various codes are published in various languages and may indeed use the English words for the English version. Wikispecies may become a database some day. When I looked up database standards at the International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases [7] I see that they use the latin names for the higher level taxon. [8]. I prefer to use the latin since wikispecies is not multilingual. Open2universe 02:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll try once again to "bot" a number of pages; see User:UcuchaBot. See User:UcuchaBot/abbotti for an example of the bot pages I'd like to make. Please comment at User:UcuchaBot. Ucucha (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to Wikisource

I have started putting George Bentham's seven volume classic Flora Australiensis on Wikisource. The Banksia section is complete and can be seen at Wikisource:Flora Australiensis Volume V, CIV. Proteaceae, 28. Banksia.

Would it be appropriate to add a link to this from Wikispecies article Banksia? If so, where in the template should I place the link? Snottygobble | Talk 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under "Vernacular names"? That'll be fine when you rename it "Interwikis", I think. Ucucha (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added Template:Wikisourcepar and placed it on Banksia as an example. 14:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error in Eutharia

Hi, I'm from the french wikipedia and I work a little bit to class some species, one of my principal sources is wikispecies.

But I had find some error, or what I mean an error, if someone could affirm what's right:

  • In Mammalia (classis), I can read that there is 2 classifications, ok.
    • In Theria, (subclassis), Eutheria is an infraclassis, ok it's the alternative thing.
      • In Eutheria now, (as an (subclassis)), I see 4 superordo, ok (Xenarthra, Laur..).
        • Now, go on Xenarthra, we see infraclassis: Placentalia (no mention of Eutheria) and ordo: Xenarthra

(My head goes dumb, I don't understand anything more, but I work on.)

My purpose:

Second analyse:

  • On Eutheria page, it's written that Eutheria includes a few extinct genera (O_?) & those Placentalia'.
    • Ok, so in every case Placentalia is an sub-taxon of Eutheria (subclassis or infraclassis, don't care here), I'm not specialist in taxons (that rhyme with anglo-saxon).
      • If Eutheria (infraclassis) > Placentalia (superordo) > Xenarthra (ordo)
      • If Eutheria (subclassis) > Placentalia (infraclassis) > Xenarthra (superordo)
Am I right?

Dumb sources:

  • I notice a link on the Eutheria page: ncbi gov, I go on it, and I see that Placentalia equal Eutheria, grm.
    • I'm agree that Placentalia are the only one survivors of the Eutheria, but I'm not agree to class them as equal as Eutheria.
What's right?

Excuse me for disagreement & my poor english (: fr:Utilisateur:Tvpm 10:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Salut Thomas,
There are indeed (quite) a few inconsistences within the current Mammalian taxonomy on Wikispecies. I guess we are all eagerly awaiting the 3rd edition of Mammal Species of the World, due to come out in December 2005. Hopefully, many issues will then be resolved. So just hang on for a couple more weeks...

Lycaon 10:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
November ;-), not December. Possibly it can already be bought, but I'm not really sure.

I've seen the TOC of MSW 3 already, and - I'm sorry - they don't include any taxa higher than orders.

However, "subclassis Eutheria" is just ridiculous. The subclass, as used by most mammalogists, is Theria, Theriiformes or Holotheria, depending on the fossils that have to be included.

I think the best classification to use as yet is class Mammalia, subclass Theriiformes, infraclass Eutheria, superorder Xenarthra.

But I said: I think. I think (yes, once again ;-)) that that will become a major problem. It is not possible to use multiple classifications for a large group. They are too different. Ucucha (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protista classification

A working classification, apparently complete, of microscopic eukaryotes down to the genus level (mostly Protista) is available through this page. It was developed by David Patterson (see here). Are there copyright issues on plugging the info in the classification into Wikispecies? -- 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC) There are no copyright issues on classifications. However, the proposed classification is quite fragmentary at best. Even concerning protists (cfr micro*scope vs. Systema Naturae 2000. - Lycaon 17:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corrected link to page with Patterson's May 2001 classification. He says: "The classification aspires to include all genera of living protists and prokaryotes." Seems to have more genera than sn2000 in some areas. --Jmb 06:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then please go for it. Do check other pages as for formatting issues. Your input is appreciated. — Lycaon 08:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current best address for the comprehensive genus level coverage of protists is micro*scope [9]. The content is freely available for educational uses, so there is no copyright issue about using the information. The coverage will be extended to include all species names included through the uBio NameBank uBio - several times larger than any other compilation.

Taxonavigation for Protista/Protozoa/Protoctista

Hi, I'm new here. It seems that the aim in the Taxonavigation sections is to present species within a single taxonomic scheme. For example, there is one scheme of subregna shown for Animalia despite other possible schemes. A single list is shown in Canis and Acer despite other possible ways of classifying these (Eutheria instead of Placentalia, for example).

However, it seems that this pattern is not being followed for the Protista/Protozoa. There is no Taxonavigation section at the top of the Protista articles I have seen that just picks one classification. Instead multiple classifications are listed under their author's names.

I am wondering if maybe one classification could be selected for Protista and stuck to. Patterson's multiple rankless lineages are probably not the desired direction. It seems Cavalier-Smith is constantly revising his taxonomy so maybe he's too unstable a pattern to follow. Corliss 1984 is way out of date, I imagine. Are there other options out there? --Jmb 18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The alternative classification should still be mentioned, though. Whether in the discussion page or (maybe better) under a separate header further down the page, should be decided. Be bold. Lycaon 19:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have boldly begun. --Jmb 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Is Amoebozoa the first non-animal phylum to genus level? Woohoo! --Jmb 04:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uBio NameBank

The uBio project is collecting the names of organisms and using them to underpin an array of biodiversity informatics services. This is a useful source of names of all kinds of organisms.

was darf denn nun alles hier publiziert werden?

hallo leute. was darf man denn hier nun alles verewigen? doch wohl nicht ausschliesslich stammbäume, oder? habe grad unter protest den begriff "phycobionta" definiert. Sorry, indeed mainly 'Stammbäume'. Discussions, definitions, descriptions and other similar content should go on the respective wikipedias. Phycobionta might be mentioned under alternative (and obsolete in this case, cause dating from 1978) systematics on the Protista page. - Lycaon 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biological vs. synthetic species

Any objections to including the synthetic species (computer worms, virii, artificial life) in wikispecies?

Botanic tems

Hi. What's the real different between plants with var., ssp. and subsp. in their names? Could someone please explain the terms (in Swedish if possible)? Chrizz 12:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chrizz, a little bit of research on the Internet reveals the following:
You might find similar texts in Swedish, if you look for ICBN. Lycaon 15:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the new logo. But it's too tall. Has anybody noticed that the top and bottom are cut off?

There's a fix for it. Could any sysop move the contents of User:Datrio/monobook.css to MediaWiki:Monobook.css? This will fix the logo problem. Datrio 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page must be erased

Somebody erase this page Meleagris Gallopavo Linnaeus, it's content may be found in Meleagris gallopavo. Thanks

Hi, there are a few issues here.
  • If You make a mistake in the name of a file you can use the move-button on top to correct that.
  • If you add a taxon, make sure that it links to a higher taxon (Psidium_guajava).
  • Don't add higher taxa without integration into the rest of the taxonomy. Alternatively, you may want to be bold and change every page involved.
  • Do get an account to facilitate communication with other Wikispecies-editors.

Thanks. -- Lycaon 08:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone with the know how or the right permission please change the favicon for wikispecies to the new image, currently it shows the wikipedia 'W'. Firefox shows it on the page tab and in the address bar. IE only shows it on the favourites/bookmark list. - Rooivalk 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]