Wikispecies talk:Done and to do

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Koavf in topic Outdated?
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Linnaean system

  • Why do you use the Linnaean system?
  • If you already must, why do you continue to use paraphyletic taxa like Radiata?
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Linnaean system, which remains very popular, or paraphyletic taxa, which are necessary to classify ancestral forms. We should include both options. See wikispecies:Village pump for discussion on how to do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh Grosse (talkcontribs) 18:38, 1 February 2005 (UTC)Reply
this has already been proposed and rejected by the TOL people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply


IMNSHO Wikispecies should merge as soon as possible with The Tree of Life. David Marjanović ( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:06, 1 February 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Is anything being done? IT would be much better to have collaboration on one major project. Also, I suspect there are many articles on wikipedia which can be merged. For instance, random pages like [1] and tons of pictures, which are not on commons. Can they be interwiki linked? I think there should be task forces working on building what is already accomplished at wikipedia and the Tree of Life. (Prehaps there are, but I havn't seen any) 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the Tree of Life content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license which is incompatible with the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license used on Wikispecies so we or they would have to get our contributors to all agree to change the license before we could merge the info. Filceolaire (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bacteria needs templates

Done! (I think, hard to tell if I missed a branch somewhere)
MichielT 11:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


I believe I've got Mammalia and Reptilia down to species list level - although the former doubtless still needs reviewing for MSW3 compatibility, and there's still a lot of detail work to be done. Anaxial


We should get this database done so we can go to other projects. Then the only time we should update is when new annoncements are made. I do not care about biology but I will help the foundation.--Arceus fan 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I enjoy using the random page tool to discover new life forms. However, when I find one, it requires visiting Wikipedia in order to learn more. Is it possible someone could begin a project similar to the interwiki linking from Wikipedia to Wiktionary that links WikiSpecies taxa to Wikipedia articles? Like...create a box that says "Wikipeda has an article on Desmana moschata" that links directly to the Wikipedia article on the Russian Desman? Bob the Wikipedian 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be referring to the links which appear in the left most column of a page; which are links to the taxon pages which exist in the different Wikipedia language projects. This is the bottom most section of the column and is Titled "In Wikipedia" Most of the higher level pages have a number of links, such as those at Vertebrata. It may be that due to the links being the name of the language they might not be recognized as the links they are...--Kevmin 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Homo platyops

I know personally from Meave Leakey that she called this fossil Kenyanthropus platyops, so I miss a reliable source for calling it Homo. --Gerbil 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added the appropriate citation Stho002 23:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm shure that the proposal (as they wrote) of Camilo J. Cela-Conde and Francisco J. Ayala is not an accepted name, so Homo platyops should not be the "offical" name in Wikispecies, but the name of the first description of the fossil as given by M. Leakey. --Gerbil 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's taxonomy - we cannot reject published taxonomic opinions without good taxonomic reasons, so we must follow Cela-Conde and Ayala until such time as a more recent taxonomic publication clearly argues against it. -- Stho002 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply


This list was last edited in 2011, is it up to date? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@PiRSquared17: My best bet for collaborating on this would probably be to ask at the Village_PumpJustin (koavf)TCM 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply