Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 6

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive1
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive2
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive3
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive4 mid February - 4th March 2004

Taxonomic Inconsistencies

I've been looking through the mammal pages and noticed a number of inconsistencies. For instance, the Red Panda is listed as both a member of Procyonidae and Ursidae. The hamsters are listed as both a separate family (Cricetidae) at Rodentia, and as a subfamily of Muridae (Cricetinae). How are such issues to be dealt with? Is there any standard reference on which wikipedia's taxonomic schemes are based? john 19:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, John. Taxonomy is nearly as fluid as it is static; almost as soon as a taxonomy is published, something in the classification is refuted in another work. While this project (ToL) is a great start and an excellent place to ensure consistent policies, there really isn't much standardizing what taxonomies are used. The only exceptions are the "leaf" descendants of this project (Birds, Primates, and Cetaceans). In those projects, we attempt to set policies on taxonomic references, as well as rabble rousing... err... brainstorming new policies for ToL. *grins* If you are particularly moved, I would be very supportive of you starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivora or Insectivora. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, my own taxonomic knowledge is rather limited, or at least dated, largely coming from books I read in my childhood in the late 1980s (Facts on File's Encyclopedia of Mammals from 1986, mostly) so I'm probably not the best person to work on such things. I am always astonished to discover how much the taxonomic scheme has changed in the past 20 years from the scheme elaborated in that book. BTW, there is a wikiproject on Mammals in general, but it is so far rather barebones. It seems to me that the thing to do would be to find the most recent general reference work and follow it, noting where appropriate controversies and suggested alternative arrangements. Trying to assemble all of the most recent articles into a general scheme strikes me as striking at the edges of the "no primary research" rule. Obviously, this would not be primary research, but the process of ourselves constructing a somewhat idiosyncratic general model of the classification of mammals, for instance, strikes me as unwise, given the extent to which this stuff is disputed. It could certainly be accused of being POV. Sticking to a single standard reference work for, say, mammals, would make the most sense. john 00:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Binomial name v. Binomial nomenclature|Binomial name v. Binomial nomenclature

Ok, I can't remember wher the conversation was, but I was arguing against the disambiguation and for 'Binomial nomenclature' at one point, but my discussion partner convinced me that 'Binomial name' was a better. However, I don't believe I ever brought that discussion back to here. The argument that swayed me was that 'binomial nomenclature' refers not just to the name, but to the whole system of naming, while the entry in the taxobox is just the name. Thoughts? I see that mav prefers the disambiguation... - UtherSRG 03:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frankly I don't like any of them. "two name name" is redundant, and "two name system of naming" isn't much better when all we are talking about is the full species name. "Binomial" gets used as a noun and according to Merriam-Webster online is officially a noun meaning:

1 : a mathematical expression consisting of two terms connected by a plus sign or minus sign
2 : a biological species name consisting of two terms

So why not use "binomial". But if its a choice only among those given, I would take "binomial name", without disambig. In this case I think redirecting is good enough. WormRunner | Talk 04:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like the implicity of just plain binomial too. Good idea, WR. Also, I admit to a pet dislike of <binomial nonclementure|binomial name> in the taxoboxes. The less clutter the better. Tannin 05:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have suggested some time ago to stop using the binominal bit at all in favour for the taxon that is applicable to what is discussed. It would be "species" followed by "Genus species". The idea that it is redundant is true. GerardM 05:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the most general term would be systematic name - because in a few cases we might want to use a trinomial (e.g. Canis lupus familiaris). I'm also conscious of the more general reader - plain "binomial" might be confusing or offputting. Among those suggested, "binomial name" is probably the least bad; the reasons stated against the alternatives are cogent, and the only objection that's been raised against it is that it is a tautology. But it's only a literal tautology if the reader knows Latin; and really it is not a tautology at all, because it is a compressed form of "name within the binomial system" - i.e. the two "name" particles within the phrase have different implicit references, one to the organism and the other to the system. seglea 19:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could go for "Systematic name" -- WormRunner | Talk 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object - systematic name is way too general. Best to link to Binomial name or Trinomial name as appropriate. --mav 07:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes systematic name is an inappropiate target, first thing you see there is chemistry. We are probably worrying too much over last detail of the taxoboxes right now. The next software release will support parameterized templates. We will be able to set up a template for a species taxobox, and then tweak that to our hearts content. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikibook Tree of Life

In case anyone's interesting, I've decided to expand my Wikibooks:Dichotomous Key to be interlinked with a comprehensive Wikibooks:Field Guide for all life forms. It's kind of the Wikibook Tree of Life. Tuf-Kat 10:10, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sharing Taxonomic information in a mulitlingual_environment

is a article on the Village pump about how we may enable better cooperation between the different wikipedias. The subject's talk space is preferably on the meta wikipedia as this is a discussion for all wikipedia's.

To my delight, it has resulted in the implementation of part of the idea on the de: wikipedia. To my disappointment, I have not seen any response from the en: wikipedia. The discussion is ongoing and the input from en:wikipedia is important. So please have a look, have a thought and let us cooperate.

Thanks, GerardM 11:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess it just was drowned by all the other topics in the pump, which is way overcrowded nowadays. But if I understand your intention correctly the main thing you want is to be able to translate taxoboxes more easily. That one will solve itself quite easily once the Mediawiki software have parameters for the msg's - then we'd have just one taxobox for the species level, one for genus level. Then it's just left to have the parameter easy to translate, e.g. by always using the latin names in them. andy 13:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current status and translatable taxoboxes

The taxoboxes can be easily translated already. See Ruffe for an example of a taxobox that was translated from nl: to en: using existing message syntax. The German wikipedia has set the usage of the messages as their standard. They intend to change their taxoboxes using a robot and it will be possible to translate their taxoboxes to any other wikipedia that adheres to the mechanism.

The intention is to get cooperation going between the different wikipedia's. Standard exist in many wikipedias and when we can agree to the same standards a lot of donkeywork will become unnecessary. This means that we have to talk not on a local level but on a multi-wikipedia level. It means that we come to a standard for all wikipedia's not just on translatable taxoboxes.

My intention is to translate a lot of stuff to for instance the Farsi wikipedia. This means that it is important to talk and look at each others standards. GerardM 17:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question

If there was a bot that would change all occurrences of "regnum:" into "Template:Regnum: or ({{msg:regnum}}" would that be OK ? GerardM 20:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why would you want to do that? --mav 23:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is this discussion on translating taxoboxes and taxolists to other languages and, changing taxoboxes would tanslate all taxoboxes in one go when the appropriate messages exist on the receiving end. PS I can do this when en:wikipedia is on the receiving end. ruffe..

The reason for this question is to take this possibility serious. And discuss this matter on meta. GerardM 11:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

taxobox images

I editted the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Images_and_maps section, adding starting guidelines for image sizes: 200px for the main image. I think at the very least, that's as small as it should be made. Significantly larger and the taxobox encroaches on the article text. 250px is probably fine if needed. Also, it's not needed to upload both a 750px and a 250px image now that we have the auto-resizing: [[image:myimage.750px.jpg|200px|My Image]] - UtherSRG 14:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

taxobox centering

The taxobox "designs" on the "Project" page do not match those presented in the discussions here. I suppose there must be discussion of the design change here somewhere, but the "settled" upon formats are ugly and difficult to implement in HTML. It makes no sdsense to "center" lists of species (or whatever) and not center titles - that is (IMHO) backwards from good HTML and graphical design. Also, a majority of the taxoboxes out there (that I have encountered) are non-conforming to the Project design. I suggest we provide the examples to the Wikipedians for a vote. - Marshman 18:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm suspecting now that your browser is possibly causing you some problems. (Much like it did Mirv awhile back.) The tag should get rendered as if it were with its contents bolded. - UtherSRG 18:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How interesting. Yes, the bolds but does not center. Is that because I have the "wrong" version of IE? Could it be that many others get the taxoboxes set up with left justification instead of centering? I do recall some time ago thinking that the tag should auto-center, but noting that it (at that point) no longer did - Marshman 02:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of species common names again

Somewhere along the line, while I apparently wasn't watching closely enough :-) and I can't tell from the lengthy page history, somebody changed the capitalization rule for common names from just birds and mammals to all species, and yet I don't think there is any consensus that it is the right general rule. As I've mentioned before, FishBase, the largest collection of fish species names in the known universe, doesn't capitalize them, and I'm not seeing much capitalization with the beetle stuff I've been working on more recently. So where are these policy changes coming from? Stan 16:36, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I, too, am having a great deal of difficulty with this. I remember people wanting to capitalize the FIRST letter of names (with which I and the entire American botanical scientific community disagree), but NEVER every word in a name. Yet, people are acting as if this were a done deal. jaknouse 17:40, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Firstly and in general, it comes from commonality. It make sense to have a consistent naming convention for all organisms. Second, the discussion in Birds is as applicable to other organisms as it is to the bird: to wit, it sets the common name of the species apart from potential problems and outright confusing terms. Third, the scientific community is of so many different minds, each small little subgrouping has their own way of doing things. Whenever an author crosses those borders and makes a work that is more inclusive, they have to pick and choose what convention they will follow. For instance, in The Variety of Life (Oxford University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-19-850311-3), Colin Tudge documents the entire tree of life as best he could. He had to pick and choose carefully what naming convention he would use. He eventually settled on one and uses it throughout the book, regardless of what convention the authorities in the various different biologies use. WikiProject Tree of Life is much like that; we're a single work. We should have a singe naming convention. - UtherSRG 18:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't care that FishBase doesn't capitalize, or that some other collection uses all caps, or another uses mixed large and small caps. It's not a relevant point. These collections each made a decision on what convention to use based upon their needs and what they felt would work best for them and their users. We must do the same. So where does that leave us?

1. ALL CAPS - works with the software
2. [[MIXED CAPS]] or [[MIXED CAPS]] - doesn't work with the software
3. ''italics'' - doesn't work with the software
4. all lower - links are identical to All lower, breaks Birds
5. First upper - links are identical to first upper, breaks Birds
6. All Upper - works with the software
7. 'single quoted'
8. ???

- UtherSRG 18:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A couple of comments. I think the software should be changed so that having two different articles with different case is not possible, e.g. Yerba buena vs. Yerba Buena. Second, a lower case search should find the article, no matter what the case of the article may be. That said, I think either all lower or All Upper (my preference) would work for common names, but lets nail it down. WormRunner | Talk 18:46, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Case-insensitivity is frequently proposed, but the result would be chaos - there are thousands of articles that would have to be renamed and relinked. People who've looked at the full scope have thrown up their hands and gone to do other things. :-) Stan 19:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last consensus I know about was that different specialties were free to do whatever seemed best for them; birds could be one way, fish another. While consistency is good, there have been no lack of local controversies in WP because of ill-advised attempts to enforce consistency on a large scale; to take two classic examples where we've had to agree to be inconsistent, both January 1 and 1 January are accepted date formats, and we've agreed to have London instead of London, England but Seattle, Washington instead of Seattle, effectively a per-country naming rule for cities. Now if everybody except me who works regularly on ToL wants to capitalize species names, I'll go along and only grumble a little, but it looks more UtherSRG has decided to "be bold" and decide this unilaterally, and that's not really the right way to change policy. Stan 19:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While I dislike the date and city inconsistencies, that's not my area of interest, so I ignore it. *grins* Actually, there are plenty of those inconsistencies, but I never notice them. They don't distract me from the work I'm doing. The common name issue does distract me and it is at time problematic. The problem was initially discovered before my time with the Birds. Pete and I adopted it when we created the Primates and Cetaceans Projects. I don't see what the problem is, why people don't think this is a reasonable direction to move in. As for my unilateral effort, it may seem so, but I was only the front guy doing the more public changes, and there has been discussion (I believe Archive 3) about this. - UtherSRG 05:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of All Caps style, because it is internally consistent and always predictable. You don't have to ask people to decide whether something should, or shouldn't, be capitalised based on its etymology - which can, in many cases, be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find out, or may be subject to major dispute. It also looks a lot less messy than a list of species with some capitalised, others not, often on a seemingly random basis. That hints at either sloppy editing, or else hidden secret knowledge not permitted to the common person. - MPF 20:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And a philosophical point: if people's personal names, and place names, are both proper names to be capitalised, why not also organism names? Is Ponderosa Pine any less a proper name than David Douglas or Columbia River? Personally, I think they are of equal status. - MPF 20:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The proper name argument is weak, because then why only species and no other taxa? As you know, half the time specialists can't even decide where one species ends and the next begins, so it's kind of arbitrary to capitalize one taxon in the middle ( :-) ) of the tree. Stan 22:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not in the middle of the tree! - infraspecific taxa, if they have distinct vernacular names, also get caps, e.g. Shore Pine, Bewick's Swan; though of course by and large, infraspecific taxa don't merit their own wiki pages. And anyway, as authors, we all make decisions on where each species begins/ends, as wiki pages do have defined ends, so we have to make the decision. - MPF 23:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Middle of the tree" was a joke, dude. My question is still why species have "proper names" but not families - isn't the family name a proper name too? Stan 00:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's an ambiguity thing, Stan. Part of the purpose of a species name is to make it immediately clear that this is a particular, exact species we are talking about here. Otherwise, we would never know if the author meant a Barn Owl or a barn owl. Tannin

That's a different argument from what MPF was making. It's one that sounds sort of plausible at first, but it's actually kind of bizarre - after all, if these are formalized common names (they have to be formalized in order to make them designate only one species rather than several), why not pick a formalized name that is different from the group name? At least it used to be the case that people used terms like "common barn owl" to designate a species for which one had no better qualifier - when did that become unfashionable? As I mentioned in previous discussion, I think this whole thing is a birders' idiosyncrasy that was adopted in a couple field guides, and is now being propagated into other categories without much thought and by nonspecialists, not unlike the Amurricans who want to move the article to London, England "because it's more consistent". Stan 05:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is a different argument. There are several good reasons behind the convention that species names are capitalised. Stan writes that it used to be the case that people used terms like "common barn owl" to designate a species. You see, that is exactly the point. The phrase "common barn owl" indicates a frequently occuring creature without specifing its species. It might be Phodilus badius, Tyto alba, Tyto novaehollandiae, or any of a dozen others - we cannot tell. The phrase "Common Barn Owl", on the other hand indicates a particular exact species - or it would if there was a species with that name - and does not make any comment about the frequency with which it is found. Tannin

People have been writing about species without using caps and without confusion for many years, and were always able to figure out whether "common" was an adjective or a part of a name. By that reasoning, languages that didn't have multiple cases would have a serious problem talking about species, yet I think they manage to cope. Like any other bit of bizarrity in language, if you do it that way for long enough, it will come to seem normal and everybody else will seem weird. (Wasn't it you that once said that if the lower case convention were adopted, you would stop working on bird content altogether?) Anyway, capitalized fish species names in fish articles look totally strange, as if they had been invaded by a bunch of Germans still not clear on the conventions of English. :-) Stan 17:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's try that again, shall we? Read as: decapitialised species names look totally strange, as if we had been invaded by a bunch of Americans still not clear on the conventions of English. (Sorry for the low blow, Stan, but that last comment was begging for it.) :) Tannin

Hee hee, although you don't want to suggest it's an American/British English thing, because then no agreement is possible! :-) Stan 06:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And it wouldn't be correct, 'cos I'm an American. :) - UtherSRG 05:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The caps convention also avoids abominations like The green female red crossbill or The common crossbill is rare in Cornwall. There is almost always a lower case redirect for bird articles. Do articles with lower case titles normally have a capped redirect? jimfbleak

Apparently "abomination" is in the eye of the beholder - your examples seem clear enough to me. Stan 17:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the caps/lowercase differentiation in article titles -- for an example, I believe that Continental divide is about the subject in general, while Continental Divide is about the one in the western U.S. It might be possible, however, to have an insertable code so that we can edit a page so that a particular page comes up whether it's in lowercase or caps, but the default is still to have different pages for one case or the other. In any case, the scientific birder community that I know of capitalizes only the first word, if I'm not mistaken. jaknouse 06:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I subscribe to about 6 scientific birding publications, and a range of more popular ones too, and they all use caps. Tannin

To get back to my original point, I'm not in favor of having a capitalization rule for all species, and unless a lot more than three people speak in favor of UtherSRG's change, I'm going to put it back to "birds and mammals required, optional for other categories". Stan 17:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So far on this recent discussion, I count five in favour, two against :-) - MPF 20:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, time to advertise a little more widely... :-) Stan 06:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah... since I tend to get into some hot water with adverting, perhaps someone could suggest the next advertising venue? - UtherSRG 05:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I use rather a small screen, so I am outdenting again, though this isn't a really new point. Just to say that as one fairly regular contributor to various taxa, I actually don't care what convention we adopt, though it would be nice to be at least moderately consistent - say within orders. I take the point about All Caps looking a bit Germanic (or, worse, like something that's escaped from a Daily Torygraph leader page), but you soon stop seeing that. Just to toss a couple of more general points into the stew:

1. Although ornithological sources do tend to use All Caps style, the rest of the scientific literature doesn't, even when writing about birds. In fact I didn't know about All Caps till I got told off by Ibis for not using it - journals like Animal Behaviour (the premier journal for ethology, and conveniently Anglo-American) don't, or didn't the last time I noticed, and if I tried to do it in a psychology journal (where I do write about birds), I'd be toast.
2. Anyone who publishes regularly knows that different publishers have different conventions about all sorts of thing, including this one (but also including things like US/International spelling, abbreviation styles, and even idiocies like "London, England"). Although most of us have personal preferences, we soon get used to copyeditors having the final say (and compared with what they have sometimes done to my carefully crafted prose, the odd bit of butchery of capitals by a fellow-Wikipedian seems positively constructive). Wikipedia is a bit different just because it's democratic, and we can have a civilised discussion about it rather than just accepting a publisher's say-so; but in the end, there probably isn't One Best Way, and the consensus for the time being just has to be binding. A useful general convention is to set a time limit on discussions - and then a time horizon during which we'll all get on with writing articles before raising a particular contentious point again.

Sorry, this is all rather sententious and obvious, but someone did ask for my opinion. seglea 06:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I checked the books I have lying around, and Seglea's right. I don't have anything specifically ornithological, and books on general zoology, invertebrates, fish, and the like never capitalized species names beyond the first word, except in titles. The only exception was the Audubon Field Guide to North American Insects and Spiders. -- Josh

Please stop capitalizing common plant names. Mackerm 20:29, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

MPF - I believe you are our resident botanist. *grins* Wanna weigh in? I think everyone knows I want 'em capped. - UtherSRG 20:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Guess everyone knows I'm strongly in favour of it too; I've already outlined my reasons in addition to those given by Uther, Tannin and others. Above all, what I want to see is consistency - so I would have no real objection to lower case, provided they are all lower case, including things like douglas-fir. What I detest is the inconsistent random capitalisation of some names but not others; the only reason I can see for doing this is so that those who know what 'should' be capitalised can sneer at those (the great majority) who don't. Interesting to add too, I've yet to see any coherent reasons for not using caps; all I've seen is appeals to other publications that happen not to use them, without saying why they shouldn't be used. - MPF 21:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I heartily recommend http://www.onelook.com/ . It looks up words in several dictionaries, and should give you a good idea if a plant is named after a person or proper place, thus deserving capitalization. Mackerm 23:30, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't work for e.g. Pohutukawa. And I can think of plenty more that are not what would be expected, or are open to debate. And lists with some capitalised, some not, are inconsistent, so even if the "correct" form can be found, it still both confusing (implying that some taxa of equal taxonomic rank are of different status) and looks awful. And I'm still waiting for a rational, logical argument in favour of having mixed capitalisation :-) MPF 23:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I've given the real explanation for capitalization: it's the same for any other word. Proper nouns are capitalized, others aren't. Mackerm 00:05, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

But why should they be? - MPF 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to clean up after yourself? Mackerm 00:50, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

See capitalization (English, not Latin). It lists no exceptions. Mackerm 08:28, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

If you are refering to the "proper noun" rule, then what MPF has previously said, and I agree with, is that the common name (especially the official common name) of a species is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. - UtherSRG 11:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG alludes to an interesting point - "official" common name. In some areas there is a notion of an official common name, others not. For instance, FishBase lists dozens and sometimes hundreds of common names for a species, and identifies them by role (vernacular vs market), language and country/organization using them, but none of these are "official". I've been reading Gledhill's book on plant names, and he mentions some amusing traditional names, such as "Welcome home husband however drunk you may be", and "meet her i'th' entry kiss her i'th' buttery". I'll bet nobody in the world writes these as "Welcome Home Husband However Drunk You May Be" or "Meet Her I'Th' Entry Kiss Her I'Th' Buttery" (heh, now they look like country music song names). Stan 13:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, those would be odd names to make an organism's official name, but not impossible. Also, many have multiple common names. Many don't have any common name. Some have official and unofficial common names. There is great variety. However, even those that have many common names but no official ones, some common names are more .... err... common ... than others. Sometimes it is possible to idenitfy a small number of common names and treat them all as official common names. - UtherSRG 15:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there is no One Perfect System. It would possibly be better to use all lower case, if and only if we had some other easy way to denote the word or phrase as the name of a species, such as a different font. At this point, I don't think that's a reasonable possibility. (If we were starting the 'pedia from scratch and this were a pre-writing planning meeting, I might advocate for using something other than what we are doing, possibly all caps or a different font. But this isn't.) Certainly capitalizing the common name of an organism isn't the most horrendous thing in the world. I think ithas significantly more positives than negatives. I'd rather read "I enjoyed seeing the Meet Her I'Th Entry Kiss Her I'Th Buttery this afternoon." than "I enjoyed seeing the meet her i'th entry kiss her i'th buttery this afternoon."! The caps sets the 'phrase' apart as something distinct, instead of a string of words to be parsed for meaning along a garden path sentence. - UtherSRG 15:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree using "official" common names, whenever possible. On the other hand, if there is no official common name and you know where the common name is used, then you mention it. A good example is the website of the "World Dictionary of Trees', for which I give here an arbitrary example Abies amabilis. This may complicate the workload, but it could be helpful. JoJan 15:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Taxomsgs

GerardM has gone ahead and modified the taxobox for Ruffe to use his new TaxoMsgs. While I like the concept, I dislike the implementation. Perhaps I'm being EN-wiki-centric, but I'd much prefer the msg names to be in English. I tried making {{msg:kingdom}} as a redirect, but unfortunately msgs don't like redirects. - UtherSRG 05:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GerardM has reverted Uther's edit, and I have just dereverted it. There's a bit of history on this - read Talk:Ruffe for information. seglea 06:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you sort of did, because I had partially accepted his changes (accepted the {{msgs}} but corrected his mistakes. Just about all the taxoarticles I've editted today I've done with the {{msgs}}. [1] I think it's handy. If we ever decide (again!) to change how that portion of the taxobox is going to look, all we have to do is change the message text instead of editting each taxobox. I still would prefer the message names to be in English, though, or for MediaWiki to correctly utilize redirected messages. - UtherSRG 20:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason for using the latin is, that it is the lingua franca of taxonomy. For a very long time a taxonomic description was not valid unless it was written in Latin. So when you know your taxonomy, you know at least these few words. By copying an msg:taxobox to Swedish or french or dutch or german it will provide you with the locally accepted text. When a new taxonomic revision is accepted, the messages will enable a bot to updat all occurences of a taxon in ALL wikipedias. This means that wikipedia will be able to follow accepted science and easily have all wikipedia up to the latest standard. An other benefit is that sceleton articles can be produced for many species genuses etc using the latin name and when people want to localise, they can rename the article. This in turn allows bots to update the backlinks.

NB the discussion on all of this is still best held at meta:wikipedia. GerardM 22:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That may be true in non-English speaking countries, but all the biology courses I've taken I've never seen 'regnum', 'classis' or 'ordo'. None of the books or field guides I have use them. English speakers interested in taxonomy use 'kingdom', 'class' and 'order'. - UtherSRG

The "Tokyo code" for botanical nomenclature Article 3 names both English and the Latin names for the taxa. Orignially in taxonomy all descriptions needed to be in Latin to be valid. GerardM 15:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense... and it also explains that I'm as right as you are. In a primarily English-language country like mine (US), where elementary school kids are taught about the Animal Kingdom and the Plant Kingdom, it makes sense to keep that going into middle- and high-school and then into college, refining the information presented but still keeping with KPCOFGS in English. It's acceptable and understandable. In other countries where English is not the primary language, they can choose to use English or Latin, which ever is locally preferred. So again I say - I prefer the tags to be in English. This is EN Wiki and English is one of the acceptable languages for the names of the taxonomic ranks. However, it's not as strong a preference as my preference for All Caps common names; I've already started using the regnum messages in the articles I'm editting. - UtherSRG 17:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It might be best to wait for the 1.3 version of MediaWiki to be released before making these changes to the taxoboxes, as Template parameters will be enabled then. See the example on the TestWikipedia. Angela. 01:48, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Would it? I'm not sure that 1.3's changes have any bearing on this. We're talking about using {{msg:regnum}} v. {{msg:kingdom}}. 1.3 would just change that to {{regnum}} v. {{kingdom}}. Take a look at the taxobox on Ruffe. We're not talking about the value of "Animal" or "Chordata". We're talking about the name of the tag that creates the text "Kingdom" in the table.- UtherSRG 12:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Currently, most taxoboxes don't include either {{msg:regnum}} or {{msg:kingdom}}, so what I mean is wait until the taxoboxes can have these as parameters, rather than adding them as separate messsages, and then having to change them all to match the format used by parameters in 1.3. It just saves having to do everything twice. For example, {{msg:regnum}} and the rest of them should be changed to {{Taxobox|regnum=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}} etc. You only need one "Taxobox" message, rather than separate ones for regnum, phylum etc. Angela. 16:56, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Still, will the 1.3 changes allow regnum and kingdom to be interchangeable, so that {{Taxobox|regnum=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}} would work equally well as {{Taxobox|kingdom=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}}? - UtherSRG 19:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Template:Infobox page would need to include either kingdom or regnum. You couldn't have both in the same message, though you could have an alternative infobox at a different page title that used the alternative version. Angela. 20:23, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a qualified yes to me. *grins* - UtherSRG 21:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One big thing with messages is that it makes life easy for a bot. When a "<nomsg>Template:Genus</nomsg> Oldname" is to be replace with "<nomsg>Template:Genus</nomsg> Newname", it will be possible to replace all occurrences in all wikipedias when new taxonomic science mandates the change. This is correct as science is science (taxonomy) wherever you live. When taxoboxes are uniform in all languages which they are not at present, it will be possible to do things with changes (and even inclusions) of higher taxons.

When the use of messages is used from now on as a standard, the presentation in all wikipedia's will remain the same. But all the side benefits are there for everyone to use. My point is, when we start using the messages from now on, we will benefit. 1.3 is simply running a bot one time to change to a new format. But PLEASE let us decide on one standard and not use English only because _this_ is the English language, we are _all_ contributing to wikipedia and there are more than 500.000 articles. GerardM 19:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes Gerard, I understand your point. However, by sheer American numbers and by our own historical arrogance, more folks interested in taxonomy know "Kingdom" than know "Regnum"; and I'd guess that those that do know "Regnum" also know "Kingdom". Then add on the "unwashed masses" who will be editting without much understanding of the science... they've just found a critter that needs to be added and found the data on it online or whereever - again the sheer numbers of English speakers using Wikipedia plus those who prefer "Kingdom" to "Regnum" significantly out number those who don't speak English and who prefer "Regnum" to "Kingdom". - UtherSRG 20:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image query

This section was originally on User talk:UtherSRG.

What's the thinking behind re-reformatting images like Nicobar Pigeon and Green Imperial Pigeon? The newest version is, IMHO, unnecessarily small, lacks the thumb icon, so it's not obvious that there is a larger image, even though it can be accessed by clicking on the image, and has lost the caption; if the caption is giving more than just a name, shouldn't it be on view, and not just floating? I'm not convinced that this is a step forward. Jim

Size is relative. *grins* I prefer the smaller size, but that's a matter of taste. I seriously dislike the ugly gray border and mag-icon of the thumb nail. I'd rather that space be used for the actual image instead. For Nicobar, "Adult" didn't seem to add anything significant. I left the caption for the Green Imperial. - UtherSRG 18:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, from Adrian. I took the two photos so I've an interest in the appearance of the two pages.

First, I can see no objection to the grey background to the text. I think it looks smart and is part of the new standard syntax. I don?t see why the grey should not be used in taxoboxes if it?s cropping up everywhere else.

Secondly, I like the mag glass because the reader instantly knows a big pic is available. A reader might miss out on the large pic if clicking on the pic did not occur to them. I can?t see how a tiny icon is offensive!

Thirdly, why are the pics reduced to 200 pixels wide when 250px has always been used in the past for taxoboxes, apparently without any problems for low res screens.

So, my suggestion is that the pics are reverted to grey text area with mag glass, at 250px wide (but I'm not brave enough to do it!).

In this particular case I don?t think text is needed, the type of bird is stated directly above the pic and the Adult statement seems pointless.

Adrian Pingstone 20:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, size is relative. I use very high res, so it makes little difference to me... but with the grey there isn't much difference in the size. The grey is just wasted space in the taxobox. - UtherSRG 20:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah... I remember my other reason.... the width of the text in the taxoboxes is often closer to 200px or less. - UtherSRG 21:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the Tree of life talk page, and the decision to reduce the standard picture size down from 250px doesn't seem to be in there, although you suggest that 200-250 px is acceptable. On the project page, the recommendation seems to be yours. I can live without the mag glass, but my view is that the images should go back to the previous 250, and, if we are not using the mag, to revert to the media: format to make it clear that there is a larger image.

However, I don't want to start an edit war just yet, so I want to consult Bigiron and Tannin as the other main pic contributors. Jim

---

I have a very clear and firm view on this matter, gentlemen. Unfortunately, I don't agree with any of you!

Image quality is paramount. Anything that produces a fuzzed-up, greyed-out image is not to be considered. In short, there is only one acceptable way to do a taxobox illustration, and that is to use a thumbnail image that has been appropriately cropped and resized by a human being.

This is the only way to get decent picture quality - and when you only have 200 or 250 pixels to work with, picture quality is everything.

Now to minor matters. The best size, in my view, is usually around 225 or 230 pixels. But this should never be made into an absolute number. It depends on the size and resolution of the source image (not all images can be shrunk to an arbitary number without noticable quality degredation), on the nature of the image (different angles of different creatures under different lighting conditions all produce different imperatives from the point of view of sizing - for example, a large creature with a small feature of particular interest such as the head may be best sized up towards the top of the 200 - 250px range, or a tall, narrow shot of an upright bird may be best kept down towards 200px to avoid either cutting its tail off or having the taxobox scroll off the screen), and on the text in the taxobox (some boxes are wide even before the image is added because the creature has a very long name, so it makes sense here to use a wider than average image size).

I don't like the grey border, but that is just a matter of personal taste. I particularly dislike the way that the new image code breaks page layouts on my preffered browser (Opera 6.06). Again though, that is a matter for the developers to decide. It seems that they have exercised their right to implement code that breaks some browsers. That's OK. In turn, some users (such as me) exercise our right to avoid using the new, broken code in favour of the old code that, although it does not offer the nice feature of clicking directly on the image to see a larger version, at least does not break browsers and actually produces the only thing that really matters - image quality. Tannin 08:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Compare:

File:NP225.jpg

Speaks for itself, doesn't it.

PS: has anybody noticed that I no longer provide full-size images to the 'pedia? This is no accident. By only providing thumbnails, I ensure that they don't get buggerised about and turned into grey fuz the way that the left and centre images above are.) Tannin 08:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

File:IP225.jpg

Examine the right-most thumbnail above. Once again, you can only get decent image quality by combining the two most important bits of photographic equipment ever invented - the human eye and a human brain. Tannin

A couple of points, Tony .....(Uther, sorry to hijack your Talk Page but best to keep the discussion in one place)

Yes, of course 250px taxobox width is not set in concrete, I just simplified what I wrote to avoid wittering on for ever but I do see it as a "most-likely" value.

We are in complete disagreement on how important the thumb quality is. I regard the big pic as being the important one because if someone wants to download the pic for a project or homework (or just see a big image) then surely they'll open the big one. I regard the thumb as a "taster" of what the big one will look like. It's a shame you're not giving your audience a chance to see a decently big pic but it's clear you have very strong feelings on this question.

Thanks for the work you did on uploading the examples. I didn't know that the machine-generated thumbs were indifferent until I saw your hand-generated ones. Nevertheless, that doesn't change my mind that the machine quality is good enough. In any case what's the choice - mass reversion of the thousands of pics in the new code? Too late!

I didn't know that the new code breaks Opera (I have IE6), in which case it should never have been issued. The problem now is that the code is everywhere. Someone, for example, has systematically changed about 600 of my pics to the new code. Luckily I like the grey, I like the mag glass, and the thumbnail quality is OK for me.

Best Wishes, Adrian

Adrian Pingstone 10:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah -- poor Uther. Sorry about your talk page, mate. :)

I don't mind my talk being hi-jacked, although I'll probably move the text to a ToL talk page later today so that folks who have it on their watchlist can be notified, and for later archival. - UtherSRG 12:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restrict my main attention to the bird and mammal pictures, Adrian. I do do through those from time to time and systematically revert the fuzzy thumbnails. (Not many lately, I'm tied up in other projects just now.) I appreciate your point of view, nevertheless I maintain my own view that first impressions count for a great deal and that, in consequence, sharp thumbnails are the #1 priority. Tannin

PS. Adrian wrote: I didn't know that the machine-generated thumbs were indifferent until I saw your hand-generated ones. That, my friend, is because you just blew your disposable income for the year on a new camera, when what you really needed was a nice new 22 inch monitor. :) Tannin

It seems I'm between Tony and Adrian on this. Image quality is important to me, but I think that quality is best found in the large image. I prefer using the large image auto-resized to eliminate a line in the taxobox for the additional link needed for a seperate image. I dislike the gray border and mag-icon; they take up space in the taxobox (I don't mind them outside the box). So I suppose my main concern then is minimizing the taxobox footprint while maintaining a reasonable level of quality information (text and image) in the box. finer quality data is outside of the box - the text of the main article, and the larger image. - UtherSRG 12:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My opinion on this is closest to Tannin's. I prefer 250px wide images and I don't like the automatically-resized images. However, if someone is going to use them, there should be some kind of clear indication that this is not the original image size. In general, if there are some new rules to be imposed on the use of images in taxoboxes, then I think that the discussion belongs with the respective projects and shouldn't be some unilateral decision. That seems to run contrary to the Wikipedia concept. Big Iron 10:30 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

range maps

Lupo has recently added some range maps to articles, which I then moved into the taxobox. He didn't like it there, and said there wasn't concensus here. I note that a few weeks ago I updated the Project page to indicate that range maps go into the taxobox. Do we need this discussed again? - UtherSRG 16:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed that we should put them in the taxobox - and I support doing so if the discussion is reopened

Well, I looked over the archives and found some who thought that they should go in, and some statements that they might just as well remain with the text. I think it depends. Especially in smaller articles, maps unduly blow up the taxobox, to the point where the taxobox becomes too large for the article and is perceived (at least by me) as visual clutter distracting from the article. Putting maps into the box also incurs the risk of the map getting separated from a possible accompagnying (sp?) paragraph. I usually also describe the range textually (helps e.g. blind people with a Braille reader), and I don't want a sighted reader to have to scroll or change his focus of attention to see the map that goes with the text. I have nothing agaist other people putting range maps into taxoboxes, but I object to moving maps from the text into the taxobox indiscriminately without considering the general layout of an article or the effects such a move may have on the ease of reading. Lupo 10:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

updates, archive

We're at 44k for the talk. I think it's time to evaluate the discussions here, see what conclussions have been reached, update the Project page, and archive some of the discussions. Since I seem to be the center of controversy these days, I'll leave it to someone more neutral to deal with, unless there's concensus that I can go ahead and do it. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

I have been doing some background work on the APG, and have become convinced that we should standardise on using their (APG II) classifications for everything they cover. I have done a page about them, which essentially explains why. Their major oeuvre is conveniently available online (you can get it as a pdf if you want a printout). I'd welcome comments on this proposal, especially if other contributors have reasons why we shouldn't follow APG - although I have been doing a lot of plant pages lately, I am not a botanist at all (though I have been working with cluster analysis since almost before it existed, so I do understand what taxonomists are up against). seglea 00:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Motion seconded. I'm not a botanist either, but I looked at a variety of classification schemes, and those based on modern phylogenetic techniques tend to be very close to APG when not identical. The current list of dicot orders follows APG. By the way, shouldn't this be on a separate page, like Talk:Magnoliophyta or Wikipedia:WikiProject Magnoliophyta? -- Josh

I mostly agree with Josh on both points. APG II seems like the right way to go. It's always difficult work to create Wiki taxonomic articles (or other taxonomic websites) knowing that the rug could be pulled out from under your feet at any moment. APG II is rather young and may need corrections, but any revisions would come out way before the work here was completed, so I don't see any reason in that regard to hold off from starting. A WikiProject should be created to help shepherd this effort, although I don't think talking about starting a project needs a project. *grins* - UtherSRG 11:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Taxonomy authority links

I have noticed that we now try to give proper scientific names including the taxonomy authority, e.g. for the Rosy Barb "Barbus conchonius Hamilton-Buchanan 1822", typically with the name and year linked. Is there aleady an agreed link format for these authorities? Now "Hamilton-Buchanan" is a simple case, for there will most probably never be a name clash with something completely unrelated.

However, take Girard for instance: that link goes to a disambig page for places. Not exactly what I'd expect when I see the link as a taxonomy authority... I have therefore started to use the canonical format [[Name (taxonomy)|]] as in Girard, which I then make a redirect to the page on the person, in this case, Charles Frédéric Girard. The advantage of this format is that I don't have to worry about inadvertently linking to some place or other unrelated entry, and I don't have to go figure out the full name of the person just to add the link.

Only when the link just added turns up red, I have to go do some research and find out something about the person. (Incidentally, I believe when one adds a taxonomy authority link, one should also do some reasonable effort to write the article behind the link, even if it's just a stub. Just adding lots of red links doesn't help. And in some cases, articles on the person already exist, and one needs just to do the redirect.)

Lupo 07:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Another entry where the authority link went haywire is the Zebra Danio, where the link was just Hamilton. I really think when one links taxoauthorities, adding " (taxonomy)|" to the link helps a lot avoiding confusions. Lupo 08:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

You are mostly right. Using [[Name (taxonomy)|]] is a good idea when just the plain [[Name]] goes to the wrong place. However, I've had trouble finding just who an author is and prefer to leave the link red for someone to fix who knows how to fix it. Also, it is better to not leave the " (taxonomy)|" trick in the page, once the actual article is know, instead use [["Real Name"|"Name"]] instead. - UtherSRG 11:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

But I add " (taxonomy)|" precisely to make sure I get a red link and don't link inadvertently to some place name that would show up blue and give no indication whatsoever that actually nobody has yet checked the name give. And yes, tracking down those names is hard work, some are really obscure and cost me easily an hour to assemble enough info for a short stub. And why not leave the pipe trick in? Anyone who clicks on the link will probably not be surprised if he or she ends up on a page saying "Redirected from...". Lupo 12:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I also think it is a good thing to create a redirect from the non-piped name: Thiele, for example. - UtherSRG 12:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

As long as that doesn't conflict again, cf. Hamilton or Girard above! Lupo 12:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If you don't have a full name, just use "Hamilton" or "Girard" by itself - it's effectively a note that more disambiguation needs to be added, and people who are good at that sort of thing will fix it up later. If we do that repeatedly, eventually Hamilton etc will link to a list of Hamiltons that includes voila! the scientist you were looking for. Linking to "Hamilton (taxonomy)" means that no one will notice the needed disambiguation. Stan 12:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, take a look at Red Spider Mite. Do you find the Koch link helpful? Does it tell you in any way that in fact none of the Kochs listed is the one that should be linked? Lupo 12:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

For those of us who like tinkering with disambiguation, it's totally intriguing - either we're missing a worthy, or one of those guys had an unusual hobby, and finding out which is a good use of a half-hour. :-) Links to "msg:disambig" pages are big red flags to the people who pay attention to that sort of thing. Stan 13:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to insist, but... this is not only a disambiguation problem. Take the Bush Dog, for instance. If my " (taxonomy)|" proposal had been used, we wouldn't link to a Swedish city called Lund there: we'd have a nice red link telling everybody "hey, here's an article that needs to be written: Wikipedia doesn't know who this Lund is". And there's no disambiguation involved at all! Lupo 13:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That just means we need a disambiguator at Lund, which shouldn't be surprising because it's a relatively common surname - almost every name that matches a surname needs a disambiguator sooner or later. Doing the " (taxonomy)" thing doesn't hurt, I just don't think it's that critical, and it's not really what the disambig specialists prefer. On the other hand, more redirs is always better! :-) Stan 14:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

There also another solution : there is a "List of biologists" in Wikipedia. If everyone, interested in taxonomy, would add an author (from an existing entry) to this list, as I do, things could be much easier. Of course, you can write a biography of an author yourself (as I did for C. S. Rafinesque). Discussions about disambiguation would become almost pointless. In this list, one can, for instance, also easily see the difference between Louis Agassiz and Alexander Agassiz. Personally, I have printed out this list and I find it very handy in attributing links to the authors. JoJan 08:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

ITIS as a taxonomic resource

Please take care when using the ITIS database as a source for taxonomy authorities. ITIS has spelling errors, for instance, they have "Hamilton-buchanon" [sic] instead of "Hamilton-Buchanan", or "Mcclelland, 1893" instead of "McClelland, 1839"! A quick Google search helps a long way in catching such errors in ITIS! Lupo 08:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. ITIS is authoritative in many ways. But when it comes to the class Gastropoda, ITIS clearly has missed the boat and still declares the older taxonomy as valid. Indeed, one must take care ! JoJan 20:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject Evolution

Hi, would anyone like to help? Duncharris 15:40, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Citations

FYI, I'm gradually, as I edit botanical articles, adding citations, linking them, and adding short bio articles on the botanists cited if they don't already exist. Some are really obscure, too, let me tell you, like Otto von Muenchhausen. jaknouse 18:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Great work too, I might add. Some of that info is really hard to come by, online or off. Stan 22:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Taxonomy issues

I would like to start a project with questions and inconsitencies re taxonmy in the wikipedia's. It would be the place to discuss the naming of taxons, the placement of names to taxons, the justification for the name of an article. The point is that LOTS of discussion is going on and, it would be great to have one place where these issues can be discussed with some authority.

An example of an issue: Monocotyledon has a new name "Liliopsida". This does exist as a redirect to the Monocotyledon. This should be the other way round. Having discussed this, it would be changed. An other issue: in the nl:wikipedia, a flora is used to determine native plants. The Belgian flora has a different structure. What to choose eithet or neither.

(The above was added by user:GerardM).

I support this proposal. This kind of discussion tends to break out on the talk pages of particular articles, and generally we've tried to steer it onto this page, or onto Talk pages for daughter WikiProjects. But those Talk pages also deal with other issues, and as a result they fill up and get archived quite regularly, so the discussion gets hard to find. There will never be finality on taxonomy, and probably we won't get full agreement among ourselves about which of the currently available alternatives we prefer, but we need an easy way for a new contributor (or a longstanding contributor who's dealing with a taxon s/he's not familiar with) to find out things like: what sources we are currently regarding as authoritative for particular taxa, what the problems are with them, and what's wrong with apparent alternatives. We also need a good way of exchanging that information between the different language Wikipedias. My own view is that we should try to agree on some standard sources that we will use as default authorities - which doesn't mean that an article has to use them, but does mean that it should explain why if it uses some alternative system. Where we have some degree of agreement, it is generally recorded on WikiProject Tree of Life, but that needs some updating I suspect. seglea 18:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm partly supportive of this notion. For taxonomic issues that can be covered under an already existing subproject (Cephalopods, Cetaceans, Primates, etc.) I'd rather see it hashed out on the subproject's talk page, or a taxonomic subpage off of the subproject's talk page. For instance:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopod
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cephalopod
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cephalopod/taxonomy

Likewise, I think having a dedicated talk page for taxonomic issues not covered by a subproject could be done here, as long as a link is maintained from the top of this talk.

This structured approach allows the discussion to happen while reasonably defining the discussion arena. Someone with a taxonomic query is likely to go to the appropriate project page first and then to its talk page. Having a dedicated taxonomy forum link from there would be logical. Likewise, a link from the project's page would work, too, especially from a ==Taxonomy & Resources== section.

When a new subproject is created, taxonomic discussions already handled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxonomy could be moved/re-archived at the new subproject's own dedicated taxonomy forum.

- UtherSRG 19:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

In general taxonomic issues should go into the article for the taxon, with mentions in the one (or more :-) ) supertaxa. Lots of articles do this already, with references to the various authorities, dates, and so forth; for higher taxa it tends to become an important section of the article. Authoritative sources used for multiple articles should have their own articles, for instance FishBase and Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy, where everybody can read the strengths/weaknesses, then I think the only Wikipedia: namespace thing needed is the list of editor-favored/disfavored authorities for the different categories - it would probably end up looking like the list of PD image resources, each entry with some amount of annotation. (I'm not so keen on project pages because they tend to be in the shadows, and credibility here depends on us being very open about the authorities we're citing.) Stan 19:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

To be clear: It would be a centre for ALL taxonomy discussions NOT for en: only discussions. Therefore discussions may have been held in an english subproject/articles but they would have as much standing as a similar discussions on fr:wikipedia or fa:wikipedia.

Obviously when a conclusion has been reached in a local discussion, it should be posted on the new taxonomy thingie. This way it DOES get some standing.

As the objective is about taxonomy STANDARDS, the notion is not so much about democracy but about best arguments.

I am not a taxonomist. I am just looking for the best way of getting all wikipedia's on a sound footing regarding taxonomy. GerardM 19:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Just use the interwiki links; it's basically up to the multi-lingual to let us know that fr: has a good suggestion for an authority to use, and to propagate it from there to here, or vice versa. That's one advantage of a list of authorities, it's easy to compare to see which entries are the same, even for the linguistically-challenged. Stan 22:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Other information

I am not a biologist, and I don't know much about taxonomy, but I have been thinking a lot about information about plants and animals, especially since I have 4 young children. Information that I have trouble finding and would like very much to find about animals is the following:

1. When did this species come into existance? (And if extinct, when did it become extinct?)
2. What species did this species evolve from? (And, if applicable, what species eveolved from this one?)
3. What regions and types of areas does this species inhabit? (This info should be in such a form as to be able to link indirectly to other species that live in the same places.)
4. Ability to link directly or indirectly to species that this species eats or is eaten by.

Thanks. nroose Talk 04:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

(Formatted above)

Welcome! You have some good points and I want to do my best to address them.

1. For many species, a rough estimation of existence can be found and added to its article. Some of the extinct species we do note at the top of the infobox when it lived (although I can't recall a specific article that has it). I know there are some because I did them.
2. This is more problematic as most "previous species" are extinct and not present in the fossil record. One can talk of the type of organism the current species evolved from, or the evolutionary path the species traveled.
3. This is often done already. Gorilla, for instance links to Africa. What links here on Africa would give you all the other articles (species or not) that also link to Africa. An alternative (and this is done for some already) is the have a set of articles like "list of British birds" that you can use for this purpose.
4. An exhaustive list of species eaten or that are predators of the given species would be quite difficult to compile, and is probably more specific that can be found in even the most comprehensive scientific literature. When available, the general types of species are listed. (Squid for example are listed among the diet in several articles.)

I hope this help you to some degree. - UtherSRG 12:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Infobox

Yo. Could/should someone update the organism example on Wikipedia:Infobox--it looks like it might be a bit out of date? jengod 21:06, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yo yourself. *grins* Thanks for the heads up. I've taken care of it. Cheers! - UtherSRG 21:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)