This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Form taxon is tagged {{ disambig}} and has some other residue of a disambiguation page. Would someone here care to clean it up? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and reformatted the ref. It was not written as a proper disamb, and disambs should have at least three items, so a normal page now 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this used to be the place to get help identifying unknown animals etc that one had taken photos of. Has this changed? Where should I go?

(The immediate question is some kind of falcon I saw in Torres del Paine NP, Chile. Stevage 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfectly reasonable place to get help with identifications... but for your specific problem, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds would be a better place to go. They have a never ending stream of identification requests on that page, so you should feel comfortable posting yours. Hesperian 12:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, fwiw it looks more like a caracara to me jimfbleak ( talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're both right; it looks like a Chimango Caracara, which is a member of the Falconidae. The uniform brown coloring—as well as the pale wing patches, the flight profile and the small bill—supports this.

Very helpful, thanks! It does look a lot like the Chimango Caracara. Added to article. Stevage 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is probably somewhat trivial, but is there a userpage box for this wikiproject? I always forget which wikiprojects I get involved with, so I like to use those to remind myself. -- Pstanton ( talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Like this, you mean —{{ User WikiProject TOL}}? -- Stemonitis ( talk) 08:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh! thanks so much Stemonitis, I must have missed that somehow.... -- Pstanton ( talk) 08:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I made ICZN a disambiguation page. It has over 200 incoming links needing disambiguation between the Commission and the Code. I also created Opinion 2027, a stub, concerning the Commission's Opinion to conserve 17 species names of wild animals over their domestic derivatives. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. Please discuss turning articles or even redirects into dabs first, then gain community consensus, then make the move. You have been asked to do it this way on numerous occasions, to gain community consensus first. Please do so. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, KP Botany, we'll do it your way. Okay folks, should ICZN redirect to an article (like this), or should it be a disambiguation page (like this)? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:DAB suggests that DAB pages be made if there are three or more articles that might cause confusion, and the current DAB suggestion only shows two articles. I guess my question would be, what do Una (or others) see as a problem with the current version of ICZN, which redirects automatically to the organization name, with a hatnote at the top directing people to the organization's code? MeegsC | Talk 16:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when there are just two, similar, entries it is enough to use hatnotes between the two. But this is an acronym shared by the two entries, not one of two entires, so the "two entries" guideline does not quite apply. Each entry has a {{ distinguish}} hatnote to the other, but no link to the acronym. Also, if ICZN remains a redirect then it should go to the primary topic, if there is one. Looking at usage, I would say there is no primary topic. Furthermore, the more usual topic is not the article to which ICZN now redirects. For the sake of timely and efficient disambiguation of incoming links, in cases like this I find it more useful to put a disambiguation page at the ambiguous base name. Redirects are of far less help in disambiguating incoming links. This tool shows all the links from an article to dab pages; it is very helpful for copyediting, but only if the target page is tagged {{ disambig}}; it does not catch errors where the article links to one article but intends another. Finally, when all incoming links to a dab page are disambiguated, all readers who follow links will go directly to the relevant article, avoiding surprise and the need to recover via hatnote. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ICZN is generally used for the commission, the code itself is referred to as "The Code", at least among taxonomists. So, I am in favor a a hatnote, but would be fine with a disambig page in this case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Among botanical taxonomists "The Code" refers to a different code. Anyway, Wikipedia links to ICZN usually intend the Code, not the Commission, which is why I made the redirect a dab. Similarly, in mainspace there are 201 links to the Code and under 50 links to the Commission. -- Una Smith ( talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest one article at the commission, that includes the information on the code. The code is the bulk of what will be written about in an encyclopedia, and, unless the article for the commission should grow significantly I'm not sure it's all that useful to have two. Or per MeegsC. And, Una, it's not my way, it's the Wikipedia way. Welcome to it. -- KP Botany ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I support merging the articles for the commission and the code. Kingdon ( talk) 12:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects.

74.242.254.68 ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles

A lot of articles phrase that certain taxa "are (such and such) years old" or "originated in the (such and such) period". Being as that fossil records are not proof that it is the earliest that that particular taxa exists, I believe that they should be rephrased to something like "the earliest known record of (such and such) was (whatever period)" or the like. -- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends upon the taxon. For some taxa there exists additional evidence that can narrow the taxon down to an origina in a specific window of geological time. Evidence, for example, of the atmospheric and environmental conditions of the time. However, for other taxa it may be better to phrase age in the manner you suggest, particularly when using smaller taphonomic windows. Feel free to discuss this individually on article talk pages, or post some examples here. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't automatically put in such wording, per WP:WEASEL (particularly the parts of that page about wordiness), but depending on the situation, it may be called for. So I'm agreeing with KP Botany. Kingdon ( talk) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a "test proposal" at CfD to see if there is a consensus for replacing the categorization system of classifying biota "by country" with a system that would categorize biota "by ecozone". See here to read or comment. Looking for as much input as possible especially from those expert in the area. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My efforts to explain taxonomic problems concerning some equines are being rebutted with tendentious reverts and ad hominems such as this edit summary: Write a scientific publication first. [1] I would appreciate some input from other editors. Please see Talk:Tarpan#Split Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus and Talk:Equus ferus ferus#More tarpans. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Talk:Wild horse. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I have images of plants that I can't identify, is there a place among this WikiProject where I could post them and users could identify them? Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16 _«talk ^stalk» 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

People often do this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Hesperian 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So helpful, thank you! ~ ωαdεstεr16 _«talk ^stalk» 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a bot putting orphan tags on species stubs. The tags are essentially recruitment for the wikiproject orphanage, as that is the tags first link, to a project page, with oodles and oodles of text, rather than to a straight forward explanation and policy information.

The biggest problem with the tag, though, is it is greater than the text in the species stubs, comes before the text, and, with the taxobox, and a single sentence can make it appear as if it is the primary or only text on the page outside of the taxobox.

In addition, with a number of species internally linking to a species stub may only be appropriate from a single other page, such as its genus page, if there is a list of species on the genus page.

If the species is large, however, it may be inappropriate to have a list on the genus page. In this case, the only link will be from a list of species.

And, having only one link from the genus page or having only a link from a list, will still make the article an orphan, and the tag will be a permanent overpowering feature on the stub.

The project orphanage folks swear they're editing these articles, but they're not. The orphanage tag is, as far as I can tell, something to recruit members or to gain activity for a bot.

The bot owners project is uninterested in discussing the underlying problem with this bot.

What should be done? I don't see any purpose in this bot and these tags. The orphanage project editors think that maybe making lists and links of all flowers by color and numbers of petals would be useful to Wikipedia readers, but, Wikipedia is not a flora, it's an encyclopedia, and useless links are not encyclopedic. The tags should go on article talk pages, not in article space if their primary purpose is to recruit for a project. As the tags do not categorize or provide any information to editors, such as how to link--if you click on the related articles link in the tag, you get, exactly what I say is useful to link, the genus, and nothing else for most of these.

-- KP Botany ( talk) 04:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of what the orphanage considers to link, simply to the genus page. But if the only link is to the genus page, then it will still be an orphan, and the tag will still be there, overpowering the article. -- KP Botany ( talk) 04:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications:

The tag is one of dozens of standard cleanup templates Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup - {{ orphan}}. It has been in use for a few years. As articles mature they typically accumulate such, until the issue is dealt with.

There are a large number of orphans, editors in that project have been working to introduce links, and have offered assistance with biology articles. Also, several members of the project have been busy discussing how to deal with issues.

"The bot owners project is uninterested in discussing the underlying problem with this bot."

• Not so - See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage - Stop tagging taxa stubs as orphans, Tag on talk page, Suggestion - no-link orphans tag, Another idea, also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 16

Zodon ( talk) 07:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot involved only puts the template on articles which are not linked to any by lists or other articles. (So one link from a list or article will mean that the bot won't add the tag again.)

The tag's purpose is article improvement, not recruitment. (I agree the link on the tag could be made to a location more focused to how to how/why of orphans - not top of a WikiProject page. But that is a discussion for elsewhere.)

The template does categorize articles (since they are maintenance categories, the categories are hidden).

The template does what it can to assist editors in finding links - but all it does is a search for the article name, if there are many occurances of the name, there will be many articles in the result. If not, there won't. If anyone has suggestions of other ways that the system can help find likely pages that might warrant a link to the given page, please post a note on the project talk page.

There are several suggestions being considered of how to better deal with areas like species, minor locations, minor biographies, and such items which may be difficult to connect to other articles going on on the project talk page. Suggestions and contributions are welcome. Zodon ( talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a little proof of what is acctually being done by the Orphanage here and here. Its just there are a lot of articles to get through and your species articles will eventually be edited. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the orphan tag is obstrusive.
• Plant species stubs should be linked to either from a genus page, or a list of species in genus page, so, if only articles with zero links from article space are marked as orphans all plant species articles which are marked as orphans should identify omissions that the plant project would want to address.
• Someone moved Erato (genus) to Erato (plant genus) without changing incoming links to match. I discovered and corrected this when Erato (plant genus) was marked as orphaned.
• What would be more useful would be a list of orphaned articles by project. Lavateraguy ( talk) 10:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) I agree 100%. Zodon has been creating some templates of the "orphaned articles by project" variety you're looking for, if you're interested. -- JaGa ^talk 10:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are lists of orphaned articles by project it would help if they were more readily accessible. (I can't find them.) Apart from that the project criteria is pages with zero, one or two incoming links from article space are orphaned. So far Addbot is only tagging those with zero, which I don't see as a problem, but if it was allowed to progress to those with one or two this would be problematical. In theory taxa articles could be connected by trophic or geographic hierarchies as well as the taxonomic articles, but the latter is being handled by categories (and has its own troubles), and it will be a long time, if ever, before Wikipedia reaches the depth of coverage required for the former to work. (For a start many plants aren't sufficiently well known to botanists for their herbivores to be known.) The Orphanage Project may like to consider changing their rules for terminal taxa - which can be identified with sufficient reliability by examination of the taxobox. Other categories which could be an issue are Cat:Minor planets and Cat:HD and HDE Objects.

In some cases clustering by the use of see also links, e.g. HD 43848 among a group of stars with associated brown dwarfs and extrasolar planets, ups the incoming links, but I am not convinced that this is desirable (either the see also list gets excessively long, or its content becomes arbitrary) - a single see also to a list page seems at first site to make more sense. Lavateraguy ( talk) 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully my answer to Hesperian below answers most of this. By the time (if ever) we're ready to start tagging one-link orphans, Wikipedia will have changed, and we should have the conversation then. Regarding the "by project" templates, after we've set our new policy in stone, would it be OK for us to get in touch with you to see how you like the finished "by project" templates? -- JaGa ^talk 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect of Wikipedia:Orphan to the Orphanage WikiProject. As KPBotany says, the first link on the template, in bold, is to the former page, and the redirect was essentially making it a link to the WikiProject. There is a longstanding rule that we don't insert WikiProject links into the mainspace. For example such links are not permitted on stub notices. Hesperian 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the big problems with moving on to tagging in the one or two case, is the handling of ssubtopic articles spun out of larger topics written in summary style. In many such cases, the only sensible link is from the main article. For example, thanks to the bot I've been made aware that I neglected to link to List of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos from Houtman Abrolhos; so now that list has one incoming link. But I'm buggered if I can think of another article that ought to link to it. Hesperian 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will happen for a long time, if ever, to be honest. We've got over 100,000 zero-link orphans to deal with, and we don't want to move on until that backlog is under control. What's more, when we do move on, it won't be to all one-link articles - it'll be to articles that have zero links from anything except lists. That's another hundred thou or so. And we aren't going to tag anything new until we're ready to move on. -- JaGa ^talk 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are links from lists not considered "links", but links from transcluded templates are considered links? Why is a link from a one-line stub a better measure of "connectedness" than is a link from a featured list? I don't understand the underlying rationale, the philosophical framework.

In addition, the orphan template is terribly ugly and intrusive. It's a blight on the page. The obvious response is "get rid of it". So how? Well, why not add some 'see also' links from a few poorly-related articles? Now we have gone from a visible "orphan" (maybe something like Hesp's list of molluscs) to an invisible orphan...one that has 3 or more incoming links, but not of them are relevant. We don't want random links, we want relevant links. Throw a template like that on an article I'm editing, and my reaction would be to do whatever I could to get rid of it. Add a less annoying link, and it can serve as a reminder to link once appropriate content is created. Doesn't that make more sense? Guettarda ( talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal view of the template is that it makes the article look as though there is something wrong with it. It doesn't read as if "This fantastic little article isn't linked to as much as it deserves to be" but rather as "This article is probably a load of crap because nothing much links to it". This impression is as much as anything due to the fact that it appears on the article itself, as a warning to readers, rather than on the talk page as advice to editors. Hesperian 01:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah. I agree. It's wrong to fashion the "orphan" template after the "NPOV" or "Multiple issue" templates. Those say "there's something wrong with this article". The orphan bot would probably tag an FA, if it didn't have enough "real" links (and I could easily see an FA with less than three non-list links). Guettarda ( talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone that thinks the orphan template should change a bit please make suggestions here as there is currently a discussion going on about it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attached to all the details of the current process, but I do find the bot helpful. It is not unusual for an article which used to be a non-orphan to become an orphan, and if it is still on my watchlist, then I can try to clean things up (I recently fixed Manducatio indignorum and not only unorphaned it but by doing so attracted another contributer who improved it greatly. This one isn't a species, but if I dug through my watchlist I could find some of those too). Kingdon ( talk) 20:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the bot useful for a lot of other articles, until the problem with the species articles came about. However, the bot's owner won't allow me to object to just the obscure species, and the bot owners in general have been so nasty and unwilling to work with people about this, that at this point, I think the bot should just stop. Also, frankly, the bot owner told me that a glitch wasn't his fault, simply the bot operating "randomly," when it deleted two articles in their entirety. Although the bot owner thinks his code acts randomly, the bot owners group thinks this is okay, and the bot owner isn't bothering to check other edits for this same action, mind you, even though the owner has no clue why his bot did what it did. It's more trouble than it's worth. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The proof. I looked at the proof offered above by the bot's owner and had to spend 10 minutes removing links and orphaning an article Brain types which was improperly linked within other articles. I'm not impressed. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The following proposals may be of interest to those following this discussion

• Template talk:Orphan#Proposal - add deorphan attempt option that hides message box
• Template talk:Orphan#Proposal to make orphan tag zero-article links only Zodon ( talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the synonym field in the taxobox allow only "unambiguous synonyms" (=Junior synonyms) or can it include ambiguous synonyms (incl. misapplied names)? This is in relation to a discussion on Talk:Black Drongo where Dicrurus adsimilis in its older circumscription included what is now Dicrurus macrocercus. Comments there would be useful. Shyamal ( talk) 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

While I can see the advantage to the scientific community of having Wikipedia take on the role of a global taxonomic database, it's primary role is as an encyclopaedia for the lay person. In that context, the synonymy section of the taxobox is really a list of "other names by which you might see this taxon referred to". The fact that they're not always strict taxonomic synonyms is not really important here — we can leave that to the monographers. Where a subspeces has recently been raised to species rank, say, a lay person may well be confused if they expect to find the subspecific combination and instead see the combination as a species. The explanation needs to be somewhere, either as an entry in the taxobox (perhaps with a footnote explaining its different status), or in the text. I tend to put in a note about the changing nomenclature early on in the article, often in the first line — "Aus primus (formerly considered a subspecies of Aus secundus) is a …". It's much like any other redirect; it should be clear to the reader why they've ended up at an article with a different title to that which they were expecting. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis, and wonder whether the name of the field shouldn't be changed.

Even "unambiguous synonyms" could be problematic: a nomenclatural/objective synonym can be referenced from a nomenclator (e.g., IPNI for tracheophytes), but a taxonomic/subjective synonym is literally a matter of opinion, and requires extra work in referencing, especially since synonymies not widely accepted could qualify as WP:UNDUE. Certainly mixing them together under "Synonyms", without distinguishing the two types, is a disservice to the reader. If the item said instead Alternate scientific names with a link to an article that talked about synonymy, changes in status and circumscription, nomina nuda, and misapplied names, at least the reader is not led to believe that (1) all the names are of equal value, or (2) scientists can never agree on the name, so why don't we use the common name?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly something to be said for mis-applied or otherwise ambiguous synonyms, but I agree that mixing them with "true" synonyms wouldn't really be the most helpful thing. I'd say either add a separate parameter to the template to deal with them, or simply discuss the names in the article text. There's certainly something to be said for including both...I'd say that any ambiguous synonyms almost have to be explained if they're mentioned in an article. Guettarda ( talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two things confused here. The discussion started with the following situation: Species Dicrurus macrocercus was previously considered a subspecies of Dicrurus adsimilis, as Dicrurus adsimilis macrocercus. Shyamal argued that Dicrurus adsimilis macrocercus is an ambiguous synonym of Dicrurus macrocercus and should therefore be placed in the synonym box, while I argue it should not. If we want to make it even more complex, Dicrurus adsimilis macrocercus has actually a much narrower circumscription (the subspecies alone) than Dicrurus macrocercus which includes 6 other subspecies. If we add Dicrurus adsimilis macrocercus as a synonym, all other six subspecies (Dicrurus adsimilis subspeciesX X = 1 to 6) moved to Dicrurus macrocercus should be added as synoynms as well.

These are not synonyms, just alternative combinations based on rank differences. This is neither an ambiguous nor a unambiguous synonym, and the issue should be dealt with in the text making clear that previously, the speciesw was considered a subspecies of another species. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In this specific case my impression is that we have a pro parte "synonym", but I stand to be corrected. The more general issue here is that the taxobox usage is not strictly according to the codes. Shyamal ( talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.

I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, ( Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.

Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.

I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.

I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...

Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.

One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect to †, I tend to pipe it on first occurrence, like this: †. Kingdon ( talk) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the composite images, I like the ones you did for the molluscs. The trick here is to make it so that one can see what is in the images. (the one at Plant has a lot of images, probably too many for my tastes, and the one at Vaccinium kind of looks like a jumble because the 4 images are all run together, at least to my eye). Kingdon ( talk) 12:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding †:.....That makes good sense. Good idea.

Regarding composites: I agree that the Vaccinium image looks confusing. The one for Plant is an exception because it's the first in the category. I think 4 to 6 images are just right -- not too many and not too few, just like the middle bear's porridge. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Spoken articles are wikipedia articles produced as sound recordings for visually challenged users and audio enthusiasts. I am presently working towards a spoken article on Bird. WP:SPOKEN recording guidelines for spoken articles in principle discourage interpretation of a picture or chart in the article other than to mention that it exists with 'such and such' caption.

Simple phylogeny charts show the evolution or radiation of taxons and are important information. Should a phylogeny chart be read out or not?

Aves  Archaeopteryx   Pygostylia  Confuciusornithidae   Ornithothoraces  Enantiornithes   Ornithurae  Hesperornithiformes Neornithes Basal bird phylogeny simplified after Chiappe, 2007

If it is considered desirable then a phylogeny chart has to be converted to equivalent text. The aves phylogeny will then go something like this -

The class aves radiates into two forks. The earlier fork leads to the extinct clade Archeopteryx, the other fork leads to the clade Pygostylia. Pygostylia radiates into two forks, the extinct family Confuciusornithidae while the other fork is the clade Ornithothoraces. The clade Ornithothoraces once again forks into the extinct clade Enantiornithes and the clade Ornithurae. The clade Ornithurae branches into two, one branch being the extinct subclass Hesperornithiformes while the other branch is the existing subclass Neornithes which comprise the living bird species amongst others.

I am looking forward to discussion and consensus on this issue, which will then be an important guideline for spoken articles pertaining to this project.

AshLin ( talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is not fully explained in the written text of the article, I guess it would need to be fully explained in spoken words. Snowman ( talk) 14:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bothered by "earlier fork"; it seems that if the lineage forked, the forks would be of the same age.

I'd be more inclined to say "The clade Aves contains the clades Archaeopteryx and Pygostylia. The clade Pygostylia contains the clades Confuciusornithidae and Ornithothoraces. The clade Ornithothoraces contains..." and so on like that. This would have the advantage of being able to be algorithmically derived from any unambiguous tree notation.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When scientists need to describe these things in words they have phrasing which tends to be more graceful than the above suggestions. For example, basal angiosperm has the wording "two different trees, one in which Amborella is sister to the rest of the angiosperms, and one in which a clade of Amborella and Nymphaeales is in this position". There are some cladograms but they are entirely redundant to this wording and should be simply ignored in a spoken wikipedia rendition. Now, if this is the solution in general, then all articles should need to be written to make the cladograms redundant. I guess I could get behind that but I wasn't thinking of anything that profound when I wrote basal angiosperm the way I did. Kingdon ( talk) 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I have understood the issue. If a wikipedia text reflects the contents of the cladogram suitably then no description is necessary for a spoken article. If it does not do so, it is always preferable that the text be amended rather the cladogram read out aloud. I now see that reading out a cladogram is definitely awkward and adds to the complexity of the article, besides being something difficult to visualise by someone with his eyes closed and listening to the description. So the content of cladograms is important and must be presented but by incorporating the nuances into the text intelligently and not by clumsy transposing of the phyllogeny tree into words. I think this makes sense. I propose this be the standard practice. Any objections out there? AshLin ( talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think for some situations a cladogram is the best way to express oneself. The prose should speak to the cladogram, but that doesn't mean the cladogram should be redundant to the prose. For example the following extract from the featured article Banksia telmatiaea contains a cladogram that is integrated into the prose, whilst containing additional information that the prose does not. I don't think it would be right to rephrase it simply because the cladogram is not easy to speak.

---

In 1996, Kevin Thiele and Pauline Ladiges published the results of a cladistic analysis of morphological characters of Banksia. They retained George's subgenera and many of his series, but discarded his sections. B. ser. Abietinae was found to be very nearly monophyletic, and so retained. It further resolved into four subclades, so Thiele and Ladiges split it into four subseries. B. telmatiaea appeared in the third of these:

This clade became the basis of B. subser. Leptophyllae, which Thiele defined as containing those species with "indurated and spinescent common bracts on the infructescence axes, and densely arachnose seedling stems." In accordance with their cladogram, their arrangement placed B. telmatiaea next to B. scabrella.

---

If one was determined to verbalise a cladogram, I would be inclined to go with a formulaic approach, in keeping with the fixed structure of the gram:

• Aves resolves into Archaeopteryx and Pygostylia
• Pygostylia resolves into Confuciusornithidae and Ornithoraceae
• Ornithothoraces resolves into Enantiornithes and Ornithurae
• Ornithurae resolves into Hesperornithiformes and Neornithes

Hesperian 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Any other points of view please? AshLin ( talk) 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your inputs. I think I'll ensure that the text has intelligent handling of the phylogenic material and also verbalise the cladogram, the formulaic approach of Hesperian seems okay and prevents scope for (mis)interpretation. Perhaps after getting some input after the spoken article is published, this issue could be revisted. AshLin ( talk) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how you are going to handle trees containing unnamed clades (such as the Banksia example above) in that case. I guess it'd become very confusing when you would say something like "subseries 3 resolves into B. telmatiaea and an unnamed clade. This unnamed clade resolves into B. l. var. melletica and another unnamed clade. This unnamed clade resolves into..." It isn't extremely bad here, but becomes vastly more confusing once you have unnamed clades resolving into several unnamed clades. Ucucha 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel at some point of time, judgment will enter the fray. If such a cladogram with numerous unnamed clades were to be described, it would probably confuse the listener than enlighten him. If that should be the case, then it would be better to omit reading the cladogram altogether. AshLin ( talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find describing the situation rather than drawing a cladogram is better suited and does not give a false sense of precision (I wouldn't bet on any of the 4 avian dichotomies to be correct). Like:

"the exact relationship of Archie to modern birds remains undetermined. However, all things considered (unload refs here) it must have been very close to the ancestors of both Neornithes and Enantiornithes &ndash possibly the closest relative known to date. It is also probable that it is closely related to most minor avian lineages (e.g. Confuciornithes) also."

Some Botany people make nice cladograms though, with support values and explanatory text.

We might also use svg cladograms; the present code is not very user-friendly. But we'd have to use some graphical means to display uncertainty, or else we'd have to change the images every half-year or so. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw a number of insects etc in the Atlantic Forest of SE Brazil in late Feb 2009. I'll add images over the next few days, and I would be grateful for any ID help jimfbleak ( talk) 16:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1. File:Cicada Brazil 120.jpg crickety thing mimicking bird dropping

2. File:TurquoisebeetleBrazil 120.jpg beetle ( Curculionoidea: ? Curculionidae)

3. File:Brazil 063cropped.jpg butterfly (most likely Marpesia coresia )

4. File:BeetleBrazil 068.jpg beetle (probably Coccinellidae)

5. File:BeetleBrazil 134.jpg beetle ( Chrysomelidae?)

6. File:ButterflyBrazil 148.jpg butterfly (probably Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae)

7. File:FrogBrazil 150.jpg frog ("It's Bufo crucifer [now Chaunus crucifer ], http://santuario-ra-bugio.htmlplanet.com/custom4.html Mokele ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)")

Thanks, I'll see what I can do with these jimfbleak ( talk) 05:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, folks! A discussion about this category and its subcats evolved on my talk page (see User talk:Rkitko#Category:Plants by year of formal description) where a couple questions arose that need wider input. You can read through that discussion, and I'll try to summarize the questions here:

1. Would it be acceptable and useful to have categories for the large publications, like Category:Plants described in Species Plantarum? It would, of course, be a subcat of Category:Plants described in 1753.
2. What kind of header/explanation do we want on each of these categories describing their content? I worked on one (see User talk:Rkitko/sandbox6) for the plant categories, but it focuses on how to decide which category to place an article in. (Navigation templates for easy access to other nearby year categories would be nice, too.)
3. A related question to the above: Do we always prefer the year of first formal description? For example, would you prefer categorizing an article by the date of publication of its basionym (e.g. 1857 for Castilleja attenuata (A.Gray) T.I.Chuang & Heckard) or the date of the most recent revision (so, then 1991 for C. attenuata since T.I.Chuang & Heckard moved it in 1991). For the first scenario, we would ignore any moves and just stick to the first formal and valid publication. The second would allow for categorization of the article with the most recent date and categorization of the basionym redirect with the date of first formal publication. Which is better, here?
4. Would Category:Species by decade of formal description and Category:Species by century of formal description be useful, as well?
5. Do we need to change the scheme to make it wider to include all taxa ranks (not just species), so change the categories to Category:Fungus taxa described in 2009, for example? Or would you rather create parallel categorization structures for Category:Fungus genera described in 2009, Category:Fungus subspecies described in 2009, etc., for example?
6. Tangentially, would it also be a good idea to set up categories by who described them? I'm thinking about restricting it to the ones that make common sense, such as Category:Species described by George Bentham or Category:Taxa described by George Bentham, depending on the results of the discussion on points above. I'm sure all of the relevant projects have several authors of taxa for whom it would make sense to have such a category.

I'm sure Guettarda and Hesperian will let me know if I've forgotten anything. Anyway, what does everyone think? -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I think that would be more useful than the "by-date" categories.
2. Basic idea is sound.
3. I don't see any point to doing it at all except for basionyms. There's nothing special about the most recent change (in some cases, it won't even be widely accepted), and it requires assiduous attention to the literature if it is to be at all accurate. Two less objectionable alternatives are "most recent change recorded in IPNI" and "date of formal publication of the name used in Wikipedia", but they have problems as well (the latter would be useful, perhaps, but likely to drift out of compliance when an article is moved to a new name but the category is not changed).
4. Equally useful. :-)
5. In the case of flowering plant families, most names are conserved. Names above the family level are regulated in a different way in all the codes. Ranks not of the "Big Seven" (e.g., subgenus) are problematic in that only a few will have Wikipedia articles. I think genus might be useful, but beyond that, not so much.
6. I'm always suspicious of things that would be open-ended except for common sense. Category:Taxa described by Peter H. Raven, anyone? Category:Taxa described by Curtis Clark? It would be easy to rule the last one out, since I don't have a Wikipedia article, but who would do the CfD on the former? Perhaps the combination of "has a Wikipedia article", "is dead", and "category contains more than 50 entries".

-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by formal description? For example, Northern Bald Ibis always has the attribution Linnaeus 1758, but it was described in more detail, illustrated and given a binomial name by Conrad Gessner in 1555. His Corvo sylvatico incorrectly classed it as a crow, but Linnaeus' Upupa eremita was no more accurate since it isn't a hoopoe either. jimfbleak ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it would be formal description within a code of nomenclature. Actually, a better phrase would be "date of formal publication of the basionym", because we're really talking about the names and not the descriptions.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We can do this in a very simple way, by splitting the *****_authority attributes of the taxobox in two, one for name and one for year, and generate the categories automatically in that script. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though can we get a bot to update species pages accordingly? Seems like quite a big change, not sure everyone will go for this. Jack ( talk) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to the ICZN, the ICBN does not specify the date as a formal part of the authority, and I would guess that in a large majority of plant taxoboxes, it is not present.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article -yellow is a collaboration rticle - was hoping some bio poeple had good sources of yellow in nature to rewrite Yellow#In_biology more like Green#In_biology. Anyone keen? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I created a redlink at Hydroid dermatitis and wanted to know if someone would create that article? Done! Thanks! --- kilbad ( talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are also a couple redlinks in the following articles as well: Dogger Bank itch, Seaweed dermatitis. Done! --- kilbad ( talk) 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Also see Nematode dermatitis and Gamasoidosis. --- kilbad ( talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked User:Dysmorodrepanis to stop edits such as these: [ [2]] (comments on my talk page and his/hers). I oppose the littering of articles with arcance code or placing items in the reference section (even hidden in comments) which have not been used as references in creating the actual article. The user has not agreed with me. Many further opinions are invited - the more the merrier. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the comments aren't especially helpful (if I run into a source I might want to use later, I put it on my user page under a todo heading, and often these kinds of papers can be found again with a google scholar search), but I haven't felt strongly enough about it to revert them or complain. I suppose if a lot of people were doing it on a lot of pages on my watchlist, I'd feel like it was getting harder and harder to keep track of real changes, but I've only noticed it with Dysmorodrepanis ( talk · contribs) and so have been thinking of it as one user's eccentricity, rather than a serious threat to the project. Kingdon ( talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the inclusion of the references in that fashion has always annoyed my. To me it indicates a lack of actually wanting to improve articles, and so placing them as hidden text to have someone else do them for the user. As such I have generally removed them feeling that if the information in the hidden references was important to the article then the reference would have been added to the article and not hidden in the first place. Looking at the users page shows that they have been questioned multiple times about it with little effect.-- Kevmin ( talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see what the problem is. They're always tiny notes, stuck right at the top of the references section; it's not like there are pages and pages of them! And by removing them, folks like Kevmin are basically making someone else have to find the information again—which is surely an unnecessary duplication of effort! I've used a few of the cited references to fill in gaps in articles on my watch list. Yes, perhaps Dysmo could be doing the writing him/herself. But if s/he's not, at least s/he's providing the references which will allow someone else to do it! I think this is a lot of angst over something that isn't really much of an issue; different people contribute to the project in different ways. Why not be tolerant, work together, and use the information in the spirit (as indicated in various responses) intended? It helps to make the whole project stronger! : ) MeegsC | Talk 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In some articles I have been using a section called "other sources" (e.g. Common Hawk-cuckoo) where references that I cannot find and are not cited are thrown in. It hopefully acts as a reminder for future research by someone with better library access. Shyamal ( talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In Dec 2008 I expressed an interest in them wishing to find out more about them, but I did not get a reply, and the meaning of these hidden notes is kept from me. If these are for the benifit of the wikipedia, why were they not explained to me. The previous discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_27#Bot_for_mining_references. I think that these hidden notes, which to me have a secretive quality, must stop in their current format. There are several conventional ways to list where further information can be found. Snowman ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, based on the link you provided, there was a 6 paragraph response to your question! And yet you say "I did not get a reply" and "Why were they not explained to me". Am I not getting something? MeegsC | Talk 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I might been clearer. None of the discussion helped me to readily understand what the hidden comments meant, without undertaking what sounds like a protracted internet search for each hidden comment. My suggestion (the last comment in the section) that a sub-page should be made to indicate the full references did not get a reply. It is to this suggestion that did not get a reply, which I am referring. Snowman ( talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this redirect originally meant for the naturalist John Alexander Smith (see refs in de:John Alexander Smith (Naturforscher)) or for the philosopher John Alexander Smith ( as well? Anyway, the philosopher didn't describe either the Calabar Angwantibo or the Reedfish, but how fix the problem? -- Hämbörger ( talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected those two links to point to John Alexander Smith (naturalist), a page that doesn't exist yet. Bob the Wikipedian ^{( talk • contribs)} 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Manual of Style does not give clear advice pertaining to the format of the scientific name of an animal. I have found two primary sections that should answer this matter but the advice is inconclusive.

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Article_text
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles

Most pages seem not to use bold for the scientific name although a significant fraction do. At the moment, these two examples differ (Blue Whale's scientific name is bolded, but Humpback's is not):

• Blue Whale
• Humpback Whale

It seems to me that when the species is well-enough known to have a common name, that name should be used for the article and the scientific name should not be bold. However, if the species is obscure or if the animal simply does not have a common name, then the species name should be the name of the article itself and therefore bolded.

Can anybody point out more sources regarding the format or help clear up the matter? Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is to bold he scientific name uniformly. Except when a common name is VERY obscure, eg only found in a small region in central wales, all common names get bolded, why should the official scientific designation be any different?-- Kevmin ( talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. Bold all common names, which should be included within the opening paragraph. The scientific name should appear in parentheses italicized and not bolded. If no common names are available, treat the scientific name as a common name by bolding and italicizing it without putting it in parentheses. Bob the Wikipedian ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The scientific name is an alternative title, just like one of many common names that is chosen for some articles (note that WP:PLANTS and WP:NC (flora) prefer scientific names as titles and thus should be bold). If the article could realistically be titled at a particular name, common or scientific, it should be presented in bold text (thus, commonly used synonyms, especially where the taxonomy is unclear, should be bold, but not minor synonyms). -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rkitko. The scientific name is the ultimate name of the organism and, as such, should be the preferred, highlighted, first, primary, etc. It should also be in bold. -- Thorwald ( talk) 00:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Bob The Wikipedian-I'm confused why are scientific name not treated that same as common names?-- Kevmin ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In all articles that I've seen elsewhere (i.e. not of species) any alternative name for the subject of the article is put in bold. The scientific name is clearly an alternative (and perhaps more widely used) version of the common name and so in my opinion should be in bold. Smartse ( talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• The question is not only restricted to species, it can also apply to higher level taxa. For example albatross begins "Albatrosses, of the biological family Diomedeidae,". It seems logical that if a common name and a scientific name are of equal standing the two should both be bolded. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. It also makes it clear to the reader who searched for "Albatross" and to the reader who searched for "Diomedeidae" that they are reading an article that covers the topic of albatrosses, which happen to be a taxonomic unit at the family rank. It welcomes both readers and indicates there is no other separate article on the family. -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. According to MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Melburnian ( talk) 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What I said only applies to animals...I'm not aware of any of the rules for the other kingdoms. Bob the Wikipedian ^{( talk • contribs)} 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, these are not "rules", only guidelines. Secondly, we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be the ones coming up with said guidelines. Therefore, I propose we do just that for the case in question. To start it off, I propose that all articles in the Tree of Life project have the scientific name of the organism be the primary name of the article. All common names would redirect to the main (scientifically named) article. Both the scientific name (italicized appropriately) and all common names would be in bold-font (with the common names listed directly after the scientific name and in parentheses). -- Thorwald ( talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kevmin, Rkitko, Smartse, Sabine's, etc, especially per Melburnian's quote. The scientific name is a legitimate alternative name for a taxon, and should be bolded (as well as italicised) in the lead.

I disagree with Thorwald's (evergreen) proposal that articles should always be given the scientific name as their title. This always seems like a good idea, until you realise that it implies moving dog to Canis lupus familiaris. Face it: it ain't gonna happen.

Hesperian 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. A lot of responses. It's clear there is some divide on this issue. As I stated above, I think the scientific name should not be bolded. And since this is a question of style, I can't help but inject that the pages without the bold scientific name simply look better from an aesthetic standpoint. If you compare the Blue Whale and Humpback Whale examples, I also think the bold scientific name after blue whale is distracting. The italics alone, without the bold, also feels like it emphasizes the Latin origins of the names whereas the bold seems to overwash this. One good thing to have would be an approximate estimate of the fractions of pages uses one style over another. (This would of course exclude those animals for which the scientific name is the primary name.) Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the less-noted differences between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia is typography. An overly bold version of a typeface will seem intrusive in any context, and a slightly bold version may be indistinguishable from regular text. Were I setting a print encyclopedia, one factor in choosing the typeface would be to pick one that had a bold that was "just bold enough" to fit the stylistic needs. Alas, Wikipedia depends on system-specific rendering of specified fonts chosen for their ubiquity, or fallbacks not chosen at all. A similar remark was made elsewhere about the aesthetics of italicized titles. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but a bastion of fine typography it isn't.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"...fine typography" - ha ha ha. Anyway, I like having all the names bolded - to me it emphasizes that each is a valid name for the topic, irrespective of the page's title. Stan ( talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)