This 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.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

I'm missing something terribly obvious, but why does Category:Animals described in 2012 have both the parent cat Category:Animals described in the 2010s and Animals described in the 2010s' parent cat Category:Animals described in the 21st century?

Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not missing anything obvious! The situation, as I understand it, is this. When the categories were set up the hierarchy was: by year – by ..00s, ..10s, ... ..90s – by century. However strictly this was wrong, since Wikipedia keeps to the precise definition of a century, so that the 21st century runs from 2001 to 2100. What should have been done, in my view, is to change the century categories to 100s categories. Instead extra categories were added, so that e.g. both Category:Plants described in the 1800s and Category:Plants described in the 19th century exist. In this case the former correctly has all the 1800 ten-year categories as members; the latter has one single year category and also all the 1800 ten-year categories as well. If both are to be kept, the latter should have only the categories by year 1801, year 1802, ... year 1900. I can't see the point of this dual system, which is not complete anyway. Is there support for sorting it out and using only: by year – by 10s – by 100s? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I totally understand!!! I usually have no clue what anyone is saying, but I understood that! :) You should be in charge of all the DIY books and, well, all books. Actually, you should teach in school. Students would love you.

So, about the odd system in place: will it remain--I mean in a hundred years? Could or should a bot go in and solve this or something? Best wishes and thank you so much for the excellent reply. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if you need support for sorting it Peter I will support that is just a mess. Dual systems always are. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. If the community approves of changing this, I will help anyway you say. I can fix it manually or maybe find someone who can make a little script to do it. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 14:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter, interesting idea. When I filled out a lot of the plants by XXXX categories, I followed the existing hierarchy in the animal categories. I suppose the century >> decade >> year categories made sense to me. Hugo999 recently added a navigation template to a few categories and was the one who included Category:Plants described in 1801 in both the decade category and its parent, the century category. I had a short discussion with him about that here in which he wondered why we use the decade categories at all. Are they just an unnecessary level in the category hierarchy? Perhaps I could be convinced of that. Regardless, if I understand you correctly above, you want to shift the century categories to 100s and maintain decade categories. If that were the case, Category:Plants described in the 1800s would be a 100s category containing decade categories. But what would the appropriate name be for the decade category containing the years 1800 to 1809? Rkitko ^{( talk)} 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take on the problem:

• We could abandon the ten-year categories. But then the 1800–1899 category for a particular group (plants, animals, bacteria, etc.) would have 100 members and that for species as a whole more, since it has the group categories as members as well. I think this makes the categories too large.
• We could revert to the original system, as described for plants at WP:PLANTS/Description in year categories#Category hierarchy. "Animals described in the 1800s" means "in 1800–09"; "Animals described in the 1890s" means "in 1890–1899"; both are put into "Animals described in the 19th century". I don't personally mind the slight inaccuracy, but purists will and they will, I predict, continue to attempt to correct it.
• We could use "proper" decades, e.g. "Plants described in the 1st decade of the 19th century" or "Animals described in the 6th decade of the 20th century". This enables us to use "proper" centuries. However, most editors will (in my view) be confused by the idea that the 1st decade of the 19th century runs from 1801 to 1810 and the 10th decade of the 20th century runs from 1991 to 2000. It certainly confuses me – I have to check my examples several times before I believe them.
• So I conclude we should use ten-year ranges like 1800–1809 and 1990–1999 and hundred-year ranges like 1800–1899.
• However, as Rkitko rightly identifies, there's then a problem with what to call the first ten-year range in each hundred-year range, since "the 1800s" can mean either 1800–1809 or 1800–1899. There seem to be two solutions:
  • Use a different notation for the first ten-year range: "Plants described in 1800–1809", "Plants described in the 1810s", "Plants described in the 1820s", ..., "Plants described in the 1890s". Then all of these categories can belong to "Plants described in the 1800s".
  • Keep to the "s" notation for all the ten-year ranges, so that "Animals described in the 1800s" means "in 1800–1809" but expand out the hundred-year ranges, so that "Animals described in the 1800s" is categorized in "Animals described in 1800–1899". This solution preserves the largest part of the existing system, simply correcting the "century" description to a more accurate range. There are only four of the hundred-year range categories to have their names changed. So this seems the best solution to me.

Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several templates for categorizing redirects relevant to Tree of Life. {{ R from scientific name}} {{ R to scientific name}} {{ R from monotypic taxon}} {{ R to monotypic taxon}} and {{ R from alternative scientific name}}. The categories used by these templates are pretty massive Category:Redirects from scientific names has 5310 articles, Category:Redirects to scientific names has 4400, Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa has 836, Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa has 1333 and Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names has 890. {{ R from synonym}} has previously pretty heavily used for alternative scientific names/taxonomic synonyms, and most of the 2445 articles in Category:Redirects from synonyms are related to organism names.

I think the categories might be more useful if they were smaller and subdivided along the lines of Tree of Life's subprojects (or at least the more active subprojects). Not much happens with ToL project itself, but there is a lot of active in the subprojects. Would it be worthwhile to add parameters to the redirect categorization templates (e.g. |plant=yes, |mammal=yes, etc) to put these redirects in subcategories (e.g. Category:Redirects from scientific names of plants)? Sorting out the redirects already using the categorization templates would probably require a bot. Plantdrew ( talk) 07:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the finer divisions would be more useful. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories populated by redirect categorization are often going to be pretty large, so that's not necessarily a problem. I can't see any harm in the specificity though. It would be nice if it could be worked with parameters rather than new templates. -- BDD ( talk) 16:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@ BDD: I agree. I've implemented {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}} as a test. See Acidanthera murielae and the category linked there as an example. If this seems the right way to go, it can be extended to other groups of organisms and other templates. I don't know how finely animals should be broken up, but I guess this is up to the different WikiProjects. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I work with animals more often, but I'll keep this in mind. -- BDD ( talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we want a leaflet at wikimania? If so, we need a logo. Do we have a logo?

Wikimania Project Leaflets

Lepidoptera ( talk) 17:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I am noticing that the missing taxa pages are somewhat disorganized. I think a great thing would be able to leave taxa specific pages in existence, but then to transclude their content onto a master list of all missing taxa. This way, you can view the entire list all at once on the WikiProject TOL page, or view the particular subtopic you're interested in on sub WikiProjects.

Are there any objections? This will involve significant shuffling around of pages so I wanted to give a head's up.

Lepidoptera ( talk) 05:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! Shyamal ( talk) 07:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Biological taxonomy (history of) (version of 23:52, 8 July 2014).
— Wavelength ( talk) 23:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made a WP:RfC on the talk page of the article for Pectinidae which can be viewed here. Please consider visiting and offering your thoughts on how to split/ join/ redirect the articles on Scallop and Pectinidae. Everyone is welcome! KDS4444 ^Talk 07:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Those familiar with how we name articles (and why) on species only identified in the fossil record may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#English name vs. Scientific name,  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As some editors may be creating redirects by copy pasting the item into the searchbox, I thought I'd present a faster way for those who do not know. (I do not mean to be a smarty pants.):

1. Click edit at the article.
2. Double click the synonym(s) and hyperlink (or manually add "[[" and "]]").
3. Click preview.
4. Shift-click on all the newly created redlinks to open in new tabs.
5. Create the redirects.

The junk to paste in for the few who don't know:
#REDIRECT [[ARTICLENAME]]
{{R from scientific name}} <!--for redirects from scientific names to English names-->

#REDIRECT [[ARTICLENAME]]
{{R to scientific name}} <!--for redirects from English names to scientific names-->

#REDIRECT [[ARTICLENAME]]
{{R from alternative scientific name}} <!--for redirects from one scientific name to another, e.g. synonym-->

I hope some have found this helpful. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I added a bit more to Anna's "junk" above. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. I am embarrassed to say that I never knew of the "R from alternative scientific name", but will use it from now on. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Like.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for a page where new articles of organisms are listed, like in the GermanWiki the page de:Portal:Lebewesen/Neue Artikel. Thanks!-- Varanus kujawis ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Varanus kujawis: There's no single place to see all new articles on organisms. You can find the various organismal WikiProjects that have signed up for new articles alerts at User:AlexNewArtBot#Biology and medicine. Click on the "Search results" link found on each line to see the new articles for that group of organisms. You'll probably be most interested in User:AlexNewArtBot/HerpetologySearchResult. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Principle of the First Reviser into International Code of Zoological Nomenclature#Principle of the First Reviser. Discuss at Talk:International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature#Proposed_merge_with_Principle_of_the_First_Reviser Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if there books that feature the descents of various popular and interesting organism. There are many that place animals in the ecosystem, for example. What about in their evolutionary relationships? Howunusual ( talk) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Some popular books that immediately come to mind are Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale or Shubin's Your Inner Fish. A simple book search for "____ evolution" (e.g. "Mammal evolution" or "insect evolution") will yield many results, such as Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated Guide or Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy. There is more in-depth discussion in many academic books, such as paleontology textbooks. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 00:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The FAC reviewer gave his support after reviewing the article, and suggested the following ...ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. See it here: [1] Your time will be greatly appreciated. Atsme☯ ^Consult 15:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this has been discussed before, but:

Can we have a bot that takes all synonyms listed in taxoboxes and makes them into redirects to the article? Anna F remote ( talk) 13:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but a bit of caution is needed since taxoboxes sometimes contain information like "Fooia bara Smith, non Fooia bara Jones". Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe some sort of precise search would be safe. I guess the bot people may know if this is even possible. I will post at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted here: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 62#Bot for creating synonym redirects

Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, meant to post this at WikiProject Biolgy. I've moved the discussion there: Talk:WikiProject Biology#Notability for scientist biographies. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The identifying graphic of this wikiproject (see the top of this page) is a high-detail diagram designed to be seen at a large size. Its usage as an icon here is ineffective, as it appears to be little more than a pale blue ring. I propose that someone, possibly I, create a clear, recognisable design. Thoughts? JamesDouch ( talk) 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@ JamesDouch: Sounds good!  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to think of a design when the scope of this wikiproject is so broad. Do you think this will be ok?

JamesDouch ( talk) 11:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty plain. I think a more artistic icon would be preferable: something intermediate between overly complex and overwhelmingly simple. How about something based on classical "tree of life" illustrations, which, while clearly recognizing they are outdated, pay homage to the historical development of classifications schemes and history of evolutionary thought? --Animalparty-- ( talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Maybe rounded corners. We're talking about organics here. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Animalparty, I prefer both proposals over the current icon. The discussion has halted here. If it means replacing the current icon sooner, then I am in favour of your proposal. JamesDouch ( talk) 12:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a gallery of further possibilities...

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12
• 
  13

Though it is archaic, I visually prefer the first one. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems stalled, I've changed the image anyway. Feel free to revert if you have a problem with it. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured this might be the best place to ask to get the most interest, so here's a question on the oh so dreaded topic of common names. Common names are often defined by professional organizations at least for organisms that are of some interest to the general public. For instance bed bug is the distinct common name given to Cimex lectularius by the Entomological Society of America. However, bed-bugs, or bedbugs are also listed from a dictionary cited in the Wikipedia article itself. My question is should we just stick to a distinct common name given by an authority such as a professional organization such as this when available instead of listing all the possible spelling variations that have come about? In some cases (not this one) what the public uses as a common name could be incorrect and describing a different species common name, while in other cases like this one, you seem to get people just plunking together words that can eventually sneak into dictionaries to lead to this kind of word meltdown. I'm hoping this approach gives at least some sanity to the many issues that come from using common names.

If there's a relevant manual of style that informs this I'd be happy to know about it. I've seen MOS:ORGANISMS, but that's only in the proposal phase, so I'm not sure if that's the template people have been working from, or if there is another related manual of style for this. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For spelling permutations, it is not necessary since these alternative names are not significantly different. Nor do you need to list them in the article (much less bold them). Just try to get all of them redirected to that page ( bed-bug, bedbugs, bed-bugs). See Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... that article is a bit problematic. Is it meant to be a species page? Should it have a taxobox if it doesn't pertain to a single taxon? --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 03:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, there are a few issues in general I hope to clean up as I size everything up. It seems someone went and listed a bunch of things within the family Cimicidae, but I'm not sure how that came about. There is one other species called the tropical bed bug that's a bit more obscure, but it looks like an editor came in thinking there was a plethora of bed bug species. For that page though, it is about one species that is a pest in the end. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmk, taxobox should definitely be emended then and text tweaked a bit, since it's currently overlapping with the existing article on Cimicidae. Disambiguation links/page to other cimicids referred to as "bed bugs" should be enough. Although from looking around the web, C. lectularius does seem to have another more distinct common name of "common bed bug". Primary usage of "bed bug" still seems to be explicitly to C. lectularius though. --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Taxobox, where I've proposed having {{ taxobox}} add a maintenance category to articles where a species' Red List status is not specified. Nyttend ( talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working on Draft:Elassoma evergladei, but I'm having trouble with the fish's colors. The descriptions I'm getting from Google Books and the images online don't seem to match the colors on the draft's picture. Maybe the picture is misidentified? Thanks, Bananasoldier ( talk) 01:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for a photo on Commons to be misidentified. I don't know anything about E. evergladei, but it seems that females and juvenile males have a relatively dull color, and adult males have a striking color. Pictures on Google Images are dominated by adult males, since aquarium hobbyists are likely to want to show off (and take photos of) their most striking specimens. There may also be artificial selection for more brilliant coloration in individuals bred for the aquarium trade. That said, the photos on the draft article do seem much paler than the description given in the text. The second photo does have a note on Commons: "Male is typically black with white flecks, but he turned very pale in the photo box".

I don't think the Commons photos are misidentified in this case, but they may not be very representative of how this fish appears either in the wild or in the aquarium trade. Whichever image appears in the Taxobox will be the default image displayed on Google once the article gets moved out of draft space. It's too bad there isn't a larger selection of images on Commons. If you don't think any of the freely available images are satisfactory, you could submit the draft with no images. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

From here. [2] Extinction daggers are not applied consistently across articles, and there even seems to be disagreement over whether they should only be used for recently extinct taxa, and not prehistoric ones. The daggers also don't link to anything, and some readers seem to be confused by them, not knowing what they mean. Also, in the automatic taxoboxes, extinction daggers become part of the taxon name links for some reason (see for example Paraceratherium), which is not optimal. So how exactly are we going to use these things? FunkMonk ( talk) 16:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed this problem yesterday. Consensus on a consistent usage of the dagger (†) should be reached, and then included in the taxonomy section of the Manual of Style. The double dagger (‡) has also been used to indicate the extinction of dubious taxa in at least one article; Galápagos tortoise. Consensus on this should also be included in the Manual of Style. Two aspects need to be considered:

• application to (prehistoric / recently extinct / prehistoric and recently extinct / only when in contrast to extant) taxa, and
• explanation by (linking to Dagger (typography) / linking to Extinction / footnote).

My preferred options are prehistoric and recently extinct, and linking to Dagger (typography) respectively. JKDw ( talk) 06:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the dagger is a common convention used to mark extinct taxa, but that there is no obligation to use it. I think that routinely including it or even requiring it may lead to the impression that it is a necessary part of the name, which is obviously not true. Extant status is one of many facts about a taxon and is entirely separate from the nomenclature. When, in 1975, Glypheidae changed from being extinct (as far as we knew) to extant, its name did not change from "†Glypheidae" to "Glypheidae"; it was the same taxon before and after, with the same name and authority. I would hate to see a situation where the use of the dagger leached into the prose, and I suspect that that is a danger if the use of daggers is promoted. If it were up to me, I would restrict the use of daggers to lists, and require the dagger to be explained beforehand [e.g. "Palaeosurvivor contains the following species (extinct taxa marked †):"]. The fact that confusion is already being caused demonstrates that the symbol is not well enough understood to be used on its own. Requiring a user to follow a link to understand a symbol is also bad practice, especially when you consider that articles may appear in print and ought to be entirely comprehensible there as well. A link to extinction fails the principle of least astonishment, and a link to dagger (typography) will seem inappropriate – many readers will not search through for its use in palaeontology, but assume that they are just being told about the symbol in general terms. I would propose that the daggers be removed from all taxoboxes; this could be achieved through a straightforward bot task and by amending {{ automatic taxobox}} so that it doesn't produce the dagger when extinct=yes. Setting an arbitrary cut-off ("recent") for which extinctions are marked with a symbol and which are not cannot be tenable, and will certainly lead to even more confusion. It needs to be all or nothing; I argue for nothing and, having just scanned through a sample of palaeontological articles, the dagger is less widespread than I had thought, which is heartening. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My aforementioned preferences are weak and less thoroughly considered than yours, Stemonitis. I would not oppose any proposal so long as it is consistent. If consensus is in accordance with you, even then I think that that consensus should be recorded in the Manual of Style to prevent a regress to inconsistency. JKDw ( talk) 08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I just discovered Template:Extinct ( †), which produces the text 'Extinct' when the cursor hovers over it. I think this would be a better option than linking to Dagger (typography) or Extinction, however, it will still be useless in print. JKDw ( talk) 08:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Like Stemonitis, I'm not too enthusiastic about its inclusion, especially since it is so inconsistently applied. But people over at the animal project seem to like it. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe restrict it further to mixed lists? i.e. lists which include BOTH extant and extinct taxa. This has been my default practice IIRC, I don't use daggers when everything in the list are extinct. I also try to include a "taxa marked with † are extinct" (usually with small tags, e.g. Araucaria) in my articles and use {{ extinct}} when possible. I dunno about taxoboxes though. Personally I prefer them there, but acknowledge that it may be confusing since the daggers are not linked. No strong opinions either way.--  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 00:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As for usage, I've always been under the impression that it's used for both recently extinct and prehistoric taxa.--  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 01:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion at WikiProject Extinction. They've previously touched on the same issue. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 07:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Obsidian's suggestion sounds interesting. Any other thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 17:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I support that proposal, that obelisks should be used only in lists, and only when explained beforehand. It would be good to get this agreed and codified. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should such a guideline be written down? FunkMonk ( talk) 15:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stemonitis, thank you for the well considered comments. I agree, other than I think the dagger is very useful in taxoboxes that list child taxa that are mixed extant, extinct. The way it is coded in automatic taxoboxes is badly done, but that should be fixed rather than be used as an excuse to kill it everywhere. I have seen it appear before the species name in text, and it just looks weird. I tried to edit it, but could not, maybe it was from an automatic taxobox. I edited one of those automatic taxobox templates because it made a dagger appear on the parent, I think, due to a single child being extinct, but they are very hard for he inexperienced to edit. I agree that it should just explain the symbol in the text, being courteous to mobile readers is especially important to me. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ MicroPaLeo: there's no 'upwards' movement of information in the automatic taxobox system; the status of child taxa is irrelevant. So the if a parent taxon "XXX" incorrectly appears as extinct, you just edit the page "Template:Taxonomy/XXX". Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I said I think because I could not find the edits in my contributions, but my point stands, it is not intuitive understanding how to correct misplaced daggers in automatic taxoboxes. I was not able to "just edit the page" to remove the incorrectly appearing dagger. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, using templates is never just "intuitive" – you have to consult the template page which documents it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the philosophy of making things that require as much read ing as most Wikipedia instruction sets do. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We apparently need to create an article for Supergroup (biology).

Rhizaria says:

The Rhizaria are a species-rich supergroup of mostly unicellular eukaryotes.

This supergroup was proposed by Cavalier-Smith in 2002.

I wanted to understand the term "supergroup" better, but I don't find an article for it. The disamb page Supergroup doesn't seem to show a biology-related meaning.

Apparently we should create an article at Supergroup (biology) (per the format Family_(biology) and Order (biology)), and we should also add a link to Supergroup.

Thanks. - 189.122.195.17 ( talk) 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if supergroup has a distinct rank or definition, or if its just a convenient way to group large taxa like phyla and kingdoms that themselves have controversial or unstable classification schemes. SAR supergroup suggests the term is an informal group, e.g. just another clade. A second option would be to simply define or clarify supergroup in context of the article to obviate a new article. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it could get a short definition on Wiktionary. — Pengo 04:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging @ MicroPaLeo: who might be able to weigh in on the formality of "supergroup" or appropriateness of an article. Note that certain formal ranks like suborder or supertribe simply redirect to their nominal rank (e.g. order, tribe). Since "group" or "subgroup" don't have formal ranks or definite meanings in biology, I doubt "supergroup" does as well. But perhaps it has special meaning in protistan nomenclature. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Clades are not informal. I believe "Supergroup" tries to move away from ranks that imply all the organisms within the clade are related to each other in ways similar to other taxa at the same rank. Supergroups are clades of related kingdoms. I am not a taxonomist, but the botany editor Peter and one other plants editor do appear to be taonomists. Wikipedia should have an article on supergroups, what they are, their history, and their relationships. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a bit more complex then that, depending on discipline. Within eukaryotes, supergroups appear to be nearly synonymous with kingdoms or "a group of kingdoms but below the rank of superkingdom (aka domain)". Strickberger's Evolution text defines supergroup as "Major groupings of eukaryotes that replace kingdoms in some classifications". This is explained in more depth in Protozoa and Human Disease. The eukaryotic supergroups, what they are, their history, and their relationships, are discussed at Kingdom_(biology)#Kingdoms_of_the_Eukarya and Eukaryote#Classification, and thus I think it would be better to redirect Supergroup (biology) to one of those articles rather than have an isolated article that says nearly the same and removes context. However, there are other usages of "supergroup" in biology: viral and bacterial literature discusses, for instance Wolbachia supergroups and viral supergroups ( here and here). This tells me that the word has different meanings to different fields, and while the eukaryote usage appears to be somewhat standardized (i.e. a level equal to or slightly above kingdom, depending on system), the usage in other fields is less defined. I could see Supergroup (biology) as possibly being a disambiguation page, and I'd like to get some bacteria/virus people input, but if the other definitions turn out to be merely "convenient groupings of other groups with no equivalence to other usages in the field" then I think redirecting to one of the eukaryote articles above would be more warranted. In the mean time, care should be taken when using the term in Wikipedia: i.e. even if authors use "supergroup", perhaps we can use equivalent terms like "group", "clade", or similar, based on context, without hindering comprehension. See for instance Archaeplastida which is defined as simply a "major group". Using general language like this actually buffers the article against the chaos of dueling taxonomic concepts and nomenclatural inconsistency: if a study next year proposes a new term for supergroups, they'd still be major groups. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm from WP:VIRUS. The highest level of virus classification consistent with the rest of biology is currently the order. Above the order level, viruses are grouped together based on the structure of their genome and how they replicate. These are called "groups". Apart from your virus sources, supergroup is occasionally used to refer to all viruses, not a subset of viruses. Here and here it is used alongside domain/superkingdom. & for future reference, the "official" classification used within the virology community is published by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, website here. If it isn't published by them, then it likely isn't considered standard/official/formal by most virologists. ComfyKem ( talk) 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, ComfyKem. So do you think there's a use for creating an article on supergroup (biology) that touches upon all these different usages? Or perhaps wikitionary is the better place for it? --Animalparty-- ( talk) 06:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear from the amount of explanation it's been given that it should have an article. — Pengo 02:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at the Virus WikiProject about the notability of virus species and taxa. Members of this project are welcome to comment. ComfyKem ( talk) 17:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't comment on vira, but in general I'd say all living species of any kind deserve articles. When it comes to prehistoric ones, not in most cases, they're better off dealt with in genus articles, for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk ( talk) 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a similar point of view. Firstly, there are only 5,000 species (not that much of an only, but compared to insect species, not much). It depends on the importance of the species. In my opinion, the best rule is no rule - you want to create a virus species article, go ahead, but it isn't a big priority, unless the species is a notorious species. -- Gug01 ( talk) 21:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I support the virus project establishing whatever guidelines they choose that promote better encyclopedia articles. My own view is that a massive ton of species stubs- of any taxon- that merely state scientific name, year of description, and author is not really worth the time to make, nor the reader to click to, especially when in many cases the genus or family level articles are similarly poorly defined (e.g. "X is a genus of Y containing the following species"). I think many stubs, especially those gleaned and sourced solely from taxonomic databases (e.g. Catalogue of Life, AntWeb, etc.), could easily be merged into a nicely formatted table or list within a genus article- with a {{ R with possibilities}} or {{ R to list entry}}- until the point when an editor can create an article that offers a semblance of encyclopedic coverage. A too-often overlooked "rule of thumb", posted on many projects in some form or another, reads As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later. For many obscure or and/or extinct taxa, I think this is preferable. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 03:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you find a link with wording as you outlined below? I have some palaeo species articles I want to nuke... Sad to say it, Gug, but Homotherium crusafonti and Homotherium venezuelensis are prime examples of the problem. As well as ( Notharctus tenebrosus, various Proconsul (primate) species, etc. We should invest more time in creating articles for the hundreds of genera that need articles instead of one line stubs about species that are likely to be synonymised sometime anyway. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone considering that Proconsul is nukeable? I feel like I was in a completely different conversation and no longer have a clue what was being discussed. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 04:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but the species articles should be merged into the genus article, which is very short anyway. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not at all talking about "short" genus articles like Proconsul. I am talking about taking all the species of Aethes and putting them in a table with wingspan, sorted by distribution. Some of these articles have been edited 30 times over four years by Bots and say exactly what they said when created over four years ago. There are stories about some of the Proconsul fossils, and they appear in newspapers and popular and technical journals and books and textbooks. The moths, after initial publication, are just lists at most levels of research. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there's obviously a difference between what amount of literature that exists, and what will ever be added to the articles. The default process is to fill up the genus article, and if/when that gets too long, split off a species article. There is no reason to split species off until then. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But that gets into telling people what they can write about, someone may be more interested in the species than the genus, and if there is ample literature, why should they have to add species info to a genus article? I had a bad physical anthroplogy text as an undergrad that discussed the genera by an example species. It was crazy. With the moths in my example, there is no literature for someone to opt to write a specie article, as there is not an article's worth of information outside of the technical description, which is primary. In some case there is almost no genus information, either, outside of the initial description, plus maybe a revision that has one sentence on the genus. There is a reason to split off species in the case of singular primate species, a popular science article about the discoverer, a TV show, a book catches someone's interest. Very different from a 10 lines of descriptive morphology in a 125 year old journal. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 06:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No one says you can't write about a given species. The point is, you can do that in the genus article, if all you want is to write paragraph or two, which most of these species articles are anyhow. There are examples where species artricles make sense to split off, but that is mainly with species extinct within the last tens of thousands of years, where enough is known about them to write more than just the basic "was found here named by, differed by a slightly thicker jugal bone". FunkMonk ( talk) 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I might have agreed with you before seeing the mess that is the Asian squirrels. It has five species articles in it, most of them are longer than the genus article they are contained in, and it contains almost no info on the genus. A species and a genus are not the same thing, and sometimes the upmerged articles are just about the species, but don't relate it to the genus, which must compare and contrast the genus within the family. I think technically it is more challenging to write a genus article from the species information than the average non-specialist may realize. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, remember I'm only talking about prehistoric/fossil species, and specifically said all living species deserve an article. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the same thing, or did, and I might have agreed with you, but the Proconsul articles make me disagree. Fossil species may be different, but your example of a picturesque mammalian species doesn't make it for me. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(responding after dinner): While I can't find a recent example quite as skeletal as "X is a species of Y named by Author in Year" (I'm sure I've seen them patrolling new pages, perhaps they've been improved!) some articles which could be plausibly be consolidated include: Extant: Athous curtulus and other species of Athous, Trichodes similis, the species of Eocarterus, the four subspecies of Cylindera germanica, the subspecies of Polistes crinitus. Fossil: Chresmoda obscura/ Chresmoda, and the species of Eotapinoma and Protazteca. I'm also working on a short essay that basically champions reasons for aiming for the genus first, with particular relevance towards extinct/obscure taxa, and the pros and cons of independent stubs. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 05:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the best solution in the short term (ultimately, probably every extant species should have have an article, but an article with one sentence of text and a taxobox isn't very helpful). If there's consensus against one sentence+taxobox articles, fair enough, but I really don't want to see articles of this type created and then converted to redirects to a higher taxon. If there's nothing to say about a particular species, leave it as a red-link, don't create a blue-link that ends up going to the genus (or merge a species into a genus). Callosciurus has 5 taxoboxes; 1 for the genus, and 4 for species that redirect to the genus article. Better to have Callosciurus species as redlinks rather than confusing redirects. Plantdrew ( talk) 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a mess. I don't think that is what is being suggested above for the primates, but, if it is, I absolutely vote against it. When you have this much individual text, as you do with the squirrels, as with the primates, it takes some level of expertise to make a coherent article that discusses both the genus at a sufficient level and the species, but, it should never be done like the Callosciurus article; you should still end up with an encyclopedia article, not a collection of stubs shoved together. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 07:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the redlinks, since that implies a species level article is wanted, which it probably isn't in most cases. Species can be dealt with as they are in for example Stegosaurus for most prehistoric taxa. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are that even substub skeletal articles on taxa are worthwhile articles because of WP:WIP and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. I'm less certain about viruses, but the WP:PLANTS project has tens of thousands articles already but hundreds of thousands possible and we're (as far as I know) not intimidated by our capacity to watch these articles and maintain them. By the way, species articles should never be redirected to the genus. Redlinks are fine and easier for new editors to create articles where needed (and yes, every species article is expected to be created at some point!) rather than the initially confusing concept of turning a redirect into its own article. Rkitko ^{( talk)} 14:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, dinosaur species have been redirected for as long as Wikipedia has existed, and it's a pretty good practice so far. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The plant articles seem to be monitored. The moth articles do not appear to be, other than the attempt to prevent them from being edited which I just encountered. MicroPaLeo ( talk) 14:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I still think the best rule is no rule. Gug01 ( talk) 15:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe not on Wikipedia, but probably on Wikispecies or Wikidata. πr² ( t • c) 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infraspeciesbox has been nominated for deletion. Given that these templates are of interest to WikiProject Tree of Life, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

While working on cleaning up some issues with bird categories, I came across Alca (bird). Am I correct in assuming this should be at Alca (genus), based on conventions agreed upon in earlier conversations here? There are no other organisms with this genus name. MeegsC ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there have been earlier conversations on this topic here on WP:TOL. There has been some recent discussion elsewhere that I regard as inconclusive: at WP:NCFAUNA and at WP:PLANTS (I was arguing for the position that would use "Alca (bird)" rather than "Alca (genus)" in these discussions). The status quo seems to vary among WikiProjects (which I suspect is more to the preferences of a handful of individual editors rather than any broad consensus at the Wikiprojects). Articles under WikiProject Arthropods almost always use "(genus)" as a disambiguator. WikiProject Gastropods almost always uses "(gastropod)", not "(genus)" and WikiProject Spiders usually uses "(spider)". WikiProject Insects and WikiProject Lepidoptera mostly use terms associated with orders: e.g. "(fly)", "(moth)", "(beetle)" rather than "(genus)" or "(insect)". WikiProject Fungi almost always uses "(fungus)". Other organism WikiProjects have more mixed usage.

It seems to me that one the largest sources for ambiguity of genus names is the name of another genus, so "(genus)" will often be inadequate for disambiguation. The counter-argument is that many articles that are presently disambiguated by a confusing variety of terms that are mostly WikiProject specific can adequately be disambiguated via more consistent use of "(genus)".

WikiProject Birds uses "(genus)" for 56 articles on bird genera and "(bird)" for around 30, so there's a weak precedent for going with "Alca (genus)" in this case. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Having just now had to sort out confusion between the plant genus and the moth genus synonym Heteromorpha, I favour the use of the type of organism rather than "genus". Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with other genera is only one source of ambiguity. There are many, many examples of ambiguities with classical goddesses, Spanish-language cities and all sorts of other things. The trouble with taxonomic disambiguators is that there are often many alternatives that could be used: "(animal)", "(chordate)", "(vertebrate)", "(bird)", "(finch)", etc., whereas there is only a single rank. I would argue that wherever possible – wherever the name occurs under only one code, which is most cases – one should use "(genus)" as the most predictable disambiguating term. In this case, since either title would be a redirect, there is no harm in having both Alca (genus) and Alca (bird); the only issue is which to put any categories on. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not addressing here the issue of disambiguation with non-biological entities; those are well known to all of us. Here, I'm only wondering whether I should be moving these articles to either "Genus name (bird)" or "Genus name (genus)" or just leaving the hotchpotch we have now. I'm not sure what advantage there would be to having two parenthetical redirects. Surely, you'd only ever include one on a disambiguation page, and any search done (on Wikipedia or any search engine) would bring up either the appropriate DAB page or the article itself. MeegsC ( talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a strong enough consensus either way to justify page moves. I don't think it's seen as a big enough problem to warrant a lot of discussion and formulating a recommendation, either, even if consensus could be reached. You may choose to be bold and make the change, but someone may well object, and unless you can ensure consistency across all WP:TOL articles, then it might not even be very helpful in the long term. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 09:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

For dinosaurs at least, the convention is (dinosaur), not (genus). FunkMonk ( talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I beleive the typical practice, if not the standard, is to use "(genus)" when discovering a disambiguation needed between a genus name and some other entity. If there are multiple genera, the "(genus)" article becomes a disambiguation and both (all) genera articles get a more specific disambiguation tag. If none of the articles has primacy, then the non-disambiguated article name becomes the disambiguation and all others get disambiguated in some way. (See Aotus, the history of the articles it lists, and its history.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering if Alca (bird genus) would be a better solution. After all, there is no bird called Alca, so the current Alca (bird) might be a bit confusing. Or doesn't that matter? MeegsC ( talk) 14:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think both "(genus)" and "(bird)" are common, while "(bird genus)" is not. I think pick one or the other, but I don't think it matters in the long run. Having both wouldn't hurt. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(External uninvited view): I came here by an accident and didn't look into the "biological" detail, however let me bring your attention to the purpose of disambiguation: to quickly tell the user the specific area for the topic with the same name. Keeping this in mind, it occurs to me that the DAB qualifier '(bird)' or '(flinch)' is much more informative than '(genus)' for an average reader. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's very important to recognize that Alca (bird) is currently not the primary title but a redirect to Razorbill, which is what readers see when reading about the monotypic genus. Unless there's some new plan to move every bird article to its scientific name (which I would oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and all the fracas over capitalization), then Alca (genus) would presumably also redirect to Razorbill (redirects are cheap). We can have both links, and neither are even needed on the dab page Alca. Where's the confusion? So in response to MeegsC's very first question, "Am I correct in assuming this should be at Alca (genus)", I would say probably not. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A request for a taxobox change has been posted at Template_talk:Taxonomy/Angiosperms#Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2015. This is just a notification, I'll leave further actions to more experienced content and taxobox editors to discuss. Please describe needed changes as detailed and specific as possible. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

These animals are the most commonly found scientific names in Google books which we don't already have articles or redirects for. The list includes synonyms. For details of how I made this list see the notes here. I welcome you to create articles or redirects for these.

Each scientific name is found in at least 147 books or volumes published after 1950, and all are in the top 1% of most common scientific names.

1. Tor tor - Deep bodied masheer or Tor mahseer (many synonyms [3] including Barbus megalepis)
2. Salpa fusiformis - common salp
3. Embiotoca jacksoni - Black perch or Black surfperch or Butterlips
4. Ascidia nigra = Phallusia nigra (syn)
5. Nandus nandus - Gangetic leaffish
6. Thalia democratica - (appears to have no common name other than salp)
7. Ammodytes americanus - American sand lance
8. Phallusia mammillata = Phallusia mammilata (misspelling) - white sea-squirt or warty sea squirt (but is not Styela clava)
9. Epinephelus guttatus - Koon or Red hind
10. Ammodytes hexapterus - Pacific sand lance
11. Synbranchus marmoratus - Marbled eel (ambiguous) Mottled Swamp Eel
12. Oligocottus maculosus - Tidepool sculpin
13. Dendrodoa grossularia - Baked bean ascidian, baked-bean ascidian. (syn: Ascidia grossularia)
14. Embiotoca lateralis - Blue seaperch
15. Fritillaria borealis - Oikopleura (no synonyms)
16. Diplodus annularis - Annular bream
17. Elassoma evergladei - Everglades pygmy sunfish --- I plan to knock this one out. Feel free to help @ Draft:Elassoma evergladei Bananasoldier ( talk) 08:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Done Bananasoldier ( talk) 02:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
18. Poecilia mexicana - Atlantic molly -- Draft:Poecilia mexicana Bananasoldier ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
19. Microgadus proximus - Pacific tomcod
20. Myliobatis aquila - Common bull ray
21. Sarotherodon melanotheron - African sunfish
22. Sceloporus cyanogenys - Blue Spiny Lizard (It appears this is the preferred name [4] and Sceloporus serrifer, which we have an article for, is a synonym)
23. Dormitator maculatus - Fat Sleeper
24. Myctophum punctatum - Spotted lanterfish
25. Diplosoma listerianum - jelly crust tunicate or Gray Encrusting Compound Tunicate. (no synonyms)
26. Tribolodon hakonensis - Big-scaled redfin I'm doing this one. MeegsC ( talk) 02:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
27. Mormyrus kannume - Bottlenose
28. Stenobrachius leucopsarus - Northern lampfish
29. Lithognathus mormyrus - Sand steenbras

(Correction: title should be "Missing chordates" rather than "Missing vertebrates". I didn't noticed some sea-squirts had made the list.)

Please feel free to edit this list to add notes. — Pengo 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Took one from the list, for a quick stub: Girella nigricans --  OBSIDIAN† SOUL 05:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pengo - so you'll do a run on insects soon? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot about them. :) Do you want arthropods specifically or all invertebrates? — Pengo 05:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Casliber, I've posted a list of insects to WikiProject Insects. The top four are Diptera (flies) and the fifth is Rhopalosiphum padi, the bird cherry-oat aphid. I still haven't made a list of the non-chordata non-insecta invertebrates.

I've also made lists for WikiProject Fungi, WikiProject Microbiology (bacteria only), and WikiProject Plants. — Pengo 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC) ...and ants — Pengo 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) ... and Gastropods

Pengo - cool! not fussed whether insects or arthropods - a whol lotta stubs to make.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Pengo: Thanks for making this list. It's been very fun working on Draft:Elassoma evergladei (anyone feel free to join in!), and so far I've only used 1 book from Google Books! There's a lot more to do. Bananasoldier ( talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Bananasoldier: That draft looks pretty good. Don't forget to publish it! — Pengo 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested a start of a new project on Wikispecies for those Wikispecies users who are interested in collaboration with WikiProject Tree of Life and to promote an intensified cooperation between Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikispecies. Please feel free to join the discussion on WS Village pump, and if the project gets support, participate! Dan Koehl ( talk) 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a new essay, " Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles", you are invited to comment on.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Which template/tag should be used when redirecting from an alternative scientific name (for example a junior synonym) to an article located at the common name? R-from-alternative-scientific-name only provides for redirect-to-scientific name; R-from-scientific-name presumes the redirected page is the correct/current scientific name. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 19:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been struggling with this for awhile. The redirect category structure for organisms largely presumes that scientific names will be used as titles; redirects to/from monotypic taxa also presume that the target is a scientific name. Some consensus is needed. There's been some previous discussion about this at Template talk:R from alternative scientific name#Meaning of this template and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive64#Question about redirect templates.

Personally, I think a new redirect template should be created for these. {{ R from alternative scientific name to common name}} (with a catchy shortcut that doesn't require so much typing)? Or maybe {{ R from alternative scientific name}} could be modified to take another parameter "|common" that would display an appropriate message about the target (that could get complicated though; with existing parameters for type of organism (currently "fish", "fungi" and "plant", it would need to accept two parameters, and there would be 8 different messages displayed from the permutations of "common" and organism type).

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I'm not comfortable tagging synonyms redirecting to common names with "R from alternative scientific name". Plantdrew ( talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither am I, hence my question. Another possible solution would be to either change the {{ R from scientific name}} to read "from a scientific name" rather than "from the scientific name". Because a synonym still is a scientific name, just not the right one. I suppose you are right that we need a consensus. I'd also prefer a new template because a lot of people overlook parameters and thus would still be scratching their heads which template to use. As for a catchy shortcut, that's something we can worry about once we get there. I'd rather have a lengthy-to-type but correct template than no proper template as is the case right now. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not "R from alternative scientific name", since this is meant for scientific name → scientific name redirects. What is the rationale for wanting to distinguish between redirects to common names from accepted scientific names and from alternative scientific names? Given that R cats are for maintenance purposes, not for readers, why do we need separate categories? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the text from R from scientific name clearly states "This is a redirect from the scientific name of an organism to the vernacular ("common") name.". A synonym is a scientific name, certainly, but definitely not THE scientific name, and seeing the redirect page state otherwise may be confusing. Furthermore, for updating/correcting-purposes, the categorization is *important*. In some ways, a redirect-from-synonym is basically the taxonomic form of a redirect-from-misspelling. They're useful to have for navigation, but barring some specific exceptions -shouldn't- be the term used in an article. (Admittedly, there are a few more valid reasons why one would use a redirect through a synonym than why one would use a redirect through misspelling. Nonetheless, the great majority of the time they're used "on accident"; as in, the person who added the link believed it to be the valid terminology.

Doesn't really matter for that if it's linking to accident through the redirect acident or linking to Paralobesia viteana through Endopiza viteana or linking to Siamese mud carp through the junior synonym Crossocheilus thai. In the great, great majority of cases, those links should be corrected.

But to correct something, you first have to be able to -find- it. For which categorization is needed. Such categorization is in place for misspellings (acident -> accident); for synonyms to scientific names (Endopiza viteana -> Paralobesia viteana) but not for synonyms to common names, meaning that it's well-possible for articles to use outdated or incorrect terms unnoticed for a long, long time.

(Note: Crossocheilus thai is not linked 'cause that redirect doesn't exist yet. Nor has it even been listed on that page yet—same for the whole bunch of other synonyms the species has. Lots and lots of articles miss the great majority of their synonyms, let alone the actual redirects from those synonyms. Species articles are underdeveloped in a good many areas.) AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 19:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The only point of these things it categorizing redirs for later cleanup or analysis. So, is there any practical use in distinguishing between a redir from a junior synonym to a vernacular name, vs. from the conventionally accepted scientific name to a vernacular name? Or even between a redir from junior syn to vernacular vs. from junior syn to accepted scientific name? Do we care about the R from, the R to, or both?  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).-- Lucas559 ( talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Race (biology)#Proposal: Merge to Breed.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to this project: WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bold text for organisms.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are countless articles such as monkey that have imperfect taxon/clade overlap. Even though the human clade has no clear taxon, an independent article about the human clade should be split off from these other articles.

The article human used to say we were the last of the hominids: "the human clade", a branch of bipedal great apes.

Now it seems that there has developed imperfect semantic overlap between "hominid" and "the human clade".

The human clade doesn't have to have a taxon to be an article.

Taxa are indispensable, but clades are real referents at least as important as taxa.

The human clade is clearly one of the most important branches on the tree of life and would be well linked to from many articles elsewhere.

Just because something is a clade without a clear taxon doesn't mean that it isn't important enough to have an article about.

What do you all think about this idea?

Chrisrus ( talk) 23:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But how is the "human clade" distinct from, say, Homo? And do any sources use "human clade" as a distinct term? FunkMonk ( talk) 23:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How about this: From "The Social Conquest of the Earth" by Edward O. Wilson: "Chimpanzees and bonobos have an evolutionary history reaching back six million years, the estimated time when their line split from the human clade." Chrisrus ( talk) 23:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So what you mean is the clade that excludes chimps? And again, is this group widely mentioned as a group in the literature, and as synonymous with that definition? FunkMonk ( talk) 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The human clade is a bipedal branch of great apes.

Here is another source: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ri5kAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&dq=%27the+human+clade%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwATgKahUKEwiR6q7rr4vGAhWKDJIKHcWnC3o#v=onepage&q='the%20human%20clade%22&f=false

another: https://books.google.com/books?id=MBVhp7K-17sC&pg=PA171&dq=%27the+human+clade%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCTgKahUKEwjSiqKRsYvGAhVPgJIKHdf_AEA#v=onepage&q='the%20human%20clade%22&f=false

So again, that seems to be defined as a clade that excludes chimps? We need to be able to define something before we can make an article about it. FunkMonk ( talk) 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just useless food for thought here, but isn't it time for everyone to live as one yet? If not, carry on trying to agree on a better idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, The human clade is a bipedal branch of the great apes. As you know, we are the last of them, but there have been many others both on our sub-branch and other sub-branches. Chimps primarily knuckle-walk and aren't part of the human clade because their knee joint and pelvis shapes and so on. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough, if it can be defined without cherry-picking just the sources that treat it as "the bipedal branch of great apes". If, say, two definitions emerge, we'd have to cover both of them, and it might be more of a WP:CONCEPTDAB.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What beyond the above citations would allay these concerns? Chrisrus ( talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For my part, just avoiding WP:UNDUE. What do most of the recent-ish peer-reviewed sources say in their secondary material ( literature reviews)? Two sources isn't much to go on. (I'm a cultural anthropologist by training; while I'm interested, I have no physical anthropology "dog ape in the fight".  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding, without referring back to sources, is that taxonomically the clade including humans and all things more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees is (the subtribe) Hominina. Anthropological classifications often disagree with this excluding chimpanzees from hominina. The article human should cover this and point to an article, possibly called "Early humans" which describes it in detail. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But look where these links direct: Hominina and early human. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So create new content if you feel there's something missing. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So you support merging from these articles a new human clade article, but only grudgingly. Is that correct? Chrisrus ( talk) 19:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the creation of an article for the human clade. I would propose calling it "The Human Clade" until a better name is found per commonname and redirecting Hominina to it. There's no grudging about it. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The term Hominina is probably more widely used than "human clade", so no, it should not be redirected to the latter. Hominina is more inclusive, so cannot redirect to a less inclusive term. FunkMonk ( talk) 09:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hominina currently has no article. The article "The human clade" has slightly different scope from the scope Hominina would in theory but it would be the article closest to the same scope (using one of the two common definitions of hominina)

Human clade is within the scope of Hominina, therefore it should redirect there, and an article be created for the latter. FunkMonk ( talk) 11:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the scope is entirely contained. Either way. I have no interest in creating the article and would leave the choice of which scope the article is written about to the creator of the article. SPACKlick ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would lean away from having a separate article. I think the answer to FunkMonk's question, if I'm not mistaken, is that Hominina is not quite the same as "crown clade humans" because it doesn't include Australopithecina. Is that correct? AFAICT we have no single article for the human crown group (since Hominini includes Pan). But I don't think making a new article about a taxon that is not normally used is really the best way to resolve this. It would be a rehash of what's in Homo and Australopithecina, wouldn't it? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. There is a group commonly talked about that is everything more closely related to you than to a chimpanzee. It's just that various disciplines refer to it in different ways making any name have the right scope be tricky. SPACKlick ( talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: the article Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor may be relevant, if the "human clade" is defined as everything on the human lineage since the CHLCA. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The human clade is a bipedal branch of the great apes; the CHLCA knuckle-walked. Chrisrus ( talk) 23:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this discussion until now. If it's not too late, I'd like to chime in, particularly since I've had to deal with situations like this (and worse) when writing about lemurs. (Yes, lemur taxonomy, and particularly that of strepsirrhines is worse.) "Semantic overlap" due to conflicting taxonomies is nothing new, and is notoriously difficult to deal with. The stance I have taken (after several discussions at WP:Primate with strepsirrhines) is that if paleoanthropology and primatology/anthropology conflict in their taxonomies, then the most inclusive (as in # of taxa considered) wins, regardless of usage. The reasoning is that Wiki articles about living primates will use different terminology than articles about extinct primates, causing confusion for readers. Therefore the need for consistent terminology takes precedence—which flies easier for less popular topics, like lemurs, versus more popular topics, like humans.

As for having an article for the "human clade", I think Homo (with Hominina redirecting to it is perfectly sufficient. However, I'm working off the taxonomy presented in Wood & Richmond, 2000 (page 21). They use:

Superfamily Hominoidea ('hominoids')

Family Hylobatidae

Genus Hylobates

Family Hominidae ('hominids')

Subfamily Ponginae

Genus Pongo ('pongines')

Subfamily Gorillinae

Genus Gorilla ('gorillines')

Subfamily Homininae ('hominines')

Tribe Panini

Genus Pan ('panins')

Tribe Hominini ('hominins')

Subtribe Australopithecina ('australopiths')

Genus Ardipithecus

Genus Australopithecus

Genus Paranthropus

Subtribe Hominina ('hominans')

Genus Homo

It appears that here on enWiki, we've favored having a clade name for orangutans over one for upright apes. The taxonomy we chose shifts the contents of Homininae to include gorillas and by putting Pan in a subtribe. Once again, I suggest considering what is most important for consistency on Wikipedia and base the taxonomy we use on that. (In other words, which is more important: having a clade name for orangutans or one for humans? In fact, these divergent focuses are probably the reasons for the two conflicting taxonomies.) No matter which way we go, writers for these articles will have to translate their sources, just as I have had to translate my sources when I write about strepsirrhines. Waiting for a clade name to emerge in the literature will be fruitless. Those who focus on human cladistics will refer to the clade as Hominina ("hominans"), while those who favor the other taxonomy (primatologists) will use various names for it. It sucks, but that's the curse dealing with Linnaean taxonomy in the age of phylogenetics. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 07:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I will also note that regardless of which taxonomy is used, all related articles need to include the competing taxonomies with citations, as I have done for the major lemur and strepsirrhine articles. This is not optional since it will lead to more informed discussions about issues like this. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 07:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's a choice over a clade for the orangutans or the human clade, I'd like to argue for the latter. Many important thinkers agree that "What does it mean to be human?" is one of the most important questions of all. We can help answer this question in terms of the bare scientific facts at articles such as human and so on better by having a word for the human clade because the shortest answer to this question we've had to date is "Humans are the last of the (hominids)." So the loss of a word such as "hominid" to refer to the branch of bipedal great apes helps by allowing us to give this question a good short answer.

So if it's all the same and we can choose we'd be well advised to err on the side of aiding the more important question. Chrisrus ( talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, as I carefully noted above, if we go down this route, all taxonomies (including the pre-molecular taxonomy included in the source I provided) should be included and discussed in each relevant article. (In other words, don't just edit one article. If the consensus supports this, then you have to do them all.) Furthermore, all discussion of "hominids", "hominins", etc. will require translation from the sources, since the terms will mean different things based on the taxonomy the source is using. Again, this is unavoidable, regardless. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 16:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing here (note: I've largely ignored the previous discussion about Panina, Homininae, etc.). Reliable sources seem to indicate that the "human clade" is indeed everything on the human side of the evolutionary tree since the CHLCA (which may or may not have knuckle-walked, see e.g. Sahelanthropus): Wood (2010) states "The fossil record of the human clade consists of fossil evidence for modern humans plus that of all extinct taxa to be more closely related to modern humans than to any other living taxon". ^[1] I think this is a more accurate, descriptive and less falsifiable description than simply a "bipedal branch of the great apes". Wood also mentions that some researchers use "Hominini" for Pan + human clade, with human clade in hominina, while others use "Hominini" for just the human clade. ^[1] Wood earlier took the latter view: "Hominini, and its 2 component subtribes, the Australopithecina and the Hominina" ^[2] Thus, if we want to write an article on "the human clade", expanding Hominina would seem the most appropriate place (see list of taxa in Homininae#Taxonomic_classification), to avoid conflict with Hominini (broad sense) which, as presently written on Wikipeia, includes Pan. The next best option would be to create an article that unites (the articles) Australopithecine and Homo --Animalparty! ( talk) 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to some recent discussions about MOS:ACCESS and its requirements for WP:COLOR combinations compliant with the WCAG AAA standard for text accessibility, it occurred to me to check the taxobox color scheme. It appears to have a few issues. Please see this discussion for some proposed (mostly minor) changes. Thanks! Opabinia regalis ( talk) 03:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See section here: [5] Both are tiny stubs, and cover the same subject. We don't have an "extinct taxon" article either. FunkMonk ( talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Equus caballus africanus (including all 48 synonyms of horse). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any kind of off-WP guidance/convention with regard to the use of the cross or dagger symbol for extinct taxa, as in "†Tryannosaurus rex"? Questions coming to mind about usage include:

• What are the principle sources on this, and does usage differ from field to field?
• Is it always one specific glyph, "†"? (That's Unicode † "Dagger" U+2020 [6], HTML named character entity †, numeric character reference † or †. Not to be confused with Unicode ✝ "Latin Cross" U+271D [7], HTML numeric character reference ✝ or ✝. They may look very similar in some fonts, especially if the dagger does not have a pointed tip.)
• Is it always prefixed? (I think this is "yes".)
• Is it always unspaced from the name? (If so, is there any objection to thin-spacing or hair-spacing it, when the taxon is not italicized, for better readability? Examples: "†Unspacedae", "† Thinspacedae", "† Hairspacedae".)
• Is it always outside the italicization of a binomial/trinomial? (I think the answer must be "yes", because all other interpolations/additions to bi-/trinomials are non-italicized.)
• Is it always done in normal font size, or conventionally superscripted (^†Tryannosaurus rex), or sometimes subscripted, or something else? (I would hope that superscripting is at least permissible, since use inline with a non-italicized taxon, e.g. "†Sauropodomorpha", is going to be difficult in some fonts for non-native readers of alphabetic languages to distinguish from a prefixed "t".)
• Is its use limited to first occurrence, or only in lists/tables, or only in contexts where living and extinct taxa appear in the same material, never in running prose, always at every occurrence, or ...?
• Is it only used with formal taxa in biological nomenclature, or can it be used with informal ones, such as race (biology), landrace, breed, form (zoology), morph (zoology) ? If it's limited to formal taxa, are there levels to which it does not apply (e.g. cultivar, form (botany), etc., in cultivated plant nomenclature, which are formal but without formal equivalents in zoology)?
• If it's not conventionally used except for formal taxa, do any of the nomenclature codes forbid its use more broadly?

I'd probably think of others, but these are the main ones that come to mind.

It seems to me the ideal display would be superscripted in front of an italicized taxon, which leans away from the dagger (^†Tryannosaurus rex) and superscripted and hair-spaced in front of a non-italicized taxon (^† Sauropodomorpha). If superscripting is not liked (†Tryannosaurus rex) then thin-spacing away from the non-italicized taxon would probably work († Sauropodomorpha). But this is probably worth looking at in different browsers and OSes; I haven't fired up my collection of virtual machines for this yet. Whatever the cases that turn out best, it could be handled with the template for this, e.g. {{extinct|Tryannosaurus rex|i=y}}, {{extinct|Sauropodomorpha}}. (The present {{ extinct}} does nothing but generate the dagger character, and prevent it from being italicized or boldfaced, but I can easily recode it to handle the formatting requirements based on whether the taxon is italicized or not, without breaking the extant just-the-dagger usage.)  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with inconsistency of use have been brought up before, for example: [8] FunkMonk ( talk) 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)