Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 2

Animals and ethics
Posted to WT:WikiProject Philosophy, WT:WikiProject Animals and WT:WikiProject Animal rights, discussion preferred at WT:WikiProject Philosophy

I don't think we have a broad article on the place of non-human animals in ethics. There are a few specific articles like animal rights, ethics of eating meat, animal cognition etc, but nothing on the broader issue. Going in the opposite direction, there are articles broader than animals that cover more 'holistic' views, e.g. environmental ethics and deep ecology, though given that most animals are probably not conscious beings that would also overlap with the subject. I guess such an article could be called animals in ethics or something like that. It might also mention the prehuman precursors to morality seen in other animals (which relates to the origin of morality, another needed article), although this is broadening the scope a little more. Richard001 (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template
Should we create a template:animals (it would replace the redirect)? It could include various taxa, general articles etc. If the answer is an obvious 'yes', how about we work on a draft here before we make it? Richard001 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology
Hi everyone,

A new WikiProject, Palaeontology has been set up, and aims to be the umbrella project uniting Dinos, pterosaurs and monsters from the deep, alongside all the other palaeo article out there that aren't under a strict wikiproject. It was only set up today, so support, opinions and/or criticism is needed. I have come around to this idea, as there are a large number of articles out there in dire need of work, and this would be an excellent way to bring in some collaborative editing. Cheers guys and dolls, Mark t young (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we adopt C-class then? Richard001 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Should deposit feeder and saprotroph be merged into Detritivore? I feel they cover very much the same ground. Comments welcome. Anxietycello (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Flatworm / Planarian memory
I think that the most widely-known "factoid" about flatworms / planaria is the Thompson-McConnell maze-memory experiment. Flatworm discusses this at Flatworm. Talk:Flatworm says "The flatworm "biochemical memory" is today abandoned as a scientific theory, but has almost become an urban myth, and is still often found in non-scientific contexts." The article itself mentions, but perhaps does not sufficiently emphasize (or explain for the layperson) "McConnell's results are now attributed to observer bias. No double-blind experiment has ever reproduced his results." Planarian does not mention this at all. We may want to tidy up discussion of this in both Flatworm and Planarian. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Zoology books and/or books about animals?
I think a category on animal books is long overdue. Its "sister", Category:Botany books suggests the name Category:Zoology books, but as I was about to create this I noticed there is a Category:Books about animal rights. Perhaps a slightly more inclusive Category:Books about animals would be better, to include both scientific and ethical books? Or perhaps we should have both, with zoology being a subcategory of books about animals? I presume this is not an issue for the plants category, unless anyone has written about "plant rights" (perhaps a fruitarian?). Richard001 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Zoology books or Zoological books? Or even Zoological literature? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked and there is already a category Category:Ornithological literature with a number of subcats. At present it is a subcat of Category:Biological literature. Most of that cats subcats use lit, not books. I think zoology is better than animal, more correct. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Category:Books about animals might be a little misleading unless the intention is to include Black Beauty, Born Free, etc. Sabine's Sunbird's suggestion of Category:Zoological literature is, I think, a good idea. Tim Ross  (talk)  10:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, hadn't thought about fiction... Okay, I'll start with zoology books, which follows the same precedent set by e.g. botany books, biology books etc. I have also added Category:Zoological literature as a parent category, though this one is not very populated at the moment (needs journals etc). Richard001 (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have added Category:Zoology journals too. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 418 articles are assigned to this project, of which 127, or 30.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename
There is an ongoing discussion about renaming homosexuality and bisexuality in animals to homosexual behavior in animals. Please feel free to offer your comments! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland
I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Scatter-hoarder
Scatter-hoarder is an interesting subject relating to animal behaviour but is perhaps missnamed. The article seems to drift between the concept of caching food/hoarding and scatter hoarding, which is a specific type of hoarding. The article gets muddled, refering to the behavior, for example, of Acorn Woodpeckers, which is an example of hoarding but not scatter hoarding (which is what a jay or squirrel might do). Any objections to moving the article to hoarding (animal behaviour)? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * made the move and am editing the article to reflect the change and remove the confusion. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal evolution
I think there should be an article on animal evolution (or the evolution of animals if you like). Currently one of these redirects to evolutionary history of life: animals are only one taxon that has not even been around all that long, while the other redirects to animal: the evolution of animals cannot be described within a single section of an article. I think this is one of the most important of our missing articles. Does everyone agree that we should have such an article, even if it might be a while until someone starts one? Richard001 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An animal behaviour subproject?
I'm thinking about an animal behaviour subproject. The millions of species of animals is enough for any project, but even without behaviour there are also many other fields of zoology besides behaviour, e.g. physiology, biochemistry, cytology, anatomy, morphology, ecology, genetics etc. Animal behaviour is a very large area for a project to cover too, so I don't think there is any concern that it would be too specific. The main question is whether there would be enough people interested. Despite having been around for a year, this project itself, and even the parent biology and science projects don't have that much participation and activity. Is it too soon to think about a behaviour project? Perhaps I should wait another six months or a year? Or should I give it a shot at the proposals page and see how much interest there is? Richard001 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, I note, a WikiProject Neuroethology, though this is a bit more specific than what I was thinking - it's really where an ethology project would overlap with the existing neuroscience project. At this stage I don't know much at all about neuroethology. Richard001 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Animal
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chordate - please update / review
Chordate has been selected for v 0.7, but is currently Start-class. I doubt if there's time to get it to GA / A-class, but I think we can and should aim for B-class. I've updated most of the article including the lead, but do not have the resources to handle the "Classification" section - my main interest is paleontology. Please review my contributions and the "Classification" section in order to get the article to B-class (or better) as soon as possible. -- Philcha (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod
I've had a go at getting Arthropod into good shape for Wikipedia Version 0.7. I doubt whether there's time to get it up to A-class or GA, but I'd hope B-class would be easy enough. Please comment.

Then we can consider the V 0.7 offer of free copyediting. -- Philcha (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca
I've had a go at getting Mollusca into good shape for Wikipedia Version 0.7. I doubt whether there's time to get it up to A-class or GA, but I'd hope B-class would be easy enough. Please comment.

Then we can consider the V 0.7 offer of free copyediting. -- Philcha (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

megafauna?
An anon IP is adding the cat for megafauna to a bunch of articles. I reverted the addition of the tag to Frigatebird, but it got me wondering what the definition was. Is a Great Barracuda megafauna? I would say no... but I'm not sure. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sponge
I've had a go at improving Sponge, but there are still some loose ends:
 * Statements not supported by refs to WP:RS.
 * Small gaps for which I have not found WP:RS.
 * A significant structure issue. Normally I leave "Taxonomy" until fairly late in zoology & paleontology articles, since introducing taxon names will just confuse readers if they do not already have a picture of the animals. However with Sponge I'm beginning to think "Taxonomy" would be usful if placed just after cell types, water flow and body shapes, as it could be presented as a table of features by class - the article already has a partial table of this type.

Please comment at Talk:Sponge. --Philcha (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter
This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bdelloid rotifers
Hi, folks. I decided to cross the great divide between botany and zoology and write up a short stub on an inquiline of one of my pet plants. I ran into a small question on taxonomy that I hope is relatively simple to answer. The article on the rotifers lists three classes: Monogononta, Digononta, and Seisonidea. However the text still lists Bdelloidea instead of Digononta. Further confusing is the taxonomy listed at Seison. I'm not sure where to turn for appropriate authoritative taxonomy info - any suggestions? Can anyone help a botanist who stumbled into invertebrate land? --Rkitko (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

delete Category Mollusc of country
Feel free to share your opinion of this problem at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 11. --Snek01 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

capitalization
I disagree with method three being the most correct. Prehaps it is most correct orthographically (not sure what that is), but that does not make it most correct grammar for an encyclopedia. Also in the example of category three, you could really decide to capitalize ANY class of thing. Compare:


 * "The Tiger is a carnivore" but "three tigers were observed in the conservation area."


 * "The Submarine is a ship" but "three submarines were observed in the war zone."

Note, even if you disagree with me...my point is not just that I'm right someone else is wrong, but that the issue is not settled. TCO (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, TCO, "Submarine" isn't equivalent with "Tiger", because there are many types (e.g. "species") of submarines, but only one species of Tiger. The equivalent might be Gato (class) or U-boat—both of which are capitalized in our submarine articles! MeegsC | Talk 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Each example is a class, that has subclasses and is part of larger classes. Capitalizing names of animals is a new fangled thingie. You all are trying to drive usage. Not observe the most common usage. Even if there were a non-subdividable class, that would not make it a proper noun. It would make it a class with individual examples. Submarine capitalization by class is based on the proper noun of the lead ship of the class. Just like a Darwin's finch (made up animal). You don't capitalize nuke or diesel, though, which are subclasses of submarine. Should we capitalize electron?


 * "The Eelectron is a particle, but three electrons were found in the lithium atom?

Or would that be Lithium Atom? lol!!!

In any case, this is an aspect that is in debate, not agreed. TCO (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) is being assaulted for over two months now by two editors, User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle whose intent now seems to be only to disrupt editing. However, their battle is largely about trying to force plant editors to use "the most commonly used name," for plant article titles. While attempting to get the two of them to source precisely where plant editors should find the most commonly used name, I have come to realize that all Wikipedia naming policies for organisms which require the use of common names are destined for failure. It simply cannot be done. All attempts to use the most commonly used name in English for article titles, for all but a few organisms, are ethnocentric, full of original research, and create problems and opportunities for disruption by editors such as PBS and B2c that would not exist at all if Wikipedia simply had a naming convention policy for organisms that required the articles be titled with the scientific name, according to the rules of scientific nomenclature, introduce the most common names in the lead, discuss them early in the article, and create redirects from the common names to the scientific name. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest this be discussed in full at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pachyostosis
I just created an article for Pachyostosis, which is was a redlink in Dugong, Dinocephalia, and Anteosaurus. It is rather stubby right now and could use some beefing up and proper cats, but I do not know enough to provide this. Any help expanding and classifying would be appreciated. Thanks! --Kevmin (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold-blooded and Warm-blooded work
I am in the process of revamping the "cold-blooded", "warm-blooded" and related articles, and making them disambiguation pages and proper articles for the actual scientific terms. Cold-blooded is already done. I could use some help, specifically with sources and adjustments to some of the concepts. I also created thermoreg as a navbox between pages. StevePrutz (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Making them DAB pages may not be the best approach. The phrase "warm-blooded animal" generally implies mammalian or higher body temperature (via tachymetabolism, i.e. high Basal metabolic rate) and endothermy as well as stability - ignoring any periods of hibernation. Some fish are also described as "warm-blooded" but usually in quotes, e.g. "“warm-blooded” sharks". I'd make warm-blooded a short article that explains that the term generally refers to a package of traits. I see cold-blooded is already a DAB page, with good reasons, but would suggest e.g. Cold-bloodedness (zoology) explaining the complexities and borderline cases such as "“warm-blooded” sharks" and inertially homeothermic large marine turtles. --Philcha (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely realize the terms endo- and ectotherm are not clear cut, but I do not think all of the terms lumped into a single page is the best choice for presentation. StevePrutz (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Input sought on ambitious proposal that may or may not be a good idea
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) 04:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Audio files
I have started uploading some audio files of animals from the US FWS website. I'm working on getting all the birds up. If anyone wants to help upload the remaining files of other animals (amphibians, reptiles and mammals), please join in. You can check what we already have at Commons:Category:Audio files from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Richard001 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
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. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics
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 WikiProject_Council/Proposals. 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)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Species by year of formal description
Hi, folks. I recently opened a discussion at WT:TOL that needs your input regarding the categorization of species by year of description. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for more info. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocentrism
IMO, too many articles on organ systems and other animal functions are anthropocentric and omit similar functions in animals, similarities and differences, general principles, etc. - AFAIK mainly the fault of over-enthusiastic medics. Please contribute to the discussion at Village_pump_(miscellaneous). --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds May newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Worm needs your help
I've been doing various edits at Worm. This article should be a general overview of the subject, with links to more specific articles. Could use some tightening up to reduce redundancy and repetition, modification of info written by kids to something more professional, cites as appropriate, etc. - You know, the usual. If you'd like to dive into this can of worms, your help would be appreciated. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dock
Dock, a disambiguation page, is pending disambiguation of its incoming links. But first, please take a look and see if you can improve Dock. --Una Smith (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

New CSD change for non notable animals
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. Your opinion and feedback will be appreciated.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Author full forms, links & abvns
The page List_of_zoologists_by_author_abbreviation is likely to be placed under AFD. In which case, I suggest it be moved as a subpage under the project being an important resource.

Also see Catalog - Taxon Authorities on Wikispecies.

A user ref imp for Indian butterflies is User:VirenVaz/Taxonomists.

AshLin (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me explain my concern about the article. The obvious comparison is List of botanists by author abbreviation. That list is of the authorities of names under the ICBN, which have standard abbreviations endorsed by the Code. List of zoologists by author abbreviation differs in four respects:
 * Authorities of names under the ICZN are not abbreviated in the same sense that ICBN authorities are (a good example is Linnaeus: as a zoological authority, he loses "Carolus", but as a botanical authority he loses all but the "L.")
 * There is to the best of my knowledge no single standardized abbreviation for an authority of a zoological name (although I am confident that in some groups there is generalized agreement).
 * Unlike the botanical article, the zoological article does not explain what it is about, to the extent that someone added Temple Grandin and another asked about adding Steve Irwin; to the best of my knowledge, neither has authored zoological taxa, but the article provides no evidence of why they should be excluded.
 * There are two reliable sources for the abbreviations of botanical authorities, a book, and an online reference that incorporates and expands upon the book. One can look at any addition to the Wikipedia article and check the online source. The zoological article has several sources that seem unlikely to cover all the diversity regulated by the ICZN, and more important, it is not possible to say for any name in the list what the source is.


 * Any other list like this would have seen AfD long ago. That this one remains attests to the importance of its (hidden) subject. I would suggest changing the intro to reflect that it is about the authors of taxa, the stance of the ICZN on author names, the challenges of connecting initials and surnames to actual people, a discussion of the available reference lists and any initiatives towards standardization, and guidelines for referencing existing and new entries. I would support such an article remaining in mainspace. I would fix it myself, but my expertise is with plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Identification key
Hi!

I'm new here, but a years back I worked on articles about plants on Hungarian Wikipedia. Now I'm building a plant identifier Wiki (http://en.florawiki.org). It's usable to identifying any kind of organisms e.g. animals. FloraWiki (it's a temporary name) can be a part of Wikipedia (Semantic Mediawiki and Semantic Forms extensions are required) or Wikispecies in the future, or it can remain a different, but collaborative sister project.

The basic mechanism is: the taxons are pages and they are markable with morphological data and users can create identification keys for search by these data (have a look at here for details). If you think so, it's a good idea, please help me, but if don't, type your opinions. Thanks! Pipi69e (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by –xeno talk 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request
I'm currently working on an article covering the evolutionary history of vertebrates. I need an a suitable in the lead paragraph and would to like request one made for this purpose. I searched through the uploaded files on Wikipedia and the Commons, but none were approriate. The image just have to incorporate and contain an image of one organisms from each vertebrate taxa: Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Fish. An example of the image structure would be like this: If anyone can help, please do. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to piece one together for you using existing images. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)



BOT notice
Hello,

I have created a bot that will be using a database of prehistoric genus information to fill in the tables on pages like List of prehistoric starfish. Please see its bot request and comment there. Suggestions for improvements and/or people willing to spot check its work are welcome and appreciated.

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox
How can I fix the malformed taxobox on Trochosa ruricola? I asked this on the help desk and the admin that replied said to click on edit this page (No duh. I'm not a newbie). Joe Chill (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you'd like changed, Joe. Tim Ross   (talk)  16:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was already fixed diff. It's the known Taxobox colour issue where regnum = needs to hold a keyword ( Animalia or Animalia for animal taxoboxen) in order for the taxobox to choose the correct color for that group. In this case, the regnum field was misspelled. Simple fix. --Rkitko (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.
Following recent changes by some editors to the Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held. This is to debate the removal of the passage permitting individual WikiProject and other naming conventions to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location.  Xan  dar  02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)