Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 19

Cladistics coding
Did i once see a way to write in a bit of code and wikipedia would do some wizzy work and produce a taxonomy tree? Something similar to the function. Did i see this, or was it just an experimental thing? chris_huh 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a go at it here: User:Pengo/clad and had a rant about it here. But it's a pretty miserable attempt. The best thing is still is to make one from scratch in Inkscape or something. —Pengo talk · contribs 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this be more of a wikispecies kind of thing? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories up for deletion
All US "fauna by state" categories have been nominated for deletion. I think this would be of interest.

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13
 * Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country
I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of /Forna of /Biora of  caregories.
 * Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of regional bird lists
Please comment on the move and reversion jimfbleak 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Protists and plants
What should one do with taxoboxes for groups where their classification is still not well agreed upon, such as whether or not Rhodophyta (and Glaucophyta) should be separated from the other protists and put with the plants? It's not exactly a new concept for the Rhodophyta, but the taxoboxes leave no allowance for it, and it is one of the issues people take strong stands on, whether the Rhodophyta are protists or plants. What can be done so that the taxobox reflects the level of ambiguity in the taxonomic placement? Can the boxes have a color slash, khaki above, green below? Should they reflect Wikipedia's current classification system--although I think the one article listed on the protist page does classify Rhodophyta with the plants, not with the protists? Should it be majority rules as primary and the secondary classification within the article? Can the boxes be stacked so both are represented by taxoboxes?

This issue should also be addressed with Angiosperm taxonomy--as has been brought up before. If Wikipedia is chosing APG II as the primary classification, certain groups should not be used in the taxoboxes.

Were these issues discussed and decided before?

KP Botany 00:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. As far as I can remember, this topic has not come up before. Would it be a satisfactory solution to assign two values to each parameter, separated by a slash? Something like  "|regnum = plantae / Protista"? Or "|regnum = plantae | Protista"? (Or whatever the alternatives are, and this down the different levels) TeunSpaans 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a good question, and also a sticky one. I remember when green algae, and even cyanobacteria, used to be classified as "plants", back in simpler times when there were only two kingdoms of living organisms. But my old introductory botany textbook, Raven et al.'s "Biology of Plants", classifies green algae as protists. I never did like this and since this is an old edition (1981) maybe they've changed their minds since then--I have the latest edition at home so will have to check.
 * It's possible that there's more support nowadays for defining plants to include green algae, as the latter are decidedly paraphyletic if the embryophytes are excluded, whereas green algae plus embryophytes comprise a pretty solid monophyletic group. This just helps to illustrate, once again, that classifications are opinions: the relationships are pretty objective and well-accepted, it's just how to sort them into groups and what to call those groups that causes disagreement. My recommendation is that if you're going to use a classification of any kind, however well-accepted, you ought to cite a reference for it. Who calls green algae plants, and who calls them protists? And why? There are some good subjects for an article right there. MrDarwin 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the issue is the taxobox itself, in part because I'm too biased from educational background to do these mixed groupings of the taxoboxes, and my bias towards monophyletic classification schemes. However, it makes Wikipedia confusing as it stands, to include a paraphyletic category in the taxoboxes.


 * What Raven et al. do in their latest edition is call the Chlorophyta protists, but include a cladogram that clearly shows they form a well-supported monophyletic clade with the embryophytes based on the apomorphy of [chlorophyll b, starch storage, stellate flagellar structure, and gene transfers], and that the Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta form a monophyletic groups with the viridophytes due to chlorplast endosymbiosis--they use 'viridophytes' only in pointing out that other biologists use it.


 * After thinking about it, the problem seems to be the meaning in the taxobox, because taxonomy today has a strong emphasis on monophyletic groups, but also because there are different levels of certainty attached to various ranks within the taxobox--although this is true of all of botany. Does its use in the taxobox imply anything?


 * Someone did just that, with the slash on one page between Protista / Plantae--this is probably more useful than using either one. I think it will work with a note attached that protists are not monophyletic, so including the Rhodophyta in the Kingdom Protista does not precude their placement in the Kingdom Plantae?


 * There are a number of other problems with the taxoboxes that have been pointed out before, in particular mixed classification schemes. Possibly each taxobox should use a single classification scheme and give a reference for the one used?


 * Also, the title of the box has a little '?' in it--a link to more information. However, in scientific nomenclature isn't a question mark used to denote that a taxon's name is presently undecided, or an organism is not certainly identified?  If so, it should not be used at all as an information icon next to the name of a taxon--something someone else pointed out.


 * KP Botany 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm looking at Judd et al.'s "Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach". They basically define "plant" as green algae plus land plants, but then go on to ignore pretty much everything except the tracheophytes. And yes, the taxoboxes are problematic--one reason why I stay almost completely away from them. MrDarwin 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are certainly situations where the community is simply split in half and there's really no way to pretend that choosing one over the other is anything but POV. The older taxoboxes had a bit more flexibility in them and I took advantage of this on a few occassions where, as an editor, I thought listing only one option in the taxobox was picking one side on a coin flip.  Here and here are examples.  Neither survived the transfer to the new (and superior) taxobox format.  I think in most cases the community will pick a taxonomy to use in the taxoboxes and discuss the controversy in the text, but I do think there are a handful of situations where the taxobox should represent the controversy as well.  --Aranae 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For most of the protists and algae, the taxonomy is really variable. The problem with saying "| regnum = Plantae / Protista" is that it implies the rest of the classification is less controversial, but although a general outline has taken shape, a lot of aspects vary from author to author. Thus the taxoboxes should really be considered representative systems, since they don't have room to explain the others. In fact, in most cases the different possibilities aren't even discussed in the articles. They should be, but it's really hard to find good information on them, as most people just pick one system and stick with it.

The question of whether red and green algae should be considered plants has come up before. Really, it depends on what the currently favored classification is, which is difficult to tell. Reading journal articles about protists, I think it's better to call them plants; but few of these worry about what counts as a kingdom, except Cavalier-Smith, and his breakdown is not entirely standard (e.g. he argues in favor of paraphyletic groups, and for that matter does not use Protista at all). Josh 05:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As these uncertaintes seem quit major, I think it might be wiser to leave the disputed taxons out of the taxobox. The taxobox has no required levels, see User:TeunSpaans/testtaxobox for an example. Thus, if regnum and order are disputed, we can leave them out and just have family and below. It is a possibility, I leave it to you to judge what is best. TeunSpaans 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The regnum cannot really be left out, because it determines the colour of the taxobox: note that in User:TeunSpaans/testtaxobox it is clear you think that bears are animals from the pink taxobox. I'd prefer to make a choice; to make it a consistent one across all our articles (e.g. all out taxoboxes on green algae should follow the classification on our Green algae article, whatever choice we're making); and to annotate the really uncertain ones. See User:Eugene van der Pijll/taxoboxtest. -- Eugène van der Pijll 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The color of the Kingdom It seems to me that if we are forced to change information, ie include information that is not accurate enough or too much in conflict, to meet the limited confines of the taxobox, it's the taxobox that must change, not what is included in the article--if we conform the information to the taxobox we are doing OR or inserting our POV. How about no color and a note when the kingdom is in dispute? I had not thought of this, but once TeunSpaans said it, although it irks me as an obsessive classifier, it seems the method least likely to misinform or confuse the user, or demand contortions of the editor, while indicating to both the need to look further in the article for more information as to why this is not classified at the kingdom level, namely scientists differ in how they define the kingdoms. We could also just make the color for the questionable placements protist/plantae be orange or something.

Also, please note, it is not necessarily in conflict on most classifications to say that something is both a plant and a protist, because the former is a monophyletic clade, but the latter is simply a grouping on convenience, usually, but not always, everything that isn't in one of the other groups.

I would still like to suggest that the question marks in taxoboxes be done away with as a link to more information about the taxobox. They have a meaning, as far as I know, in the nomenclatural codes for organisms, namely a level of uncertainty as to the correct placement, depending upon their location in the organism's name. Taxoboxes now simply indicate that all kingdom level classifications are in question. It could be an asterisk or a little 'i' like someone earlier suggested, but in this instance it really can't be a question mark. However, a non-colored box with a question mark in it, indicating uncertainty as to kingdom and linking to a discussion within the article of this uncertainty would be useful.

I think the taxoboxes are useful in giving information at a glance. However, I don't think they should be allowed to misinform at a glance, and others may be right that multiple taxoboxes decreases their usability. Not including misinformation, by removing the color, and tying the issue to a discussion in the text, would erase this issue, without interfering with the usefulness of taxoboxes. KP Botany 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the taxoboxes should inform, not misinform. I also agree that changing the taxobox to a colour not yet in use (white? orange? grey?) for taxons unclassified at the regnum level seems like a good option. A third option I thought of, possibly identical to the note KP botany mentioned, is to create a link to the article where the dispute is explained, something like:

|regnum=Disputed This option could be implemented without a taxobox change, only the colour would be suggestive of a kingdom, but adapting the taxobox would be neater. TeunSpaans 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the taxobox, they do have a color parameter, so I think we don't need to change the taxobox. See User:TeunSpaans/testtaxobox2 TeunSpaans 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the kingdom is not especially disputable. For instance, look at the two classifications listed on red algae; they're similar, but one has added new classes and changed some of the ranks. What phylum Cyanidiophyceae gets is as disputed as its kingdom. And yet the relationships are the same, and I'd hesitate to leave its entire position as uncertain, when only the ranks of the groups are. (Incidentally, if most specialists working in red algae consider them plants, maybe we should follow them without worrying how more encompassing systems treat them).

Also, an explanation about the kingdoms should be given on green algae, but if we footnote each variation in classifiction in each page about each genus, we're going to have a very difficult time adjusting and maintaining it. Maybe a better idea would be to change the link from "scientific classification" to something like "typical classification", to emphasize that some authors deviate from it. It would be easy enough to add a flag to do that, like we do for viruses. The question would then be at what point we stop using it - for instead, is APG solid enough that we can treat it as authoritative, and what about the minor variations for mammal orders? Josh 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The world of tournament-level Scrabble has a lesson for us on this point - at least an example that we could follow. When the first Scrabble tournaments were being held in the 1970's, there was considerable argument over how to judge what is a word and what is not.  The decision was made for a players' association to form that would appoint a committee to work together with Merriam-Webster and publish the Official Scrabble Players' Dictionary.  This way there is one official word list for all the tournaments.  When a commonly accepted word happens to not be on the list (e.g., artesian) for whatever reason, then that word is not acceptable as a word in a tournament game, and if a very obscure spelling happens to be in the dictionary (e.g., qat), then that spelling is acceptable. I do not think the official Scrabble dictionary is perfect. My point is rather that the tournament Scrabble world has a single, universally accepted source that serves as the arbiter for these matters.


 * Ideally, Wikispecies would make the most sense to me as The Source for classification disagreements because using it promotes the whole open-source wiki way of doing things. Because Wikispecies is less than complete (e.g., binomial authorities are not given there), I would suggest ITIS, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, as a back-up or check on Wikispecies.  ITIS is directed by a steering committee.  "The Steering Committee was formed by a partnership of Federal agencies          to meet their mutual needs for scientifically credible taxonomic information          about the nation's biota." (source of ITIS quote). ITIS partners include USDA, NOAA, USGS, USEPA, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Biological Information Infrastructure(NBII), Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Nature Serve (a non-profit "international network of biological    inventories"), the National Park Service, and Conabio ("an Inter-Ministerial Commission      mainly dedicated to: develop, maintain and update the National [Mexican] System of      Biodiversity Information (SNIB)").  Therefore, I would like to see Wikipedia accept two primary sources for determining difficult taxonomic classifications: Wikispecies and ITIS.  It's true that Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia and ITIS is a North American science consortium.  If anyone can suggest a "higher" source than ITIS (i.e., one that draws from top experts all over the world and not just North America and Central America), then that would make sense to use as our arbiter.


 * Furthermore, I agree that science should not advance by votes (witness the backlash now over whether Pluto is a planet following last year's international astrophysicist meeting declaring that it is not). However, we are not creating science here.  We are creating a reference source.  In my opinion, wikipedian editors should not be expected to research every last journal or textbook to solve a taxonomic dispute for the same reason that Scrabble tournaments are not expected to have every edition of every dictionary at their disposal.


 * On the particular point of the Chlorophyta and Algae in general, Wikispecies and ITIS both agree that the Chlorophyta are members of the Kingdom Plantae.Peter 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up to above: Hip hip Hooray! Three cheers for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility! The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is an international organisation that is working to make the world's biodiversity data accessible anywhere in the world.


 * GBIF's members include countries and international organisations who have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that they will share biodiversity data and contribute to the development of increasingly effective mechanisms for making those data available via the Internet.


 * Their "prototype data portal" makes it almost as easy as ITIS to research taxonomic classifications and provides references to current studies from all over the world.


 * GBIF agrees with both ITIS and Wikispecies that Chlorophyta, Rhodophyta, and Phaeophyta are within the kingdom Plantae and not Protista. GBIF calls them phyla, whereas ITIS calls them divisions instead.  Neither GBIF nor ITIS recognize Algae as a higher level of organization.Peter 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Slight correction to above: According to GBIF, Phaeophyta is a phylum within Kingdom Chromista. As this kingdom is not recognized by ITIS, I listed this information as a footnote when I added a new brown alga to Wikipedia: Pylaiella.  I suggest that we follow any one of the 3 main species databases (Wikispecies, ITIS, and GBIF) and point out whenever there are disagreements.Peter 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, that would worry me about GBIF if they placed Phaeophyta in Plantae--as far as I know there's only that one guy who wrote the book (some retired Dean, not a phycologist or botanist) who places Phaeophyta in Plantae. I agree with following any of the 3, but I'm not real sure about Wikispecies at this point, the 3rd choice for me would be AlgaeBase, which at least ties its classifications to specific authorities--and for editors to note which they chose in the article itself.   I don't quite understand why you used Kingdom Plantae for Pylaiella in this case?  I changed it to Protista.  KP Botany 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my thinking was based on ITIS because they are the main North American reference. ITIS does not place any alga (whether brown, red, or green) in Protista.  Nor does GBIF for that matter.  But GBIF does create a special kingdom for the brown algae, slime molds, and a few others that they call Chromista.  AlgaeBase makes sense to me as a footnote for any algae, but I was hoping that all Wikipedia could agree on a single common referee source for ALL taxonomic disagreements - not just for algae.  I suggest that ITIS and GBIF together share that status as the referee source.  Also please note that AlgaeBase does not put Phaeophyta in Protista but instead in Kingdom Chromista (like GBIF).  Maybe we need another kingdom here.  As an aside to that, please note that Algaebase agrees with ITIS and GBIF that both Chlorophyta and Rhodophyta belong in Kingdom Plantae. Please, let's all agree that no algae are members of Kingdom Protista. Peter 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ITIS places Phaeophyta in Kingdom Plantae, according to a search on Fucus, but I would double-check their source before I accepted it. GBIF places Phaeophyta in Kingdom Chromista.  But GBIF uses AlgaeBase as its authority.  There's no particular reason to default to North America, and in phycology there might be reasons not to, as some of the main research is not being done in North America today, but rather Ireland, Sweden and Australia.  So, ITIS and GBIF disagree--and GBIF uses AlgaeBase as their authority, while ITIS uses an older out-of-print text co-authored by a leading mid-twentieth century (read pre-PCR) researcher.  AlgaeBase also goes solidly on Cavalier-Smith, who is simply one researcher.  We don't need another kingdom, what we need are references.  As AlgaeBase is the reference for GBIF, GBIF will agree with what it is using as its reference.  ITIS is, imo, problematic with its placement of Phaeophyta, and I believe the reference should be checked before using it.  Whose source are you siting for the agreement that no algae are members of Kingdom Protista?  Because there are plenty of sources that use this particular scheme.  Again, we're mixing things up, we have various classifying schemes, from various sources, done at various periods of time.  Where do we go, and why?  If you want us all to agree that we don't use Kingdom Protista for algae, then tell us whom we're agreeing with.   KP Botany

03:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I cited AlgaeBase, GBIF, and ITIS. I searched all three databases on Ulva lactuca, Chondrus crispus, and Pylaiella. In the case of AlgaeBase, I clicked on "taxonomy" for each alga that I looked up in order to find the Kingdom classification. I brought this matter up again specifically because in most cases it is easy to find sources that disagree on taxonomies. I suggest that for classification purposes only we rely primarily upon a limited set of very widely recognized databases rather than citing individual journal articles or textbooks. I very specifically want to avoid arguments of citing those kinds of sources back and forth because I see our role here as being that of encyclopedists trying to condense and explain large expanses of information - not as research scientists trying to explain particular findings to answer particular questions.

You have persuaded me that GBIF may be even more widely recognized an authority than ITIS is. Please note that Kingdom Chromista is not synonymous with Kingdom Protista. And AlgaeBase and GBIF put Chlorophyta and Rhodophyta within Kingdom Plantae.

Therefore, whom I am asking everyone to agree with in placing all of the algae in either Plantae or Chromista (in the case of Phaeophyta) is GBIF. As you point out, in the case of algae, GBIF relies upon AlgaeBase. I don't see anything wrong with AlgaeBase as an ultimate source for algae classification. Furthermore, I suggest that reliance upon GBIF as the main source for taxonomic classifications would work very well for all lifeforms on Wikipedia (not just algae). Other sources with conflicting conclusions may well be worth presenting in some cases in addition to the GBIF classifications, which I suggest should determine all of the taxoboxes. Peter 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we be in the business of picking one classification scheme as authoritative? That seems to me to be OR. Taxoboxes can be a problem for taxa whose classification remains unsettled, but we can only reflect the state of knowledge and opinion in a field, not impose our interpretation of what is correct. My impression is that Protista is a shifting grabbag of the leftovers of Eukaria, subject to redefinition everytime someone proposes a new monophyletic clade. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive
This talk page has been archived. Feel free to reintroduce any topic that needs more discussion. Also, someone else needs to list the topics of that archive in the archive TOC. pschemp | talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. TeunSpaans 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)==

scientific evidence
Citing temtbooks at each other seems, shall we say, a little medieval? Majority vote has nothing to do with it, either of people or of textbooks. The best evidence for the scientific consensus is recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, or recent articles themselves if they give a good background. The deepest divergences in land plants inferred from phylogenomic evidence PNAS 2006 103: 15511-15516; published online before print October 9 2006, 10.1073/pnas.0603335103 [not open access, unfortunately, except for the abstract, but will be in 6 months. Perhaps we should add others to this page as they appear. I will, but I'm not going to do it retrospectively. DGG 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the higher categories in land plants, I think it's Yin-Long Qiu, L, et. al.


 * The article you cite is not a review article, but original research according to its abstract. Review articles would be excellent evidence for the scientific consensus, though.


 * KP Botany 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat from yesterday: "The best evidence for the scientific consensus is recent review articles in peer-reviewed journals, or recent articles themselves if they give a good background."   This one does. Be pragmatic.  DGG 06:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Review articles are different from including a "good background" of a subject, because a scientific review, by its nature, generally must include all valid conflicting theories:


 * "In terms of scientific literature, reviews is a category of scientific paper, which provides a synthesis of research on a topic at that moment in time. A compilation of these reviews forms the core content of a 'tertiary' scientific journal, with examples including Annual Reviews, the Nature Reviews series of journals and Trends." Wikipedia


 * I somewhat doubt that an article this dense on content also includes a good background anywhere near the level of a review in its 6 pages. Qiu's contribution alone to the topic would require more than 6 pages.


 * KP Botany 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

help on species name
I took this ptoto in Turkey this year,, but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a real tree
Taxoboxes are a nice navigation interface, but they are still purely textual and lack a "graphical" component for orientation ; it would be nice to have something maybe in the form of a tree, showing where a given group is located relative to the global tree (maybe showing the sister nodes at each parent node) or at least w.r.t. to the parent and child nodes, e.g.

Genus Balaenoptera  Genus Megaptera \   /                   \  /                     \/        Family Balaenopteridae  Family2  Family3 ... \  |      /                               \  |    /                                \ |  /                                 \|/                              Mysticeti   Suborder2  ... \   /                                      \  /                                        \/ &mdash; MFH:Talk 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * These textual representations rarely come across as very visually pleasing. Graphics almost always turn out nicer.  Note Image:Hominini.PNG for an example including a highlighted section for the taxon of interest.  --Aranae 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you didn't get my point: I did ask for graphics, my ascii art was just to explain what it should be! &mdash; MFH:Talk 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to put trees in many of these articles. But is there some simply way of graphically coding them for some uniformity of presentation?  Now, the trees all over Wikipedia are simply made for that particular article.  KP Botany 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as a free web interface making a simple tree graphic that doesn't involve actual data or any other computer program, you might try Phylodendron. The simplest input is a single line that contains a representation of your tree.  The format for that line is (A,(B,C)); where A, B, and C are taxa on the tree and B and C are sister taxa.  Unfortunately the output formats are a bit awkward, but I find that outputting the tree as a GIF image map and then right clicking and selecting view image produces a workable GIF file.  You can certainly use a graphics program to convert any of the other outputs into a loadable image as well.  --Aranae 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that you can label nodes by using [ ]. So the tree immediately above could be generated with: (((Balaeonoptera,Megaptera)[Balaeonopteridae],Family2,Family3)[Mysticeti],Suborder2); . Image:Hominini.PNG could be roughly reproduced with: (((((Homo,Pan)[Hominini],Gorilla)[Homininae],Pongo)[Hominidae],Hylobates)[Hominoidea]); . Note that you can vary the output type (vertical/horizontal or tree appearance).  You can also incorporate branch lengths, but I'm not sure that will factor in much without running into OR problems.  --Aranae 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the French wikipedia, there is a field in the taxoboxes for a graphical tree, showing the cladistic position of the taxon/clade. See e.g. Solanaceae. This would also be a solution for some of the problems on ambiguous classifications. Unfortunately, the existing images are all in French... Eugène van der Pijll 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Their taxobox is nicely done on this page. However, what are they using for the classical taxonomy?  I'll go look, I guess, but if you know...  And with the embedded link to the image, it's useful and attractive.  What do others think?  Does someone individually make the images?  Do all the organisms have these?  Again, I can go look around, but if you know the standard.... KP Botany 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

While not a much more pratical than generating images of varation of the family tree templates could be made to do this. THey currently woudl make the articles look a bit messey unless they were done as templates, and they take a bi of time to do by hand. However since what we need here can be a lot less flexable than the family tree templates It is possible that we could do away with the internal formatting and just provide the names. We could with relative ease create a template that simply took 14 inputs and formatted them into a tree, with one of them bolded or some such. The tree in the pimage above would look something like this:

It is also worth noting that it woudl not have to be this big. We could drop the borders and move all of the cells twards eachother, and if we built some slightly diffrent images we could compress it vertically as well, and get it to close to the same size as the image above. Dalf | Talk 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And finally it is also worth looking at Double-sized IPA vowel chart which appears to use an image as backgroun in a table then superimpose a second table on top with text. We could do somethign like that as well in a template. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Josh's cladograms
I don't think taxoboxes really have enough room for legible cladograms, but they'd be great additions to the article texts. If the developers are OK with nesting template arguments, that might be a simpler and more flexible way to write them. Here's a quick example based on the drawing code from the family tree templates; it would still need some polishing, but is it a step in the right direction? Josh


 * Yes, it's a step in the right direction, and fine without the colors. Did you look at the Solanaceae one?  Making it a clickable, even an abbreviated form of a larger one, looks very feasible on theirs, in my opinion.  KP Botany 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the above two examples is that the data used is too clean. It's all nice and binary; each node has 0 or 2 children. This is not always the case. Simple binary trees are often easily understood through less graphical means, but the cases where the phylogeny is not so well defined (and the resulting trees have more than 2 branches from a node) are the ones that really need to be described graphically. For examples, take a look at the first and last images on Hominoidea, or just the Strepsirrhini taxonomy, where we don't know which of the three infraorders is sister to the other two. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Compare and contrast: Euarchontoglires ├─Glires │   ├─rodents (Rodentia) │   └─rabbits, hares, pikas (Lagomorpha) └─Euarchonta ├─treeshrews (Scandentia) └─N.N.              ├─flying lemurs (Dermoptera) └─N.N.                   ├─†Plesiadapiformes └─primates (Primates)

- UtherSRG (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Two answers. KP, the diagram on the French page is expandable because it's an image, and I'm not sure you can do the same thing with templates. We could just use images, but the downside is we'd need a separate file for each article and they wouldn't be directly editable. Uther, it's not too difficult to make templates allow ternary or more complex nodes, as below. Josh

I continue adapting the Euarchontoglires trees above, to get a feel for things. Josh, is there a way to pass in a style argument the way the familytree accetps one? I'm really starting to like your implementation, but I want some control over sizing. Sometimes we'll want the larger text (such as for smaller trees), while other times it would be most handy to have the smaller font. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A word of warning: these graphical implementations don't work well in Opera. I don't know what the solution for that is, but it's something to bear in mind. --Stemonitis 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you post an image of what they look like for you? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what the last two trees look like for me:


 * and a similar effect occurs in the Euglena example above. --Stemonitis 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hrm.... Looks like the outer tree doesn't align properly with the inner tree when there's a nesting. Josh? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the first version was working on a coincidental alignment. I've changed the template to avoid this; it requires a slightly different approach, labeling branches rather than the stem.  Please let me know if the labels are positioned ok.  I've also added a style parameter to the above. Josh

I'd also suggest that if there's any way that terminal taxa could line up, that would be preferred. As it is, these trees look like they are attempting to be phylograms or even chronograms with certain taxa implied to be extinct fossil taxa. --Aranae 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible but non-trivial. I could give the outer table a set width and push everything against the side; this would right-align the final taxa rather than left-align them, or I could also make parameters for the length of each line, so that you can manually align them.  But these are clumsy, and I'd wait to see if someone familiar with div formatting can't come up with a better solution. Josh
 * Looks like we're getting closer.... Having the name on a line, though, means some interference to users who have a underscore for the links, instead of just the coloration. However, this is a user preference issue, and no underscore is the default. I'm going to be bold and move this into the regular template namespace. Bravo Josh! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think putting some space before and/or after the text would help, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the only time the terminal taxa should line up is if they are all extant taxa? If they're not all extant, they shouldn't line up, right?  Yes, I think this would be a vast improvement to current taxonomic information presentations if it could be implemented throughout Wikipedia--a simple diagram that displays relationships, plus it is currently how scientists have been presenting information for a long time.  Good work, Josh, thanks.  KP Botany 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all cladograms have lined up terminal taxa, KP. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I didn't say that they all have lined up terminal taxa, I'm questioning whether terminal taxa should line up, paritcularly if terminal taxa are mixed extinct and extant. Your link doesn't work.  KP Botany 19:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed the above link, but you're right, it doesn't show what you are looking for. How about this? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I've seen cladograms such as these with solid lines, but also some with mostly solid lines and a small number of dashed lines to indicate hypothetical or proposed placements. I'll see if I can find an example.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about doing them as .png diagrams like this one (right)? A bit more robust with respect to editing (and even more, vandalism), too, as the above examples would be very difficult for a casual editor to understand on the edit page - MPF 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely looks nice. -- Donald Albury 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it looks nice, but it's not something that any user who takes the time to research the information can easily modify. That makes it somewhat anti-wiki. Images are good for something that is static to a certain degree. Phylogenetic trees are revisable on a moment's notice, and any editor who is following the research journal should be able to update the cladogram, just as they can update the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia articles should not be "revisable on a moment's notice, because the information isn't supposed to come from primary, but rather secondary and tertiary resources--otherwise it's that sin-above-all-sins, Original Research. It'll only be required to update them when new textbooks are written including the latest, or enough articles, or a major review article, but never with each new hypothesis presented in a new research journal article, so that won't necessarily be the big deal it would be if this were a primary science site.  They are better, imo, with the clickable links in them, rather than the static picture. KP Botany 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... most textbooks are about 10 years behind the scientific journals. We should not be relying upon 10 year old information, we should be going with what's published a bit more recently than that. Perhaps not the first publication of an idea, but certainly not waiting for it to trickle down into textbooks. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My botany, my plant phylogentic systematics textbooks, and my phycology text, even my almost worthless 5 year old genetics texts are all more up to date than articles in their areas on Wikipedia, so whether or not Wikipedia should be relying upon the latest confirmed information (and it should), it currently isn't. None of my books are 10 years old, and none of the science texts being used at any the schools in my area (Cal, Stanford) are 10 years old.  But, yes, the general point is not the first publication of an idea.


 * But most papers in peer-reviewed scientific papers are either original ideas or refutation of an original idea, and in certain cases, confirmation of an original idea, outside of reviews of course--this is what peer-reviewed literature is for: oritginal research! In introductions you get confirmation of other research, but it's not the primary purpose of the article, and often requires contacting the primary researcher to find out whether or not they did anything for confirmation or just went with the reputation of the researchers on the other paper(s).  KP Botany 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoiding primary sources is not at all what's meant by original research. Original research is downloading characters off a public database such as GenBank, making your own tree, and publishing it on wikipedia.  The majority of what's in the primary literature will not be dealing with controversies, but will be providing all new information.  If there's a conflict with previous results it should be presented here as such.  What's the point of an internet repository of knowledge if we handicap it with the caveat that it must be a decade out of date?  I agree that if there's a new earth-shattering phylogeny we are usually better off going with the last "stable version" or waiting for independent confirmation, but to wait for the textbooks to catch up is excessive.  --Aranae 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the lengthy discussion on what is meant by Original Research and seriously, that is what Wikipedia thinks is meant: you don't use the first publication of an original idea out of a peer-reviewed research journal for a Wikipedia idea. Maybe I read it wrong.  I'll review this issue.


 * And, as I pointed out in my other posts, there is no handicap for it to be a decade out of date, this is simply not required on Wikipedia, as review articles are an excellent source for background for scientific information in Wikipedia, and they're more up-to-date than textbooks. They're designed for us to use as a resource, the authors have been selected as authorities in their fields and invited to write a review of the literature on an important and current topic.  Also, again, introductions and conclusions to scientific literature contain a lot of addition information, compiled background on an issue that is usable.  I used to compile the latest information in the field for a molecular cell biologist and for most of my work I simply read hundreds of introductions and could write a clear-cut background paper on the current state of research in the field.  The scientists writing the papers had already, for the purpose of their introductions and background material and for their research, already separated the wheat from the chaff.


 * Also, the way knowledge is being dispersed right now is a bit in conflict with waiting for the latest "stable version" as some of this isn't being published, but rather being presented at professional organizations, before it is being used. In angiosperm phylogenies, for example, most scientists are now using an enhanced APG II, such as that presented on Dr. Stevens' Mobot APG website.  KP Botany 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Amborellaceae cladogram
I added a cladogram to the Amborellaceae article, just an image, but I will try to use this code to make it a set of clickable links. Anyone want to jump ahead and do it for me, would be fine by me. It needs a branch for angiosperms as a whole, though. KP Botany 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can do... but I think we need to teach me how to do a div so that the text will flow around it like the image... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow that's big.... Some of hhe hugeness is because of it tries to keep boxes somewhat square, and so text wraps instead of getting pushed to the right. Even a non-breaking space is forced to break. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But it's so much more useful in this manner than a static, unclickable, difficult to change, image. Thanks.  KP Botany 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this tree only looks optimal in IE; it needs some more work to make it presentable in all browsers. See below for what it looks like in Opera (left) and Firefox (right). -- Eugène van der Pijll 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh crap. So I can't use it.  Thanks for checking.  I guess I'll just make a new and cleaner image of the one I've uploaded and use it for now. KP Botany 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)



Geographical categories
In the light of discussion elsewhere regarding geographical categories for flora and fauna, I think that guidance along the following lines may be appropriate. With consensus, this would be an addition to the Category subheading on the project page.

Geographical categories help readers find species by location. Regional categories are preferred over a large numbers of smaller categories. For example, country/state/province categories are useful for narrow endemic species, but don't add a country/state/province category if the species occurs in more than 4 or 5 countries/states/provinces; in those cases use larger regional categories (so a widespread species like Red Fox would be in Category:Fauna of the United States and Category:Mammals of Europe, but not in Category:Fauna of West Virginia or Category:Fauna of Lombardy). In some cases, a ecoregion category such as Piney Woods forests may be more appropriate than a country/state/province. The presence of a regional category makes the its subcategories unnecessary. The latter should be removed to avoid page clutter.

--Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree fully; I'd go even further in the Red Fox example and cut it to Category:Mammals of Asia, Category:Mammals of Europe, Category:Mammals of North America, as it occurs in virtually every country of all three continents. - MPF 19:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Boar is another example of the problem. -- Donald Albury 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion of this here Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, but keep specific cats for those items that are indeed extremely localized...though, in most cases, this is rare. Ecoregions for such places as the United States are generally well accepted as are those for many other larger counties. We need to be careful to not have a supercategory such as Category:Fauna of the United States become filled with ten thousand articles. I recommend we do either what Wsiegmund suggests by using ecoregions or figure out a better way to create categories so they are based on a regional structure...ie: Category:Fauna of the U.S. Pacific Northwest, etc.--MONGO 07:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I think that categories may be the wrong way to handle it. Part of what we are trying to do is indicate range. Categories by political units doesn't work well for that most of the time, and categorizing by ecoregions isn't much better. (Another element in the current system is 'biota chauvinism', look at how many species our country/state/whatever has.) I have no clear idea of how to do this, but shouldn't we be looking at the possibility of developing range maps that provide two-way access; links to political units and ecoregions that the species range extends to, and links from political units and ecoregions to species with ranges falling in those areas. And yes, I understand that the development effort may be too much, and that maintenance of such a system might be too much, but can we kick the idea around a little bit? -- Donald Albury 13:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might not be a bad idea to have a map which links to all the ecoregions of the world. I don't know if it is entirely possible, but have a map on the text/explanatory section of Category:Fauna by continent, which has overlaid links to all the continent categories. Then, when you go to Category:Wildlife of Oceania (by clicking the map or the text), there is a map of Oceania, with links to all the subcategories (New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea etc.), and it goes down the line. This way, we can get rid of the political boundary categories, which have the disadvantage of getting out of hand, and gets rid of the confusion caused by ecoregions, as well as the confusion caused by US states etc., as not many people know them.
 * I know this idea would take a long time, but would those against deleting the politcal categories be willing to use this alternative (which would involve eventually deleting the political categories when all maps are done)? I would be willing to put a lot of work into this, but only if it eventually results in the cleaning up of the categories. We would need to vote on deleting political categories upon the completion of this project before anyone starts though, as it could waste time otherwise. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please reply at: Category talk:Biota by country, the discussion is split, and I would like to keep it at the one place. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole project is being approached rather idealisticly and will therefore produce very little in the way of substance. You need to be far more systematic. The problem is that many of the enthusiasts involved in this geography project have no idea of the numbers involved. We want categories to remain small, right? Well, then why do people keep adding category tags like "Reptiles of Africa" to the articles that I'm working on? These people have no clue just how big such a broad category is likely to become. In such cases, it would have been so much better to create a number of more specific subcategories first and only to have added those tags to the articles. However, that requires foresight and thus knowledge of the subject. I would therefore like to suggest that these people simply not bother unless they first do the necessary research. After all, recategorizing hundreds articles will be tough enough, but thousands? --Jwinius 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it would be much easier to go through Category:Reptiles of Africa and split it into Category:Reptiles of West Africa, Category:Reptiles of East Africa, Category:Reptiles of North Africa, Category:Reptiles of the Mascarene Islands and so on than it would be to search through all of Category:Reptiles. Every bit of categorisation is useful as long as the category itself is meaningful. Not creating a category because it may become large later is a poor approach, and involves creating many underpopulated categories early on, and they're a real pain to navigate. --Stemonitis 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, creating big categories first, populating them, waiting a while, then creating subcategories and recategorizing all the existing articles, over and over again, is preferable to thinking first and acting later... despite the huge numbers of articles that this will eventually involve? How can you call that practical? Also, remember that the articles won't categorize themselves and many editors will likely be less than impressed with this unsystematic approach. As the growing number of articles will eventually prevent you from ever achieving your goal without their cooperation, the project will surely fail. --Jwinius 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the way it works now. When someone decides it's time to create a new sub-cat, they do, and re-cat the affected articles. I've done it a few times myself. There's no point in creating cats before they're needed, as empty cats will be deleted. Besides, the whole category structure is a work in progress, and is constantly being reshaped. It's better to adapt the structure to WP's needs as we go along than to try to create some master plan that almost certainly won't fit later needs. -- Donald Albury 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't buy this argument. I've seen people come by and add tags like "Reptiles of Africa" to the articles I've created, but they always stop before they're finished -- kind of like they expect me to finish the job for them. I suppose that would be logical, since I know those articles inside out, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to help them. Why should I, if I can expect them to show up again later on and replace a few of those tags with "Snakes of Africa", expecting me to once more follow their example and do the rest? Now, if instead they had created a subcategory strait away, such as "Vipers of Africa", then I might have felt more cooperative, since it's not as likely that this one will be subcategorized any further. You could even place this category directly under "Reptiles of Africa" for the time being, since moving it to "Snakes of Africa" later on would not require the original tags in the articles to be changed. --Jwinius 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I don't see how laying out a detailed plan of future cartegories will help that problem. That's the nature of Wikipedia, some people add content without worrying a lot about structure, and some people take care of the structure. Me, I try to do a little of both, but there are different ways to help Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Donald. If Wikipedia really did become a repository of all human knowledge then even a currently empty category like [Category:Nematodes endemic to the Comoros Islands] could turn out to be too cumbersome. We cannot know in advance what categories will be sensible, although we may be able to guess in some cases, so we just have to accept that repeated re-categorisation will be needed. It's a boring chore, but it works - it keeps the categories to reasonable sizes whilst still being navigable and meaningful. --Stemonitis 07:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixed-breed dog
Mixed-breed dog is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ID help, please
I know these are pine sawflies, but I don't know whether they're the European pine sawfly or the red-headed pine sawfly. Anyone know which? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 12:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this seems to match the white form of Neodiprion lecontei on this page. Hope this helps Richard Barlow 15:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, that looks about right, thanks!
 * BTW: just made a wikibooks page (A Wikimanual of Gardening/Pine Sawflies) about pine sawflies (we don't have one here)... might be worth copying for a stub article here, but it's primarily how-to. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check conifer sawfly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok :). I think I'm going to copy it over anyway though, since it's more specific. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here 'tis: Pine_sawfly. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest merging the two pages (particularly given the paucity of info we have!). The family Diprionidae (the existing conifer sawfly page) contains a few genera; ones I know of include Diprion, Neodiprion, Gilpinia, all of which include pine-feeding species which would come under the header 'pine sawfly', so it isn't realistic to split out one genus for a pine sawfly page distinct from the family page. - MPF 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe... I'm going to be working on at least one more conifer sawfly pages on wikibooks (spruce sawfly). I have plenty of info on several species, but it's more oriented towards how to kill them than what they are :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, I see what you're saying. I think it's ok to have a few common-named articles on the groups for now, and hopefully an entomologist who loves talking about conifer sawfly species will come along one day and split them up :). Too bad the site Richard Barlow pointed meto isn't copyleft, because then we could at least have some pretty taxoboxes on stub articles that our readers could find. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Information link
Hi, I think the taxabox is great! Just one thing though. The link leading to this page is in a form of a question mark (?) after the common name. I've had a couple of instances where first time readers of a Wikipedia article has asked me if the question mark indicates if the identity of the species pictured was in question. This seems to be especially confusing where the common name of a species is long and the question mark appears to be attached to the common name, as in this example. The taxabox info link is important, but I'd like to suggest either that it be moved to a different location in the taxabox and/or change the symbol. Instead of a ?, perhaps an i in a circle? Jnpet 05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this one[[Image:Gfi-set01-info.png]]

Jnpet 06:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or even about  ? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 10:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)




 * &#9432; seems like a good idea, if "?" can cause confusion. It does not cause any for me, but there are now two separate reports that it does for some (see Template talk:Taxobox). See right what it would look like, approximately. Eugène van der Pijll 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

<BR><BR><BR><BR>


 * Yeah, i, or 'about' is good, too. I posted this comment on the Taxobox page:


 * "I don't understand why this hasn't been changed. A "?" in taxonomy means something, it means there is uncertainty about the taxonomic placement. Wikipedia cannot have every taxonomic box on article pages showing that the taxon's identity is in question.
 * I just got a newsletter blurb from one of my writers advising readers not to use Wikipedia as a resource because it indicates that Umbellularia californica is in dispute as a name, when in fact it is not!
 * I thought she was talking about the common name discussion, but, no she pointed out that the species name is in dispute, "See the question mark after the species name in the classification box on the right?"
 * KP Botany 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) "
 * I don't like "about"; it's too long, and likely to run into the taxon name, if that is also long. The image of the circled "i" has the problem that it will link to the image description page. However, I've just found the unicode codepoint for "circled i". I don't know if this char is available on all computers, but if it is, it could be a winner. Except that it could perhaps be a bit larger. Eugène van der Pijll 00:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the 'about' can be too long, although it is certainly the clearest, however an 'i' as suggested by the original anonymous poster should be fine, just as long as it isn't a question mark~ KP Botany 00:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check this on IE tomorrow; if it works, I'll change the taxobox template. Unless there are objections, so if anyone can't see the circled i in the taxobox to the right, please shout. Eugène van der Pijll 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Other comments welcome, of course. Eugène van der Pijll 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me too —Pengo talk · contribs 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I'm no too keen on using a unicode symbol. It seems unlikely to work on a large range of computers (especially older ones). Unknown unicode characters tend to turn into a question mark (back to square one) or an ugly rectangular block. Instead, how about using one of the graphics from Info. e.g: [[Image:Info.svg|12px]] although the anti-aliasing makes it a bit too blurry. A simple 'i' could work too (as suggested above). (and the unicode symbol suggested is not even a proper "info" sign, it's just a circled 'i'.) —Pengo talk · contribs 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather use the image than Jnpet mentioned, above. But you cannot link that to an article; it will automatically link to the image description page. I don't like a plain "i"; that doesn't really suggest "explanation here" to me. Other articles depend on Unicode too, so unless there are many problematical browsers, I still prefer the circled i. Eugène van der Pijll 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely there's a place on Wikipedia to check in multiple browsers? I know for some websites I did years ago the company had a means of "browser checking," that did that, just posted the websites and viewed them in various browsers.  I'm fine with your arguments for the circled 'i', it seems you've thought it out beyond the scope of your posts.  KP Botany 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have some other proposals, but I'm going to change it to a simple 'i' until a better solution is agreed upon. —Pengo talk · contribs 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we just get rid of the link all together? There is ample information available through the headings links. Yes, the 'i' is terrible, and &#9432; is probably better, but is the help page needed at all when all the heading links already go to more information? —Pengo talk · contribs 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The taxobox is created in a way which is very user friendly. I don't see why anyone would require extra information as to what info the taxobox presents. --liquidGhoul 15:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with plain 'i' It disappears on my new browser, I think it needs to be the circled one, maybe an asterisk? The original user friendly goals of the taxobox are met, imo, but some folks probably want more details. I didn't really think of that, that's it is fairly self-explanatory. KP Botany 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Finding some copyvios, what to do?
I've been finding a few minor copyvios in plant pathology articles (like Phytoplasma), involving word-for-word inclusion of materials from the Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology. It's usually just a sentence or two... should I just add the book as a source? I just don't see why someone would bother typing something in without adding the citation (citations only improve the articles, right?). Should I bother with using tage, or just add it to the bottom? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 10:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that wherever possible, we should be using the &lt;ref> tags. That way, it's clearer which individual statements are sourced and which are not. --Stemonitis 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we come up with a common name policy?
I keep running across articles on plants and fungi that either use "corrective" common names for organisms, or couch regional common names in phrases such as "mistakenly called", "misleadingly called", etc.

The most recent example I've come across was in the Gymnosporangium article, where the common name "Cedar-apple rust" (and several other cedar-other rusts) were changed to "Juniper-apple rust". This was presumably done because the telial host of the fungus is in fact a species of Juniper, (as opposed to Cedrus), but the name of the rust is "Cedar-apple rust", and the common name of the most commonly implicated "cedar" (Juniperus virginiana) is "Eastern Red Cedar" (only a botanist or horticulturist would understand what you mean by "Eastern Juniper"... the term is not used).

It's really frustrating to go in to work on an article, only to have to waste time undoing this sort of thing.

I have discussed this a few times with the user who routinely makes these changes, and he feels strongly that there are "proper" and "improper" common names for plants. I, on the other hand, feel strongly that common names are part of the English language, and can't be "proper" or "improper", but rather are just words used to describe things that are found in the environment. Just as "Lorry", "Truck", and "Semi" are all names for the same thing, each just as proper as the other when used in one region or another, so are the various names for plants, animals, fungi, etc. The English language is wonderfully diverse, and an english encyclopedia should describe (from a neutral point of view) how the language is used, and discuss the things that English words are used for. It's not meant to be used as a tool for codifying the language, but rather a description of what the language is, how it describes the world, and above all what the things in the world are, whatever they're called.-- SB_Johnny |talk|books 11:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. It is not Wikipedia's place to prescribe common names, merely to report which are used. If it might be confusing that "Eastern Red Cedar" is actually a juniper, then we should explain that calmly and encyclopaedically. Even where "official" lists of common names are produced, I deny that they are any more correct than other commonly-used names, and for organisms where such lists don't exist (viz., most), the concept of "correctness" doesn't even begin to apply. I would recommend that any such usage of "mistakenly" be replaced with "also". "Misleadingly" could actually be true, but it needs to be qualified with an explanation. If there were "proper" common names, we wouldn't need scientific names, whereas centuries of experience tells us that we do. --Stemonitis 11:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think "misleadingly" is appropriate either... in the Juniper/Cedar example, the only thing "misleading" about it would be that the common name doesn't match up with the binomial, but the binomials are a metalanguage all their own (I suspect the reason this particular plant is named "cedar" is because of the scented, rot-resistant wood, as most if not all plants called "cedar" have). "Eastern Juniper" isn't a name at all (at least I've never heard it used in the regions where it grows... it's a valuable timber crop here, or a nuisance tree in apple-growing regions), just something made up for the purpose of clarifying that the species is not a species of Cedrus.


 * The problem with a lot of these articles is that one or more common names are followed by parentheticals "(which is misleading, because...)", "(note that this is not actually..."), etc. It's not only POV, but frankly it's just bad prose. Maybe better to just keep this sort of thing out of the individual articles, and just wikilink "common name" where appropriate (and add more discussion about the problems with common names on that article. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Common names have problems and, imo, should not be used at all as article titles. However, as to all these articles with POV comments about "misleading" usage of common names in the articles, they simply should be changed.  But as long as common names are used as article titles, instead of as redirects to the scientific name, this issue will continue to arise.


 * Sometimes the point to show what is misleading in the name overwhelm all else. Turns out that most people I know (I live in the midst of a thousand or so acres of walnut groves) thought the English walnut was called that because it was traded all over the world by English merchant ships, not that anyone thought it was native to England. So an article saying the common name was "confusing" because the species was not native to England introduced an artifact of modern usage, limited knowledge of historic trade, and failed to add the possibly correct source of the common name.


 * Just change the articles, please, that don't contain neutral point of view, or that add nonsense, such as non-existant common names. Try to search for the actual etymology of the common names, also.  They are culturally important.  All of this is, of course, simply my opinion about the names, however here is an example of how I changed the Acer negundo article to reflect more neutral POV on common names while adding important, because they show the variety of ethnobotanical knowledge of the various cultures where the trees grow, cultural information about the names to the article that enriches the overall knowledge the article imparts to the reader.


 * It is called Manitoba Maple in Canada, and Ash-leaved Maple (also Ashleaf Maple, Ash Maple) or Box Elder (also Boxelder, California Boxelder, Western Boxelder, Inland Boxelder, Boxelder Maple) in the United States. The American common names come from the pinnately compound leaves of Acer negundo that are similar to those on the elder (Sambucus) and some species of ash (Fraxinus). The "box" in the name is thought to be because this maple's wood superficially resembles that of the box hedge (Buxus sempervirens). Additional common names include Cut-leaved Maple (because of the compound, or fully dissected, leaves), or Three-leaved Maple (because all new leaves from overwintering buds have 3 leaflets), or Sugar Ash (because the leaves resemble the ash, but it is a source of maple syrup). Its numerous and diverse common names attest to its familiarity to many peoples over a great geographic range.


 * This tree is familiar to many people. They knew it was a maple because of its syrup, in spite of its resemblence to the ash, they recognized the similarities between its wood and that of an important wood from elsewhere, the notice whether plants have compound leaves or entire leaves--all of this shows information about the culture of the people where the plant grows.  This imparts actual verifiable and useful knowledge, whereas showing the impropriety of a name and stating its impropriety simply adds POV, so try to show the user who adds these non-neutral comments the difference between what is valuable, the explanations, and what is POV, the adjectives about propriety.


 * KP Botany 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has all been discussed at length in WikiProject Plants: The consensus was in favor of scientific names for most plant articles, with common names used only in specific cases.--Curtis Clark 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has been, however there will continue to be problems with what common name to use (see the current fracas in Maize for example), as long as they are used anywhere, so I don't want to ignore that point. SB Johnny is, however, talking about the names in the articles.  KP Botany 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really referring to article titles, I agree those should all just use the binomials except in the rare cases where there's no regionalism of the names (like oak, tomato, etc.).
 * The user involved has been asked repeatedly to stop doing this, but refuses to do so, because he really does feel that there are or should be "proper" common names, and that wikipedia should reflect this because the alternatives are deceptive. While I'm generally against having a policy for everything, it seems in this case that we need one in this case to bring an end to this once and for all. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you politely change the articles to a neutral POV in the way I did with the Acer negundo article or the Persian/English walnut article. It explains the roots of the common names, indicates the breadth of usage (although there should also be a comment about Manitoba Maple, its commonality in the Manitoba area or whatever), and provides useful cultural information.


 * If you do this, rather than continuing to discuss a point with someone who won't yield, you will show other Wikipedia editors the utility of using neutral POV discussions of common names within the articles and it will become a de facto policy. KP Botany 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Generating large number of species articles w/ taxobox
Would there be much interest in seeing a large number of species articles being generated from the information on the IUCN red list. The generated articles would contain a taxobox with conservation status, a reference (to the red list), a stub notice, a category, and very little actual text. Example: Apron Ray.

I think populating the encyclopedia this way would give a good starting point for a great many entries, and make it easier for people looking to start articles on a species.

I'm quite time poor at the moment but am interested in doing this. The above example was hand made and not generated, but it would not be very difficult to generate such articles.

Thoughts? —Pengo talk · contribs 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stubs are better than redlinks, so I'm good with it. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But stubs without useful informations are less useful than redlinks. Circeus 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But they wouldn't be "without useful information" as they would have the Latin name, some common names, the family, and the geography. The point is to generate the pages with some useful information, the taxobox, common names, and the geography, from an existing database.  At least with this, people could find out more information about the family, or learn the least bit of information on the plant.  KP Botany 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The IUCN entry also lists the countries where a species occur, doesn't it? When you could add that, the article would at least have some content. Ucucha 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'd like to do that too. —Pengo talk · contribs 08:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What would be done about categorisation? How would you choose the name of the article? Also would you be able to create a list of the articles created, and add a link to the list of the talk page so that people could cross them off when they decide to add content to the articles. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it, especially in cases where we have photos. Use binomials for the common names, and use the first most-specific category that's under 200, as we've been doing for at least the past year or so (order when there's only a few articles of the order, family when the order gets too big, species if the family category gets overpopulated, etc.).
 * What's the "red list"? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See red list. --Stemonitis 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks rather useful. KP Botany 18:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories could be chosen by finding the next higher taxon that already has a category.. I guess a new category could be created if there's a bunch of species (4 or more?) with the same genus or family. Common names are listed in the database, so for animals the first one listed would be put into Title Case and used (admitadly they're not all unique names. I guess I'd have to check for that). Alternatively we could stick to generating articles with binomial names and let someone choosing a name simply move the article? I wouldn't create an article if the any of the common names or binomial synonyms already exist.

By the way, when I ran Beastie Bot in June there were 33827 binomial names found in the red list (including least concern) that weren't found as wikipedia articles. So a bit less than that number would be a ballpark figure for how many articles might get created. —Pengo talk · contribs 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Recently I used the IUCN database for the articles in Category:True vipers. One thing that I found rather unsurprising is that the entries in the IUCN database don't follow the ITIS taxonomy that I use for the viper articles. I'm not certain, but it may be that, because of the way they work, they don't keep to any specific taxonomies for the various groups of plants and animals. For snakes, I'd rather see new articles generated from ITIS information -- not the IUCN. Likewise, the amphibian folks may like to see some new articles generated as well, but then using taxonomic information from the AMNH. --Jwinius 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will this work, though? One underlying assumption about the IUCN data is that the taxa are important because they are listed, making it likely that an article about a particular taxon will be needed on Wikipedia.  Is the underlying assumption true for AMNH data?  (I don't know.) However, with plants there are just too many plants largely unknown to the English-speaking world.  I can't see that Wikipedia will, at least in the near future, be a repository for articles about a couple hundred thousand species of angiosperms.  Plant taxonomy is such a bit of a systematic nightmare these days, so the wrong taxonomy won't matter. However, particularly if the bot also generates a list of the articles it created it might be a great source of stubs for interested botanists to work on when they have time.  KP Botany 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should run several samples with a representative from a host of orders, have editors on that wikiproject evaulate whether the information is accurate and the bot won't be making more trouble than it's worth. With a thumbs up, the bot could run the whole database for that particular order (I'm assuming the bot can manage things on an order by order basis?).  --Aranae 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jwinius is probably right, and I should look at using other systems for taxonomic info. As for whether the species is important: I've never seen a species (or taxon) article be deleted or being put under trial with AfD. I personally believe every species is important. Whether any particular article will be needed, referenced, or improved is another question, but an impossible one to answer until after the fact. And yes, Aranae is right in that I'd have to run it in order of .. er.. order.. or at least class. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles
This is a new proposed deletion policy that should interest ToL contributors. Many articles, especially about species as diverse as Moray eel or Tongue Orchid, lack references or sources and will fall under this speedy deletion policy if it gets adopted. Consequences could be enormous. We should follow this discussion closely and participate in it to discuss the consequences. JoJan 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, those articles still need sources. I think the proposed policy is reasonable. Perhaps a variant template for ToL articles so that they get added to a ToL Category, so that we can speedily source them, albeit at a rudimentary level? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Existing articles are exempt (sp?) from the proposed speedy deletion rule. Eugène van der Pijll 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is serious discussion on the talk page about the grandfather clause. It looks like this proposed policy will include ALL non-referenced articles. I have no idea how many articles in ToL-range we're talking about, but I suspect there could be many. Only the original contributors know what sources have been used. If we want to source them, we would have to use references to sources we would have used. Besides we would have to check every fact first. That can be very difficult if one has no access to scientific journals, asking payment per view. There could be a tremendous task ahead. JoJan 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to check every fact, a basic ref will do, and for many vertebrate groups at least it should be feasible to give suitable text. jimfbleak 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the worst case scenario, if this rule will be applied to existing articles, it would be trivial for a bot to add an external link to, say, ITIS or one of the other taxonomic databases automatically. This would be enough to save the article from speedy deletion. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, the proposal is deliberately restricted to apply only to articles created after it becomes part of the speedy deletion criteria. There has been discussion about the possibility that it may eventually be extended to articles that existed before the criteria is accepted, but it is also recognized in the discussion that it will be a while before the community of editors will reach consensus to do that, so it won't be coming soon. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea, though, users should be able to immediately tie everything in the article to a source that they can verify for themselves. This is one area where I feel that Wikipedia falls down: a lot of editors don't use reliable sources.  Part of this is simply because articles are being created by editors in subject areas where the editor's knowledge is not up to discerning the various sources.  But dang, it's a lot more work for an editor.  KP Botany 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Breed disambiguation
Is there any naming standard for breeds/varieties? I see that list of breeds of cattle has X (cattle), X cattle, and X Cattle. List of breeds of horses also has all three. List of breeds of dogs is mainly X Dog with a few X (dog). Is there any standard? Rmhermen 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Folk, the list of placental mammals is up for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever would anyone consider deleting such a useful list for? Thanks for the alert.  KP Botany 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar
There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwikied ToL pages
Over the past few weeks I've transwikied some ToL pages that had contained how to sections, all are now on wikibooks and will be incorporated into other books (mostly Animal Care). The howto sections should probably be removed now, if anyone's interested in helping with the cleanup:


 * African Grey Parrot
 * American black bear
 * Brown Bear
 * Fischer's Lovebird
 * Heliciculture
 * House Gecko
 * Lovebird
 * Red acro bug
 * Rosy-faced Lovebird

I'll mostly be doing the cleanup on the wikibooks side, if anyone wants to help dewikify the wikibooks versions, that would be great! -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 11:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

wikifying describer year
Stemonitis and I had the idea of linking the year of description inside a taxobox like this:. This would be a nice feature if one wanted for example to check out what other species were described in the same year. right now, when the year is just linked like this: , this is not really useful, because it will link to a very long list of events that are normally not interesting to the user following the link. Alternatively, this could be implemented as categories, analogous to Category:People born in . If this feature would be deemed useful, it would probably be best to let a bot do the work of changing the existing taxoboxes. Alternatively, or additionally, there could be an extra optional field like binomial_authority_year, but that would lead to problems when first describers stand in parentheses. --Sarefo 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, especially if the bot could create the categories or lists. I can't say that I would find it particularly useful, but if it is useful to someone else, I am all for it. --liquidGhoul 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current format is rather useless, but I don't think  would be that much of an improvement. I imagine that eventually there would be many entries for each year: long lists of totally unrelated species all mixed up with each other. Ho-hum. On the other hand, if this were to be more specific, i.e.   or whatever, now that would be interesting! --Jwinius 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion in the same discussion, incidentally, was to link the date, where possible, to an article about the work in which the name was published. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to link a taxon to its original description; as an example, Carcinus maenas already does this (I hope that's not a violation of WP:POINT), linking the date 1758 to Systema Naturae. And while, yes, a category or list of names published by Linnaeus (even in individual works by Linnaeus) will probably be too big to be useful, for other authors it may be more reasonable. Wouldn't a list/category of species described by Darwin be interesting? Dana? Asa Gray? Lamarck? --Stemonitis 13:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to see what this would look like, I've created two lists from the latest database dump, for two years chosen completely at random. See User:Eugene van der Pijll/Animal species described in 1758 and User:Eugene van der Pijll/Animal species described in 2006 for the results. (Note, these are just the raw output of a simple script; the format of the output can still be improved.) Eugène van der Pijll 14:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do actually find it very interesting, but there is a big problem of incompleteness for the more recent years. --liquidGhoul 15:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, these are only lists of species that currently have articles in Wikipedia. (Articles with information on the authority, I should say.) Data from other sources could be added, but it is hard to guarantee consistency in that case. Eugène van der Pijll 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see incompleteness as a problem. I'm pretty sure that outside a few exceptional groups (furry things and feathery things, usually) Wikipedia will never be comprehensive. The categories, should we make them, will inevitably contain only species/taxa about which we've already got articles, but that's OK, because they'll tend to be the most notable taxa (or so we hope). --Stemonitis 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple concept with no simple solution. Do you want only to link for species themselves, or for higher taxa as well? Both get a year in the descriptor, and if you only wnat one and not the other, that will confuse editors. Other the other hand, if you utilize a category you can get a nice complete picture, but the listing won't be in any particular order. *shrugs* I'd like to see something done with the year, but I'm torn between the pros and cons of all the options. - UtherSRG 16:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New guideline for fauna/flora of categories
I know this has been brought up a lot, but it has gotten nowhere, and I think I have come up with a solution which should work. I would like to create a guideline, which would be kept under the TOL project. If we create a guideline, it would make it muich easier to move, merge and delete articles in quicker time, and clean up this whole mess much quicker. It would go along the lines of:

"Categories related to the flora and fauna of a region should should be based on the common grouping of that region used by zoological/botanical publications. For example, if it is common to seperate a region based on political boundries (as in parts of Europe), categories should be seperated by countries. If it is common to seperate regions based on geographic features (such as New Guinea), categories should be seperated by geographic region."

I wouldn't like to apply this guideline to articles, as it would be too restrctive, and I don't particularly agree with it. I think the main arguments that occured with this discussion occured because people of different countries were relating it to their country/region. As an Australian, it could go either way, but Americans seem to prefer the use of political boundaries. The reason to have this, is that there are many regions which are represented by more than one category, and it creates over-categorisation, and under-population of some articles/categories. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to add on to the above. If it is passed, I would like to clean up the navigation to the fauna/flora by region categories. I suggest the following.


 * Category:Biology --> Category:Natural history --> Category:Natural history by continent --> Category:Fauna by continent


 * Category:Biology --> Category:Natural history --> Category:Natural history by continent --> Category:Flora by continent


 * Currently, the categories lead everywhere, and it is very complicated, and can lead people astray. If we keep the navigation of our categories simple, it will make Wikipedia more user friendly. I intend to create maps for all the categories we have, as I have done with Category:Fauna by continent. If we simplify the system, I can do this much quicker.


 * Oh, and if anyone disagrees with what I say, please speak up. If I get no objections, I will add the guideline myself in a week. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the experiment begins. :) --liquidGhoul 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LiquidGhoul and I have today had an extensive discussion on this subject, and I think we largely agree on the following:
 * Categorisation of regions is complex and subjective. For example: should New Guinea be considered part of Asia or Australia? Should Australia and New Zealand be bundled with the Pacific Islands and called "Oceania", or kept separate? Should Hawaii be considered part of the United States for floristic purposes? And if so, does that make it part of the North American continent for floristic purposes?
 * Rather than make our own decisions on this highly complex and subjective topic, it would be much better, if possible, to let the scientists nut this out, and adopt whatever system that come up with. In the case of botany, a standard already exists: the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions effectively categorises the entire world into named geographical areas, intended for use in recording plant distribution. A brief look at the standard document will make it clear just how complex the topic is, and what a great amount of debate and compromise has gone into the standard. I think it would be best to adopt this, rather than try to come up with a categorisation convention of our own.
 * Hesperian 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If people didn't pick it up, I support this. Is anyone aware of an equivalent for fauna? Thanks --liquidGhoul 04:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Promeropidae
There is an inconsistency over Sugarbird (Promeropidae) that needs resolving. The family is categorized as Passerida, but listed under the Corvida page. One of these is clearly wrong, but I don't know which. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask the question. JohnCastle 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Catgories for threatened taxa
Currently there are three automatically added categories for conservation statuses:
 * Category:Endangered species (EN)
 * Category:Critically endangered species (CR or PE)
 * Category:Species extinct in the wild (EW)

These are automatically added, e.g. when status = EN. They can currently be turned off on an article-by-article basis with "|category=off" or something like that.

I'd like to stop all of these categories from being automatically added, so they can be controlled more easily on an article-by-article basis. There are two or three problems:
 * "Species" is often incorrect. Some are subspecies. Occasionally they are genre (e.g. rhea (bird))
 * "Species" is too broad, and could be put into useful subcategories, like "Endangered plants" or "Critically endangered mammals".
 * Endangered ain't Endangered. Categories should perhaps be qualified with whose criteria they match. like Category:Endangered reptiles, IUCN Red list or Category:Endangered reptiles, ESA.

The main questions, if people are happy with the overall change, are:
 * 1) What should the categories be? I'm thinking (Critically Endangered|Endangered|Vulnerable) (plants|mammals|reptiles|birds|fishes|invertebrates|fungi)
 * 2) Should the categories be qualified with the organisation or act that categorizes it? (I'm not sure either way, suggestions welcome)

—Pengo talk · contribs 11:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Folks should not be listing conservation status for non-species articles. This is wrong. If you see articles like this, simply remove the conservation status from the taxobox. Perhaps the existing categories should be renamed as "... species and subspecies...", but I agree that the categories are indeed too broad, but I disagree that we should distinguish between IUCN and ESA, etc, any more than we already do - we talk about the differences in the article, but side with the IUCN in the taxobox. We should do the same for categories - talk about it in the article, but categorize according to the IUCN status. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree on two points:
 * Banksia brownii is listed as "Endangered" under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 1999) but, like most endangered Australian species, it does not appear on the IUCN Red List. It is not acceptable to remove the conservation status from the taxobox, as though IUCN is the only status that counts. It is also not acceptable to impose an IUCN semantics on terms such as "endangered", which may be defined in subtly different ways in different systems.
 * EPBC 1999 is quite happy to gazette subspecies and varieties as threatened, endangered, critically endangered, etc. In such cases it is perfectly appropriate to list them as such in the taxobox. I can see no reason at all why "this is wrong".
 * Hesperian 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just EPBC — The IUCN also lists subspecies and varieties (and even regional populations) with the red list categories. Often the taxonomy is debated as to whether something is a subspecies or a species anyway, such as with the Chinese White Dolphin (Sousa chinensis or S. c. chinensis); or Wikipedia's recent 1,500,000th article Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis or O. kanabense). So "... species and subspecies" seems like a reasonable label, which also excludes higher taxa. (Yes, I agree we should not have a conservation status on higher taxa than species, but rhea (bird) is tricky, as both species are listed as NT and neither have their own articles. A simple solution would be to break it into two articles, but simply removing the status from the taxobox works too.) (Correct me if i'm wrong, but) I think UtherSRG's point was that we should favour IUCN when both IUCN and other threatened-listings exist, not that we should remove other listings? ... and so far it's 2-nil against differentiating between IUCN and EPBC etc in categories names (I have no preference). —Pengo talk · contribs 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Synonymy and the taxobox
Can somebody either merger synonym (botany) and synonym (zoology) or work a way to switch between them in the taxobox? Because it is now a disambiguation page (as it should have been, might I add), and the previous state was not much better anyway. Circeus 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now how did I know that I would find Brya's fingerprints all over this??? I agree that the two articles should be merged, maybe under the title "Synonym (taxonomy)" but I'm taking a break from Wikipedia so I'm not going to touch it. MrDarwin 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, go for it Circeus, but please use the language from the zoology text, as the botany one is almost incomprehensible. KP Botany 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Te merger is complete now, and the taxobox link is fixed. I felt a need tokeep the two meanings clearly separate, further cleanup for jargonmight be needed (although I did some myself). Do you think other similar pairs (e.g. Valid name (botany) and Valid name (zoology), or are those terms too different in uses?) should suffer the same fate? Circeus 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This one is not as straight forward, see Correct name (botany), which would also need to be added to the mix. --Peta 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact the notable thing is that "Valid name" means something totally different in ICBN and ICZN.--Curtis Clark 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing synonyms in the taxobox
I was excited to see the topic, but now I'm wondering if I misunderstood. I'm wondering if maybe we could also list binomial synonyms in the taxobox as well? I think it comes up in botany more than in zoology, but in florae like An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada, there are often numerous sysnonymous binomials listed, and I think it would be a good addition to our taxoboxes. This would be particularly valuable for the plants that have different binomials in "horticultural" vs. "plant taxonomical" parlances, as well as giving the search engine something to grab at if someone were reading an old book that uses deprecated names.

I guess the problem with this is that it would require a lot of new fields if there were a lot of synonyms, though it could be kept to a minumum if we used piped links to authorities rather than separate fields for them. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? --liquidGhoul 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, just like that :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 12:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Only I think that synonyms should not be bolded. (Of course, they are arguably an item to be bolded as per MOS:BOLD... but I for one didn't do it. More like a gut feeling, really... too much bold in a section of the taxobox that tends to be LONG (check out spiders by the good Sarefo for example) and of less importance to most users.
 * In any case, YES! use synonyms as much as you can, please! I do it all the time for birds. Indeed, some of the more "notorious" synonyms should be made redirects, and some users already do this, for example Aechmea tinctoria redirects to the valid taxon's page. Most laudable (as tinctoria is a name sometimes still encountered in horticulture).

Protista
I was wondering what people here think about dropping the kingdom Protista, and treating them directly as basal eukaryotes. When we started not enough was known about their relationships to make that really practical, but now they most of them could be arranged in terms of a few unranked supergroups, following current systems like Adl et al. I know we normally prefer ranked taxa, but recently enough editors have been trying to move towards a clade-based system that it has made the current organization hard to maintain.

We wouldn't have to change other kingdoms, and could keep using lower ranks from phyla on down. The new organization would then look something like this:


 * Domain Eukaryota
 * Supergroup "Opisthokonts"
 * Kingdom Animalia
 * Kingdom Fungi
 * Several classes
 * Supergroup Archaeplastida
 * Kingdom Plantae
 * Phyla Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta
 * Supergroup Chromista
 * Phyla Heterokontophyta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta
 * Supergroup Alveolata
 * Phyla Dinoflagellata, Apicomplexa, Ciliophora
 * Supergroup Excavata
 * Phyla Euglenozoa, Percolozoa, Metamonada
 * Supergroup Amoebozoa
 * Phylum Amoebozoa
 * A few unplaced orders

If people support this, I'd be happy to adjust all protist articles, taxoboxes, and categories as necessary. Josh 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sentimental about taxa, so if it's supported by evidence and better reflects real clades, then I'm all for it. Can you point the uninitiated towards some literature on the changes/research/new understanding of these groups? How new is this taxonomy? —Pengo talk · contribs 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The newer ones come from Cavalier-Smith (2002), who treats most of them as infrakingdoms of his paraphyletic kingdom Protozoa. This is fairly recent, but papers written since generally seem to accept them, including ones like Baldauf (2003) and Adl et al. (2005) which have done a lot to promote their use. The main variation is whether the Chromista form a separate group, but that's appeared in more-than-five-kingdom systems since the '80s and has never been solidly rejected, so I think it's safe to use. Josh

Ok, it doesn't seem likely anyone is going to object to using unranked supergroups. Since users like Kupirijo and WeroTheGreat had already started adding them, and others like KP Botany have expressed concerns about using the paraphyletic kingdom, I'll start switching the protist articles to that system. Josh 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'd like to think about this some more. My only concern is that users be able to find them by searching for them in the Protist Kingdom, as much as I abhor that.  I want to restart WikiProject Protists.  In general, if you can make it so people can still find them, I'm fine.  But I don't want to use all Cavalier-Smith, as he's considered a bit of a, well forward-thinker.  I suspect his work will prove the hardiest in the long run, but he's not in total accord with his peers on everything.  I'm okay with it, but to repeat: users have to be able to find things the old way, if C-S is the only authority, other classifications must be explained, and overall you need to justify this change extensively from the literature.  KP Botany 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS I'm still reading!! Everyone reads scientific literature a lot faster than I do, or has more time to. KP Botany 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith treats these as ranked taxa, which is definitely a bit forward, but by now I think the supergroups themselves are mostly solid. A few editors have a lot of enthusiasm for them, which is why I wanted to switch to them, instead of letting a mix of phylogenetic-placed and kingdom-placed pages develop. But I guess I did sort of jump the gun here. Explaining alternative systems has often proven to be tricky, because it's not easy to find out what everyone uses, but I promise I'm not going to remove mention of the other systems. From the start, it's been very important to me that everything can be found in several ways, including old categories like algae, flagellates, etc. It's just our "primary" organization system I wanted to change. Josh 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As several people have probably noticed, I have been changing the color of some of the taxoboxes. This was not to wreak vandalistic havoc on Wikipedia, but because I thought that having all non-animal-plant-fungi eukaryotes have khaki taxoboxes would be rather silly. If the majority feels all the "protists" should have khaki taxoboxes, then so be it, I will switch them back. However, I feel that since the three still accepted kindgoms have their own taxobox colors, then why not have the other supergroups, chromista, alveolata, rhizaria, etc. have their own taxobox colors, rather than be all lumped together just because they used to all be in kingdom protista. Werothegreat 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a style change throughout Wikipedia. Don't you think that it should be discussed first?  That's what this page is for.  Also I want to get the WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists up and running again, a proposal on that page would be useful.  This has been discussed before, with no conclusion drawn, feel free, also, to find past discussions and throw your 2 cents worth in to try to bring participants to a conclusion.  There are multiple issues here, and it is a matter in great contention in the scientific community, to assume that the Wikipedia community could easily meet a consensus when none exists in the scientific community, is probably unrealistic.  Also, I think Josh's point that everything should be found in serveral ways should be considered with taxoboxes, rather than making them something different, show that protists can be defined in two ways, morphologically as protists, and phylogenetically with their nearest close relations in some cases, and as evolutionarily distinct branches in other.  KP Botany 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you go ahead and revert them for now, until we can reach some consensus on the issue? You also used multiple colors and colors that won't be distinguished on all monitors well.  KP Botany 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Werothegreat was asked to revert his changes to the taxobox colors, and didn't. It appears there may be about 100 that have various nonstandard colors that don't mean anything according to the taxobox information page, and there are eukaryotes that appear, because of User:Werothegreat's color choice, to be bacteria by color, something else by text.  These have to be changed, so would folks check his list and change them.  I put a vandal warning on his talk page, also.  This is quite a bit of work to undo.  KP Botany 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad, other users changed most of them, I changed some. His whole edit list probably needs checked, though.  KP Botany 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want them khaki or the eukaryote brown? Werothegreat 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! style="background:pink" | Animalia || pink ! style="background:lightgreen" | Plantae || lightgreen ! style="background:lightblue" | Fungi || lightblue ! style="background:khaki" | Protista || khaki ! style="background:lightgrey" | Bacteria || lightgrey ! style="background:darkgray" | Archaea || darkgray ! style="background:violet" | Virus || violet The background colors are based on this table, eukrayote brown is not listed, although I've seen it on the eukaryote page. Since Protist is more refined, and they were already khaki, they should just stay where they were, until a decision is made to do otherwise. KP Botany 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * }
 * }
 * The rhodophyta and glaucophyta form a monophyletic tree with plantae, called archaeplastida. Could their taxoboxes be made lightgreen? Werothegreat 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be impossible to reach a consensus on the protist pages. I would like to include something additional in the taxobox to show that its classification as a protist is Linnaean hierarchial, and that other classifications treat the various protists on equivalent levels as other large groups.  I don't know what to do.  KP Botany 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith treats them as the kingdom Plantae, as do some of the systems listed on red algae, so there isn't a sharp divide between Linnaean and other systems on that - just between different versions. I think it would probably be best to throw them in Plantae, but as you said there's no easy way to reach consensus - it seems to me that not enough people have expressed interest to decide between different preferences. Josh


 * Hmm. What about making a color for the controversial ones? Maybe some sort of combination? For example (I'm not a computer guy so I don't know), couldn't someone make a background that's half light green half khaki for some of the algae? A background like that (a transitional background? lol) would not only reflect the controversy in classification, but also the fact that (some groups of) green algae are kind of in between. I admit it may lead to some confusion about evolution and transitional organisms (I'm not saying this right... for example, people may think that extant groups of plants evolved from extant groups of algae). Or how about a little "controversy" or "inconclusive classification" symbol? I guess that would cut down on the explanations and what is not nearly as controversial as taxonomic classifications is that there is a controversy about taxonomic classifications :P It seems that completely changing the color of taxoboxes and making it appear as if their classification is conclusive is not going to make anyone happy.--TheAlphaWolf 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Werothegreat's idea, of using light green for the Glaucophyta and Rhodophyta, to indicate some affinity. There are additional issues, you know, like the fact that the Chlorophyta are not monophyletic and have two pages--and part of them should be light green.  I suggested the split color scheme, also, it was soundly ignored.  We can also try bringing this up in WikiProject Microbiology, as it could be an expansive location for discussing protist issues, with the WikiProject Protist dead.  AlphaWolf, I have sad news for you: people today think that humans evolved from extant apes, or that evolution says that.  In the case of the Glaucophyta and Rhodophyta, it's not so much the issue of controversy or inconclusiveness as that some classification schemes don't bring the archaeplastida into play.  There is at least one classification scheme that plces the Rhodophyta differently, and another, although not an academic one, that places the Phaeophyta differently, though.  I think Josh is right, we have too few people to reach a consensus, can we try the issue at WikiProject Microbiology, carefullly laying out the issues, the groups, the considerations, both technical and academic and aesthetic for some of us.  KP Botany 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, plants are already lightgreen. It would be a stronger statement than just "some affinity". I think TOL is the best place for this discussion, but if nothing works then I guess it is a good idea to take it somewhere else. I really don't know much about protists, microbiology, or taxonomy (and I know more than most), and I can tell you that this whole thing confuses the heck out of me. I think wikipedia should be accessible to almost anyone (isn't that one of the pillars or tacit rules or whatnot?). The split color scheme would probably be the most neutral and reflective of the opinions of the scientific community wouldn't it? (again, I don't know much about this... but if there is no controversy, then what are we arguing for?) Is there really a general scientific consensus about what groups like the rhodophyta and chlorophyta should be classified as? Aren't we being a little presumptuous trying to settle this by ourselves? Instead of ignoring the split color scheme idea, does anyone have specific objections to it? I think it would accomplish all of our goals. One, it would be simple, not too technical, and it would make it easier for a layperson to understand. Two, it would reflect the scientific community's view on the subject (or lack thereof). And finally, it would (hopefully) reflect the most real relationships between groups. --TheAlphaWolf 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "TOL is the best place for this discussion, but if nothing works then I guess it is a good idea to take it somewhere else." So do I, but it went nowhere there.  "I really don't know much about protists, microbiology, or taxonomy (and I know more than most), and I can tell you that this whole thing confuses the heck out of me."  Good, then we're not preaching to the choir.  "I think wikipedia should be accessible to almost anyone (isn't that one of the pillars or tacit rules or whatnot?)." There, you provided your own best reason for participating in the discussion of a subject about which you claim to know little.  "The split color scheme would probably be the most neutral and reflective of the opinions of the scientific community wouldn't it? (again, I don't know much about this... but if there is no controversy, then what are we arguing for?)" I liked the idea the first time someone suggested it, we don't even have to update the page on taxoboxes, just add the split color scheme capacity.  "Is there really a general scientific consensus about what groups like the rhodophyta and chlorophyta should be classified as?" No, there isn't, but it's pretty darn close to strict consensus excepting a few outliers, the only question is where on the tree you make your single cut, before or after them--if after them you get plants sensu stricto, if before, you get plants sensu lato, oh, and what you call plants sensu lato.  "Aren't we being a little presumptuous trying to settle this by ourselves?"  What, just because hundreds of botanists the world over can't decide upon APG II versus Cronquist, 5 kingdoms versus 3 domains?  Yes, we are.  "Instead of ignoring the split color scheme idea, does anyone have specific objections to it?"  There was a programming objection, but I don't remember what it was.  "I think it would accomplish all of our goals. One, it would be simple, not too technical, and it would make it easier for a layperson to understand. Two, it would reflect the scientific community's view on the subject (or lack thereof). And finally, it would (hopefully) reflect the most real relationships between groups."  Yes.  KP Botany 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I finally discovered this discussion thanks to KP Botany. I read the previous discussions and I am of the opinion that we should revert the taxobox colors to khaki, although maintaining the supergroup classification. I am not a taxonomist (I just work with cyanobacteria and probably some green algae in the future), but doesn't C-S call Excavata, Rhizaria and Alveolata subkingdoms? Can we include that along with Protists? Also I think C-S does not ascribe to the three domains. He treats Archaea as Bacteria! So our scheme is basically a hybrid of many authorities which is not a bad idea after all. Also even if other people do not agree with C-S, part of their disagreement is also personal (see egoism). I read a couple of C-S's papers and I find them very rigorous. By the way who is his nemesis? The good thing about us is that we can appreciate C-S's work or any C-S's work for that matter more objectively. This is the beauty about WP. This is science and not history or politics. I respect NPoV but sometimes I find it inhibitory to the growth of our knowledge. This is my oppinion. Cheers. Also if you need any help or a second opinion when creating a taxobox2 to accept two colors let me know, I might be able to help. Kupirijo 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of solid disagreements with C-S's systems that have nothing whatsoever to do with egotism. Science is full of such disagreements, paritcularly when new techniques become available, like the current use of computing power combined with steady advances in molecular techniques, it's part of the process of science, in fact.  I didn't know that he treated Archaea as Bacteria, though.  This, unfortunately, does not agree much with most of the evidence.  The articles were returned to khaki, already.  If you find any that need reverted, please do so. Hybrid systems are fine, if they are clearly indicated as such in the article, but that isn't the case in most of Wikipedia's botany articles.   Hybrid systems not fine if they're made up independently by various Wikipedians, as this simply adds a layer of POV to an already befuddled area.   We can only report the existing science, nothing else.  Impressed that you could find anything with a direction from me--still can't seem to link to various WP project pages well.  Programming wise, would it be straightfoward to make a box two colors?  Just a single diagonal split, say, not parti-colored hash lines?  KP Botany 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Access to journal
Hi everyone,

I was wondering whether anyone had access to the "Zootaxa" journal (ISSN 1175-5334). I want to find out how to differentiate some species in the Mixophyes genus, and this is the only reference to work off, as the species are brand new. I am specifically looking for the paper: "Species boundaries among barred river frogs, Mixophyes (Anura: Myobatrachidae) in north-eastern Australia, with descriptions of two new species" 1228: 35-60 (2006). My uni doesn't have a subscription to this journal, so it makes it hard :).

If someone could read it, and right up somewhere how to tell the difference between species (morphologically), that would be great. The abstract says there are morphological differences. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been eyeing Zootaxa articles enviously for months! Some articles are free access and they are brilliant. Does anyone know how much it is and is some kind of Wikigrant available for this kind of thing:)Richard Barlow 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the abstract, though it doesn't look like it has a lot of information (maybe you already found that). If you want, I can have a look at it (it's in the library of Naturalis). But I don't know when I will be able to go there. Ucucha 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Veterinary medicine project
There is now a proposed project at WikiProject Council/Proposals to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fly ID


Would anyone be able to ID this fly pictured in Victoria, Australia and listed at: ? I think it may be Calliphora stygia, common brown blowfly or eastern goldenhaired blowfly, but it's not my field of expertise.--Melburnian 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unranked phyla
User:Werothegreat (contribs) has been modifying some taxoboxes, changing their color and changing "regnum = Protista" to "domain = Eukaryota unranked_phylum = Rhizaria". This looks highly controversial to me but I'm underqualified to address this, please someone look in to this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion took place on this page just a few sections up (section title = Protista). --Aranae 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Undescribed taxa
Is there already a policy regarding undescribed taxa, and, if not, should we have one? I have come across a couple of examples of articles about species with provisional names (Tripteroides sp. No. 2 and Paramoera sp). They each deal with a good species and include a verifiable reference to back it up, but in each case the species has not been designated a name. I can see several ways of dealing with this (in order of increasing harshness): I think I'm leaning towards option 2, but I'd like to hear what others think. --Stemonitis 12:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The articles are fine as they are, and can be moved as and when a name is published
 * 2) The articles should be merged in to the next taxonomic rank (genus in these cases) until a name is published
 * 3) The articles must be deleted because an undescribed species is either unverifiable or not notable (or for some other reason?)


 * Option 1, separate article, would be my preference: there is no need to treat undescribed taxa different from described taxa. In some cases, that may mean that merging with the next taxon is better; that's a decision that can be taken on a case-to-case basis.
 * I don't know if the titles are ok. "Tripteroides sp. No. 2" probably is a good article title; I assume that this insect is always referred to by this name, until it receives a final name? "Paramoera sp" is a more problematic name: this may refer to any species in the genus Paramoera, right? Is there a systematic way of naming undescribed species? I'm not a taxonomist, so an article undescribed taxon would be very helpful. (How can a species be undescribed if there are several articles referring to it?) -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, "undescribed" means "not described formally", i.e. there is no formal name under the ICZN or ICBN or another code. Currently, many species have been known informally for some time before they get a formal name.
 * There are many "systems" for naming undescribed species: Genus sp. nov., Genus sp. nov. A (etc.), Genus sp. nov. 1, Genus sp. 1, etc. I think we should just use the name the source for the species uses. Ucucha 12:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are many mentions of "undescribed species" in wikipedia, so this should be explained somewhere. I've started the article undescribed taxon, but as I'm not an expert, can you check if it's not total nonsense? -- Eugène van der Pijll 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The next question (which I should probably have asked earlier) is what consequences this has for the taxobox. Clearly the "binomial=" field cannot be used, and I wonder whether a taxobox is at all appropriate for a taxon which has never been given a proper name. --Stemonitis 13:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A taxobox is meant to inform the reader of the location of the organism in the "tree of life"; this is as useful for undescribed taxa as for other taxa, so why not include the taxobox? The full (temporary) name should be included, but preferably not under the header "Binomial name".
 * A question about Tripteroides sp. No. 2: it has a "binomial authority" of "(Mattingly, 1981)". Surely that cannot be right? It should probably be replaced with a link to undescribed species, like I did at Paramoera sp. Eugène van der Pijll 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on Beauveria bassiana (and A Wikimanual of Gardening/Beauveria bassiana
I imported this to wikibooks this morning to make a how-to page, and my research hit on a lot of things not in the article (and in fact contrary to it insofar as the safety claims are concerned. At least two extension service websites and one "medical Q&A" website noted that the organism was indeed capable of infecting mammals, including humans. However, these references were made "in passing" on the Extension sites, and the EPA factsheet doesn't address the issue at all. There are references on the wikibooks page (the Cite web template works the same way, so feel free to just copy them).

I still have a bunch of work to do in the wikibooks page, but I'll copy what I have so far into the edit history of the WP article (for the GFDL requirements), and maybe someone could have a look and see? I'd really just like some general pointers on how to re-incorporate additional research done on the wikibooks side back into the original wikipedia article as a matter of course, since I often come up with a lot of "encyclopedic" information along with the "how-to" stuff that I'm actually looking for. See the topic below too: would heavy-handed reorganisations following wikibooks standards be inappropriate for wikipedia?

Also, I'm wondering if someone with paid access to the New York Times could have a look at the article referenced for the potential use of B. bassiana for malarial mosquito control. In particular, I'd like to know if that article has any discussion of potential pathogenicity in humans. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Templatizing" TOL articles
I'm building a gardening manual on wikibooks, and most of the pages are imported copies of wikipedia articles. When I get them onto the wikibooks page, I first add a substituted template that provides an organizational structure for the page (e.g., b:Template:Weedprof or b:Template:Biocontprof). They provide headers, hidden editor's notes, and automatically add non-substed templates as well (for us that would probably just be the taxobox in most cases, though it could add the nutritional templates for food crops as well).

Having done this 100 or so times now, I'm wondering if applying something similar to the wikipedia TOL articles might not be a good idea too. When I'm taking the articles apart and fitting the information into the templated structure, I've noticed that every article follows a different structure. Worse still, there's often a paragraph about one thing, then a sentence on the end of a paragraph further down the page that should be part of the first paragraph's structure (nonsequitors abound).

What I'd suggest is maybe something like the following:
 * 1) A general description of the organism, using the standard essay style of mentioning all the points that will be discussed later in the article
 * 2) A physical description of the organism
 * 3) Taxonomy and other naming issues
 * 4) Life cycle, ecological relationships, etc.
 * 5) Economic importance and issues of cultivation or husbandry
 * 6) Evolution, history, historical "trivia"
 * 7) See also
 * 8) References
 * 9) Category

In the wikibook, using these templates has helped give the book a consistent, "professional" feel, which I think is certainly something we should be aspiring to on wikipedia as well. In some cases I've also come back and edited the wp article as well if the structure was just really out of hand, but I'm wondering if implementing a "standard templatization" regime on wikipedia would also be helpful in doing a wide-ranging (and long term...this is time consuming) cleanup of the TOL areas. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally like this idea for plants. KP Botany 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I can't see this being so useful for an encyclopaedia. In a gardening manual, you want to present the same sorts of information for all the types of plants you cover, but in an encyclopaedia, the contents are driven by what is important and what is interesting, which may or may not coincide with the template's suggestions. It's all well and good saying that a ToL article should contain description, ecology, economic uses, etc., but the order will vary widely from article to article. That flexibility is an advantage, not a disadvantage. --Stemonitis 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as they're not mandatory, I don't see what the harm would be. On the plus side, it's nice to have an idea of where one might go when starting an article.  Guettarda 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get the impression that SBJohnny is mandating their use, simply offering it as a suggestion. They could be handy when making new articles.  There seems to be no intent, either to dictate the result of using them, like you can't change them around or add or subtract.  I like the idea of a handy template, and if Stemonitis's only objections is their lack of flexibility he/she can not use them.  And that's about as flexible as one can get.  KP Botany 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes suggestions end up mandates, but otherwise, I think it might be helpful to have a rough guideline. I'd like to suggest moving detailed discussion of taxonomy to the end, beside history.  That makes it easier to discuss older systems, which may still be in use, all in one place; and it means information about the actual organisms isn't interrupted. Josh


 * "Sometimes suggestions end up mandates" -- ick, yes, that's the downside of any approach like this. I guess I was just thinking that having a "base structure" which we could use while cleaning up might be handy. In my experience on the books, having those blank fields at the top of the page and then thinking about where each part of the content goes really helps in putting related things together in an organized way. I'm certainly not suggesting we start adding templates saying <BIG>THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT FOLLOW THE TOL-ACCEPTED TEMPLATES AND SHOULD EITHER BE REWRITTEN OR DELETED!!! (excuse the noisy melodrama there), but rather just coming up with some templates we could use as an aid to quietly improving articles that are in need of organisation.
 * BTW: I agree completely with Stemonitis... flexibility is key, and even if a template is used, there's no reason the template would need to be followed. The wikibook chapters have a much narrower purpose in mind: either how to grow a thing, or how to kill it, and it's easy to configure and follow templates in that situation. Encyclopedia articles about living things might just be about what it is and where it lives, but in many cases what it is and where it lives isn't what people want to know (e.g. Cannabis, Wheat, E. Coli, Dog, etc.). I just think it might be helpful as a tool for cleaning up articles. I don't think it's something to add to the MoS :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on this, having come across attempted enforcement of all sorts of voluntary guidelines in the last few days. The template talk page or something should strictly say, maybe yell in all red, that's is voluntary, not mandatory, and that the article should always be guided by what's important and relevant, not by the template.  But I want one for plants, and I want it now, and I want one for scientist biographies, also.  Does the latter already exist?   KP Botany 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not familiar with the botanist pages, but here's one for the plant articles: Plantsclean. Make sure to substitute it! Just add to the top of the page, save, then go in and start moving things around. If there's already a taxobox, just remove the one that the template puts there and move the existing one to the top. I'll go back and add the red text :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 12:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates have a way of getting fetishized around there; if an article is a three-line stub, the availability of an article template will result in the article having three lines of text plus a dozen headings with no content in any of them. It just tells readers that we've been spending time on adding window dressing rather than content, and according to Google, there's already plenty of websites with content-less ToLs :-/. One possible way to approach here is to recommend the template as a step to getting a ToL article to featured status, but not for any article that has still got a ways to go. Stan 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be a bit more generic, the template should be ordinarily used for article improvement, not for article creation.--Curtis Clark 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Fetishized." Interesting way of putting it, but after jumping in whole heartedly for the templates for my personal use, I've been come across some really absurd stuff on Wikipedia where suggestions, and useful ideas are worshipped, and argued vehemently for, rather than being used as helpful tools.  Sure, let's add the improvement and useful restraining comments on the talk page.  I'll think of something myself.  I like it so far, but agree with whoever earlier said to put taxonomy last, it's the most technical and changing.  However, I can use the template as is, and will give it a practice run.  Thanks, SB_Johnny.  KP Botany 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of this list being a template. I do like the idea of having it as a standard "to do" list, to be added to any taxa's talk page. Then the items can be crossed off as they're done and people looking for something to add to an article have a quick reference list. I'm continually surprised at how even high-exposure articles, such as those that appear on the main page, remain fairly static, with the same structure and content as when they were first written. Perhaps a stock to do list in the talk would help encourage Wikipedians to edit an article, and do a better job than an annoying stub notice. —Pengo talk · contribs 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean, adding a to do list at the top of ToL species' articles about what needs to included? That's okay, too.  I like the idea of a template, particularly if it would format everything, too, though.  Either way, some basic information.  It seems templates engender bad feelings.  KP Botany 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean adding the to do list to the top of the talk pages, a mockup of one in use (which would normally be sitting within the todo border):
 * Actually that looks pretty crap. We'd have to customize the template a bit more. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaea
Aren't there any pictures of Archaea? I've seen some in various locations (books, websites, etc.) but I haven't seen any on Wikipedia except for one of a thermophilic location on one of the more obscure archaea. I've also posted on the Archaea discussion page that a picture of an Archaea cell (like the bacteria cell picture on the bacteria page, the eukaryote cell picture on the eukaryote page) would considerably add to the article, especially since Archaea cells are very different from bacterial cells. Any thoughts? Werothegreat 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For a pictures of cells, we need someone with access to a good microscope to take some microphotographs and release them under the GFDL. As for appearance, I thought that Archaea looked a lot like bacteria (after all, they were regarded as the same thing until fairly recently), and that the differences were in the biochemistry. It would be interesting to have something like Image:Prokaryote_cell_diagram.svg that illustrated the structural differences between Archaea and (Eu)Bacteria. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fungi
I have posted this on the deuteromycota page, and the fungi page, and now i'm bringing it here. The deuteromycota page needs a lot of work. Its creation was by User:Jaknouse, though for for some reason in the discussion it says that it was created by a 15 year old boy. This was the entirety of the discussion page before I added my comment for help:

"This Fungi is a division form of fungi, it uses sexual reproduction.it is more recentyl known as mitosporic fungi. the common forn of this fungi is a mushroom. the DNA based technology we can clarify the difference between other fungi. Fungi is mold and can be found on many things sunch as bread in he form of mold. this articel was written by a 15 year old boy."

The article needs work from an expert, or perhaps an entire rewrite. Yes, it is only the incertae sedis of kindgom fungi, but it is still a major division, listed on the taxobox of the kindgom fungi page.

Also, on a different note, the animal page has a very nice collage picture in its taxobox. Since the fungal kingdom contains more than mushrooms, wouldn't it be aestheticly pleasing if fungi also had such a collage? Thoughts? Comments? Rants? Werothegreat 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's going to be harder to find images of diferent types of fungi that are distinctive when displayed at small sizes in a collage than it was for animals. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Animal didn't do the collage well, there is only one invertebrate in the whole lot, with two mammals. I'm afraid that the same thing would probably happen here. If a collage were to be made, please include the widest diversity possible. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant like have pictures of say, a chytrid, a mold, a yeast, a sac mushroom, a club mushroom, maybe a mycchorizae, something like that. Werothegreat 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this is what i meant: Werothegreat 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Brya
I suspect may be Brya. Those of you with more experience with Brya than me might like to check it out. Hesperian 11:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Brya's latest contribs are too old for a checkuser, but that's a pretty clear case. Circeus 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too few edits too tell yet, IMHO. I've left a message on his talk page; let's wait a little while longer. If it is Brya, it will become evident soon enough. Eugène van der Pijll 16:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him already, but unblocked to wait and see. If I see another new account pop up which makes one single similar edit, both get the block and a checkuser.Circeus 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are certainly similarities: italizing taxa above the genus level; and adding info to the author citation article that Brya also added. If Clyb is not Brya, he may have retrieved the text on the author citation article from the article history; and the style he uses is not an uncommon one, as far as I can tell. So it could be coincidence.
 * On the other hand, if it was Brya, he was probably trying us out, to see if we were watching. In that case, he failed. Brya is a knowledgeable editor, and still doing useful work on the Dutch wikipedia. It would be good if he were able to return to the en.wiki, with a bit more cooperative attitude. If this was Brya, though, it doesn't look too good. Eugène van der Pijll 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, Circeus. Eugene isn't quite asking you to unblock Clyb, but assuming good faith is generous of you, and I can't fault you for it.  Yes, if this is Brya returned, it doesn't look good--not a thing learned.  Brya does contribute with clean-up detail work on French Wikipedia, last time I was there--you know, appearances work.  KP Botany 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Conservation status
I've added a bunch of other conservation status systems to the taxobox template. See Conservation status and Taxobox usage for details (I moved the taxobox usage page too because the old super long name was bugging me). Anyway, for an e.g. see Banksia brownii. Enjoy. —Pengo talk · contribs 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified green colored damselfly
Hi, Been a while since I last posted here, but I've got two images of a damselfly I'd like to get identified. It was taken beside a river at Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia in November 2006. Thanks for any help! --Fir0002 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified birds from Melb Zoo
Hi, Come up with another batch of photos I would appreciate help in identifying! --Fir0002 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first is the White-faced Heron, the rest I have to look up, I'll reply in a sec. --liquidGhoul 04:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the duck is the Wandering Whistling Duck, and the pigeon is the Peaceful Dove. Great photos, especially the dove. --liquidGhoul 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Yeah I like the dove photo - works really well as a desktop bg with the green bokeh on the LHS where the icons are --Fir0002 08:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unidentifed frogs
Hi again! Back so soon you say? Yes well sorry but I'm not that great on biology.

Thanks again for your help you guys! --Fir0002 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am assuming these photos were taken near your place (Vic). These guys are Lesueur's Frog (Litoria lesueuri). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah they are from Vic, sorry for not specifying and thanks for the ID! Would I be correct in saying the yellow one is a male? --Fir0002 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not neccesarily. If you took these photos during the day, the males won't be yellow. They only go yellow at night. Check out Stoney Creek Frog (very closely related) for how yellow they go. From the photos, the lightest one looks the biggest (is that correct), which would probably mean it is female. The size difference in this species is pretty huge. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah the light one is the biggest, I think I'll just leave them as "Lesueur's Frog". Thanks again --Fir0002 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added three more which I think are the same - could I just get a confirmation from you that they are that species? Btw - which is your fav? --Fir0002 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, they are all the same. The second last is my favourite, shows the features neccesary for ID and is nice and clear. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Need ID on some insect eggs
Took these yesterday, they were on a Black walnut (Juglans nigra). The tree was also covered in Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), if that makes any difference.

Anyone wanna take a stab? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like eggs of Wheel Bugs (Arilus cristatus)--Melburnian 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're right! We have a lot of those bugs around, actually. Thanks! -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal (bird)
A trivial but escalating edit war is in process here, and I unfortunately am a participant. Another editor is Americanizing the spelling of colour on the basis of what appears to me to be a made-up policy. It's getting a bit unpleasant on both sides, and any constructive intervention would be welcome. jimfbleak 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style plainly states
 * If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.

The policy does not refer to a unique tie; merely to a strong tie. The population of cardinals is higher in the United States than in any other anglophonic nation. —SlamDiego 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivial? Absolutely. Escalating? You, Jimfbleak, brought it here. My recommendation is to determine which national variety of English was first used in the article, return to that, and move on.--Curtis Clark 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure someone can also give a technological solution involving a template with javascript that produces output based on system/browser locale. Shyamal 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that was as reasonable as you make it sound, such a solution would have been implemented a LONG time ago, and wiki-wide. Circeus 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rats and mice
Could interested people please comment on the renaming/deletion of some illogical categories recently added for rats and mice, see rat breeds and mice breeds here. Thanks. --Peta 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Collaboration Alert - Fungi as of Jan 2007
Hi all, DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a real concerted attempt at an FA. Link here......Fungi Collaboration

(hope I got all the templates right...) cheers Cas Liber 10:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Chromista References Tag
I think the tag saying the article does not cite its sources isn't needed anymore, as the article has a section labeled "References." Maybe someone higher up could remove the tag? Werothegreat 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Template removed. JoJan 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD CATEGORY:Tree of life
The category Tree of life is up for deletion. It doesn't appear to be being used properly, so maybe it should be deleted, but it would be nice to have a coherent evaluation of its value, proper usage, and alternative titles if necessary. KP Botany 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I've proposed it be replaced with Category:Organisms. As it is, there is no category simply for organisms; Tree of life is the closest, but it also contains articles on scientific concepts related to tree(s) of life, and has the potential to become even more of an unwieldy hybrid in the future.  Likewise, there are some categories of organisms that are not based on evolutionary relationship (e.g., Category:Aquatic organisms) and articles that currently have no better home than the overcrowded Biology category that would fit in Organisms perfectly but not Tree of life (e.g., Largest organism, Smallest organism).  Another advantage is that Organism would be a more useful navigational category for readers who do not know their scientific classifications well; we could (optionally, though be no means necessarily) include the more traditional divisions/kingdoms (Plants, Animals, Fungi, Protists, Monera) in addition to the modern three.--ragesoss 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Problematically the Tree of Life is actually about the relationships among organisms, this is different than it being about the organisms, so you're offering a category about something else. It's like having a category about relatives and a category about people, the former might contain aunts, uncles, cousins, while the latter could contain Bob1, Bob2, Jimbo, and George.  You're arguing there is no category about people, so the category relatives should be replaced by people.  Why not just make the people/organisms category if it needs to be done?  KP Botany 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it really was just about relationships, that would be different; in fact, it has been used since its creation as the highest taxonomic level as well as an alternate category for a very small number of articles related to evolution and phylogenetics, or directly related to the "tree of life" concept. This small amount of material is better off in other categories such as Category:Evolution and Category:Phylogenetics.  Even if it were just a category about evolutionary relationships, it would still not be the most obvious term for that category; that would probably be 'Phylogenetics or Phylogeny.  If a tree of life category still has a place, it would as a subcategory of Phylogenetics, rather than the supercategory of all taxons.--ragesoss 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been looking around on the web a bit, and although it's not quite on target it is often used to refer to all organisms as opposed to their relationships. Still, I'm not really arguing to keep the category, but rather to evaluate its usefulness, and this requires something different from what can be done at CFD.  I don't follow your last sentence, aren't you arguing that the category organisms is the proper supercategory for all taxa?  Let's do stick with what is useful for the categorization here, though, rather than the deletion debate.  I think a supercategory for all organisms, as a subcategory of Category:Life is useful.  I don't know if the phylogeny categories are useful.  KP Botany 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Organisms, with subcat Catgeory:Organisms by classification (or "systematic classification" or "phylogeny") perhaps? -- Eugène van der Pijll 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, we could do Cavalier-Smith and Linneaus then. Might be useful. I kinda like the idea, since I'm always arguing for various systems for the plants in taxoboxes, as you know. KP Botany 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused about what you want the Tree of life category to be. What categories will it contain, and what categories will it be in? Since everyone seems to agree that it's a good idea, I'm going to go ahead and create the Organisms cat and fill it properly--ragesoss 05:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it has to be. If it can't be neatly filled, then there is no necessity for it.  What I'm objecting to is taking an ill-defined category that is not needed and changing it to something else.  Why not just create the category Organisms if it is needed?  If you change this category will everything in it already be transferred to Organisms, and does everything belong?  It seems to me there are two separate issues that are being tied together for no good reason.  1. Should Category:Tree of life be deleted and 2. Should Category:Organisms be created?  WHY does either have to be attached to the other?  I refuse to argue that Category:Tree of life should be changed to Category:Organisms because I don't see that Category:Tree of life is right now intended to be about Organisms.  It's unclear what was intended with that category, as it's subcategories (Eukaryotes, Hybrid organisms, Prokaryotes,  and Viruses!) are unrelated to its pages (Phylogenetic tree, Tree of life (science), Tree of life (disambiguation).)  So, are you renaming the category so that you can put phylogenetic tree into Category:Organisms?  If so, why?  KP Botany 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since "renaming" for categories just means moving all the content and deleting, I'm trying to figure out what you think, all other issues aside, the Tree of life category should be. If there is a use for the tree of life category, it won't be deleted.  What I'm asking is, should it contain the organism categories it currently does, and what categories should it be in?--ragesoss 16:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Organisms category is not a one to one replacement of the current Tree of life category; I mean it only to include the organisms cats, not the the phylogenetic trees and such. As I tried to explain before but maybe wasn't clear, I think the non-organism stuff currently in Tree of life is better off in other existing categories such as Evolution and Phylogenetics, rather than Organisms.--ragesoss 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another good option in my view would be to (optionally) remove the organism subcats from Tree of life and (definitely) remove the Biology and Life supercats. Then it would be a subcat of Scientific classification and Evolutionary biology, which makes a fair amount of sense as a a category about relationships instead of it's current role as a substitute for Organisms.--ragesoss 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't see that these two issues deleting/keeping Tree of life as a category and creating/not creating organisms could be entirely separate issues?  KP Botany 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are separate issues, which is why I already created the Organisms category. The only issue left is what to do with the Tree of life category.--ragesoss 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, good start. Would the Category:Tree of life be useful for sorting pages related to phylogenetic systematics?  Including pages like Tree of life (science), Taxonomy, Cladistics?  KP Botany 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia
I will be updating the Carnivora taxa articles shortly, to match the listing in MSW3. I have previously updated many of the other mammalian orders in this way. However, I see there is plenty of disagreement in the taxonomy. I will try to use a gentle touch in editing the articles. However I thought it prudent to post here my intentions. You can also see the MSW3 taxonomy at User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of photo
I took a photo which seems to match the description of Sydney rock oyster. If anyone knows about these things, could they look at the photo I added and try and confirm it? Thanks. Stevage 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you post a thumbnail? KP Botany 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added his photo, I don't know about oysters myself. --liquidGhoul 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
If i wanted to create an infobox which was similar to another infobox, do i need to list it somewhere? It will only be a variation of that original infobox. Simply south 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You could add it to a category and mention it in the relevant wikiproject(s)? You might need to be more specific about what you want to do. Perhaps you could make modifications to the original so it serves both purposes. More info needed. —Pengo talk · contribs 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me start again. I am trying to create an infobox within the transport area which is a variation of an existing template. There will be seperate fields. I was wondering if i need to list somwhere that i am creating or (when i have finished) have created an infobox and whether it needs to be approved. Simply south 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Within what transport area? Cellular movement? Name any organism you are dealing with, as I am not understanding how this relates to Tree of Life. KP Botany 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we have reached a misunderstanding here. I was following links on the Help:Infobox page or something similar and it lead me to this WikiProject. I was talking generally about infoboxes and the other sort of transport e.g. trains, cabs, buses, planes etc. Simply south 09:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you will want this wikiproject. Good luck. --liquidGhoul 09:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified Sea Creature
Anyone have an idea what this is? They kind of look like very small pippies, they were found on the beach and are 3-4mm long. I have no idea what they are attached to, it kind of looks like plastic, but could be biological (calcium carbonate?). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They look like immature barnacles of some kind, but I have no idea what they might be attached to. MrDarwin 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looks like man made plastic tubing of some sort and barnicles growing on it. Jnpet 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe something in Lingulata, see the image at . -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More focused subprojects?
The amount and variety of lifeforms we know of is simply staggering. Having said that, we actually don't have all that many projects out there extant to deal with all of them. Right now, this is what we've got: and that's it. Personally, I am far from being expert in this field, but I think that there are a lot of life forms which do not yet have any organized project dealing with them. On that basis, I would like to encourage anyone who believes that there is a significant number of articles dealing with specific life forms out there to propose a project dealing with them at WikiProject Council/Proposals and see if there is sufficient interest in such a project to create one. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Tree of Life
 * WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
 * WikiProject Arthropods
 * WikiProject Beekeeping
 * WikiProject Lepidoptera
 * WikiProject Spiders
 * WikiProject Australian biota
 * WikiProject Birds
 * WikiProject Cryptozoology
 * WikiProject Dinosaurs
 * WikiProject Fishes
 * WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
 * WikiProject Sharks
 * WikiProject Fungi
 * WikiProject Gastropods
 * WikiProject Mammals
 * WikiProject Cats (dealing with all felids)
 * WikiProject Dog breeds
 * WikiProject Dogs (dealing with all canids)
 * WikiProject Horse breeds
 * WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials
 * WikiProject Primates
 * WikiProject Marine life
 * WikiProject Cephalopods
 * WikiProject Cetaceans
 * WikiProject Plants
 * WikiProject Banksia
 * WikiProject Carnivorous plants
 * WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists
 * WikiProject Pterosaurs
 * WikiProject Viruses

List of animal lifestyle terms
This prob doesn't quite fit here but there didn't appear to be a more suitable place to ask this - do people feel that it would be useful to add a page listing various (often technical) terms describing animal lifestyles and habitats? I'm thinking about words like fossorial, lacrustine, piscivorous, crepuscular, graviportal, etc. Some of these have stubs but quite a few don't. I was thinking of keeping it simple and elegant, something like...

Habitat

 * Arboreal &mdash; Living primarily within the tree canopy
 * Littoral &mdash; Living or feeding within the shore zone of a body of water such as a river, lake, sea

Movement

 * Digitigrade &mdash; Walking with the weight supported on the toes
 * Plantigrade &mdash; Walking with the weight supported on the soles of the feet
 * Unguligrade &mdash; Walking with the weight supported on the tips of the toes or hooves

Will obviously include relevant wl and could include an example animal for each term. I'm happy to use different format. Yays or nays anyone? Secret Squïrrel 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. But do they have their own articles already?  Still a page with all the terms would be handy.  KP Botany 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, some have stubs (eg Unguligrade and there's a nice Digitigrade) but others do not (lacrustine, graviportal). It's intended to supplement not replace the existing articles. I just thought it might be handy to have a single place to go to see what terms exist (and a brief description) with the main articles providing more detail for those that require it. Secret Squïrrel 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean lacustrine?--Curtis Clark 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) - Doh! and gravyportal :-) Secret Squïrrel 06:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat FAR
Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified Limidae species
Having trouble identifying this limidae species. I took this picture in Sulawesi, Indonesia. This fellow was almost a meter wide and it had electric sparks flashing on its mantle. A google search for "electric fire clam" provides video footage of the electric sparks. Would appreciate if anyone could help with the identity. And of course if anyone would like a go at an article of this species, that would be great too. P.S. I posted this on Marine Life Portal discussion page December 16th, but didn't get an answer. So trying my luck here. Jnpet 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably the Electric Flame Scallop (Lima sp.) (picture. JoJan 10:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, genus level is as far as I got in my search as well. Species remain elusive. On the right track though. Jnpet 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you dont know the species but an article on the family limidae with that pic would be good in the mean time.--DSWebb 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flora of a region article title
How should I title an article about the flora of a region? Flora of California seemed obvious, but apparently not. So, in general, what is used? KP Botany 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It really depends on how the area is defined by your sources, If the article is based on political boundaries then the title should be that (ie Flora of California). If the article is a region defined by its biology/geography then something like Mallee (biogeographic region) is more appropriate Gnangarra 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oomycota
I think that the water mould article needs some work. In its taxobox, it lists seven orders, only four of which I have actually found in other sources, and only two of those actually have articles to go with them. Could some with experience in Chromistan taxonomy do some editing to this article and its sub-articles? Werothegreat 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Category disagreement
Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3 - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nereocystis separate pages
The kelp genus Nereocystis contains only one species, Nereocystis luetkeana, and yet the genus and the species have seperate pages. I think that it would function better as a single page, as both pages are essentially giving the same information. I don't know how I would go about merging the pages, so could someone higher up lend a hand if they agree with me? Werothegreat 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly there should only be the one article. Copy across the text from the genus page and then turn the genus page into a redirect to the species page. —Pengo 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And how do I make it redirect? Werothegreat 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the usual practice (as discussed on this project's page) is to put the article at the genus' name, and redirect from the species. For details on making a redirect, see WP:REDIR. --Stemonitis 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments may help here
Found this page Expert retention and feel that more folks here should add their comments. Shyamal 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Time range of Hexanchiformes species" deleted
The article "under construction", "Time range of Hexanchiformes species", which was deleted on February 9th without previous discussion, is the only on-line source I found for Mesozoic frilled-shark species (Chlamydoselachus—the article is still on-line in several WP clones). It wasn't suitable for the article namespace, since not only that it contained non-canonical terms like "Cretacic" instead of Cretaceous, etc., but, above all, it was completely lacking references. But I think it should be restored in a user's namespace (I don't know whodunnit). -- Hämbörger 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article Time range of Hexanchiformes species (for now). Please do something with it before it gets deleted again. —Pengo 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sharks about the article; it does need some explanation before it is useful for a wider audience. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Chromosome number in Taxobox
I've brought up a request about putting the chromosome number into the Template:Taxobox. If you would like to comment, please direct your comments here − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The taxobox is not meant to be the repository of everyone favorite information about the taxa. It is intended as a quick reference and navigation aid on taxonomy, picture and range. Anything else should be placed only within the text of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded at Template talk:Taxobox. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith does it again
If you go to this site, http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/19, you will find a paper Mr C-S published in July of last year. I didn't understand most of it, but what I did understand really changed my views on a 3-domain system and the monophyletic-ness of Bacteria. Take a look. Werothegreat 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not entirely flawed, but horizontal gene transfer makes a sequencing approach to prokaryote phylogeny a testy undertaking. In the Prokarya, genetic relatedness cannot really be used to argue for phylogenetic relatedness (though of course it does indicate evolutionary relatedness). The "tree" model does not at all apply to prokaryote phylogeny, we're beginning to realize; it's all more like a shrubbery overgrown with dodder. Still, at last some of his major clades are bound to be good. Dysmorodrepanis 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

monkey
Someone please revert User:Influencey on monkey. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article help
I started an article a while back, Postelsia, and I'd like some tips on how I could improve it. This is the first article I've started all by myself, and it's kind of hard to judge your own work. I would really like to improve it enough to be a good article, and maybe even that most coveted of prizes, featured article status. Any tips? Comments? Things I did absolutely wrong? Werothegreat 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can try Requests for feedback or Peer review for general feedback on the article. If you want contributions from experts on the subject, that may be more difficult to find, but you could try contacting WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists (although that does not seem to be a very active project.) Eugène van der Pijll 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Captalisation of common names
The section on common names doesn't say anything about their capitalisation - I prefer "Neon Tetra" to "neon tetra" (and to the article name "Neon tetra") and note that. elsewhere Little Grebe (for example) is capitalised. Is there a standard? Andy Mabbett 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (fauna). A subject of many previous arguments, read the archives of this page to see. BTW, bird common names are conventionally capitalised by ornithologists (and we follow that convention here), fish aren't, and with mammals it depends. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For fish, the standard used by WP:FISH is to follow FishBase in using sentence case. --Stemonitis 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this please?
and

(Western Cape, SA). Also I have an image of an huge Outeniqua Yellowwood, Podoarpus falcatus, but I don't know where to use it. jimfbleak 13:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Start a new stub (Podoarpus falcatus) so that you can use your image. I know I've done that a few times before. —Pengo 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's currently known as Afrocarpus falcatus and the article there does need a picture.--Melburnian 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, done

I'm not at all an entomologist, but the beetle looks like some sort of tock tock, family Tenebrionidae. I believe they are the ones that acquire moisture as dew on their backs. --Aranae 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks jimfbleak 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about Tenebrionidae. This little fellow has all its legs attached to the pronotum, while in Tenebrionidae, diverse as this family may be, only one pair is attached to the pronotum, while the other pairs are attached to the back part of the thorax. Some photos of tock tocks JoJan 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The right-hand picture is a juvenile grasshopper. I'm not an entomologist either, so don't ask for the genus, let alone the species. Werothegreat 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to, this may be a juvenile African Bushhopper Phymateus leprosus (Pyrgomorphidae); see also   JoJan 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks again, that looks good jimfbleak 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Microformat
Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome here or on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

iSpecies
Project participants might find iSepcies, a species search engine, useful. Andy Mabbett 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fungi ID
I found these old photos from uni, from when i'd jammed my old point-and-shoot camera against the microscope eyepiece and got some surprising results. Now I need help with what they are. The left image i'm pretty sure is some sort of Penicillium sp., the right is some sort of fungus, but I don't know beyond that. Any help? —Pengo 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The left is definitely Penicillium; I'm not sure how easy it would be to get to species, since the color of the conidia is a diagnostic (and these are obviously stained). The one on the right is a rupturing cleistothecium; the hyphae extending from the outside look very familiar, but I can't put a name on it. The genus Talaromyces is the sexual stage of a Penicillium, and I believe it has "hairy" cleistothecia.--Curtis Clark 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to delete "Fauna of [country]" categories
There's a proposal at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_8 to merge all 35 categories like "Fauna of Estonia", "Fauna of Spain", etc., to just "Fauna of Europe". This is a pilot to get rid of all geographical fauna categories for countries and smaller regions, replacing them with lists. If you have an opinion on this, you might want to vote. &mdash;JerryFriedman 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmh, I can see the point. Drawback would be Very Long Lists