Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives for WT:TOL edit
1 2002-07 – 2003-12 Article names
2 2003-11 – 2004-02 Taxoboxes
3 2004-02 Taxoboxes
4 2004-02 – 2004-08 Bold taxa; taxonomy
5 2004-03 – 2004-04 Taxonomy; photos; range maps
6 2005-04 – 2004-06 Capitalization; authorities; mammals
7 2004-06 – 2004-08 Creationism; parens; common names
8 2004-05 – 2004-08 Templates; †extinct; common names
9 2004-05 – 2004-08 Categories; taxoboxes
10 2004-08 – 2004-12 Categories; authorities; domains; Wikispecies; ranks; G. species; capitalization; Common Names
11 2004-11 – 2005-05 Capitalization; common names; categories; L.; authorities; algae; cultivars
12 2005-03 – 2005-05 Ranks; common names
13 2005-05 – 2005-06 Hybrids; taxobox format; cultivars
14 2005-06 – 2005-07 Categories; food plants; identification; Capitalization
15 2005-07 – 2005-09 Synonyms; types; authorities; status; identification
16 2005-09 – 2005-12 Paleontological ranges; Rosopsida; Taxobox redesign; identification
17 2005-12 – 2006-04 Taxobox redesign; identification; APG; common names; capitalization
18 2006-04 – 2006-10 Categorization; include in references; snakes; range maps; seasonality graph; common names; bioregions; brya;
19 2006-10 – 2007-03 various
20 2007-03 – 2007-06 various

Contents


[edit] Range maps

Range maps were accepted as an optional part of the taxobox, but so far we haven't considered how they should fit into the new template system. Pages like blue whale currently include an image thumbnail within the binomial name section. I think it would be better to use a second {{Taxobox_image ...}} tag for them, and have tentatively suggested it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. However, this has the drawback that it's very awkward for thumbnails.

I am pretty certain that we are already doing the suggested method on some pages with range maps. I agree with should extend the practice. Pcb21| Pete 13:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where was it suggested? I don't remember it from the template discussions, and the new taxoboxes look different from the old ones, which had the binomial name and range maps were in separate cells. I like that better, since one isn't part of the other. What do you think of maybe adding a range header to the taxobox?

By the way, I also think it would be a good idea to link to that page from each of the template pages, so people know where to find information on how to use them. Should I go ahead? Also, why are we using <br\> when <br> works fine? Josh 13:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I presume you mean on the relevant Template_talk: pages. Sounds good to me! Pcb21| Pete 13:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
<br /> is well-formed XHTML and is okay for HTML, whereas <br> is not acceptable XHTML. --Chinasaur
But, apparently <br> <br/> <br /> are all translated to <br /> by MW, so now I see your point... --Chinasaur 11:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

We really should decide what to do about viruses - whether to include them in our phylogenetic system, or not. Also, I'd appreciate comments on my proposed rewrite of our plant article, which I think focuses way to much on boundary cases and not enough on ordinary plants. And, should anyone happen to be interested in protists, it would be neat if anyone had any insight on how to treat the heterokont/stramenopile/chromist group.

Please comment on Talk:Virus, perhaps Talk:Plant, and if you're feeling generous Talk:water mould. Thanks, Josh 15:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories again

Whoa! What's with this (Category:Animalia)? I thought we were:

  1. Not in agreement on using categories and
  2. Leaning towards using common name categories and not taxonomically named ones.

- UtherSRG 21:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only because Category:Animals was taken with more generic things than just taxa. I am happy to merge the categories, or move animalia to animals (taxa) as required - the category discussion appeared to peter out. Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, ya shoulda at least posted that you were gonna do this, so that I don't get all freaked out. *grins* - UtherSRG 21:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps got carried away doing with the Mrs works late! Incidentally I tried to create only uncontroversial categories, with common names, in order to try to keep everyone who contributed to the prior discussion happy (subject to having categories at all!).
There exists Category:Cetaceans, Category:Pinnipeds, Category:Cats, Category:Reptiles, Category:Chordates , Category:Primates, Category:Mammals, Category:Carnivores (and many others now)
I later merged the animalia and animals categories to fit the guidelines. Pcb21| Pete 12:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've added Category:Protista and Category:Ciliates. Should we be keeping track of these someplace, in case we decide to adjust them all later? By the way, in addition to taxa and other groups, there are pages that are closely related to specific taxa, and there are images. We should consider including them in our general categories, or creating special categories for them.

So, I've added an experimental Category:Protist images. I think it will be useful, because not many protist have images associated with them yet; the same sort of approach could be useful for other small groups, helping people identify things they find. On the other hand, the current set-up isn't particularly designed for such categories, given that it places everything under I.

Btw, it may be noted the current templates break what links here for both articles and images. Presumably this has been reported? Josh 21:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Josh - if you take the page [[Image:Common Name.jpg]] and add the category link like this: [[Category:Protist images|Name, Common]] then it'll index them correctly, listed as Image:Common Name.jpg under N. - MPF 00:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a much better system.

What about making KPCOFGS categories with stuff in parentheses like this: Category:Mammalia (class), Category:Primates (order), Category:Loridae (family) and so on? Fuelbottle | Talk 18:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See the archived discussion. Ranks aren't always stable, but UtherSRG has already created Category:Primates (taxa) as a parallel to Category:Primates. However, I think that no other such categories have been added means it's not clear when we should use them and when they provide any additional benefit. At least, that's why I've been avoiding them. Josh 18:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
UtherSRG said to me on his talk page recently that he has now come round to the view that a parallel (taxa) system is an unnecessary complication - better to lump all article types into the one category, which is what I have been doing. Pcb21| Pete 18:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's just I think the categories that have been created now are kinda messy. Fuelbottle | Talk 19:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know UtherSRG had changed his mind. In that case, do we have a rough agreement on how categories should be used? I agree with Fuel that the current system is messy, but I don't think the ranks help much. It looks like the general opinion is to use common names where possible. The idea seems to be to have one category at each major level, and include only the primary subdivisions. I don't think this works well with poorly developed groups - for instance Category:Ciliates is much better without a hierarchy. But if we only create subcategories when the originals are too large, I think we have a good system, and should maybe add guidelines to this page. Josh 19:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The comments SRG made are at [[1]]. Pending Fuelbottle's further comments, I do think we should add these guidelines (use plural common names, use your judgement of when/where to categorize within each branch aiming for an approximate category size of 10-50 articles). However this is what I have been doing recently, so it would be good to have Fuelbottle tell us more about what he doesn't like about them. Pcb21| Pete 20:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I guess if some guidelines are set up so we can get some consistency in naming the categories, they might work out ok. Fuelbottle | Talk 22:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Josh has now written these guidelines. Pcb21| Pete 11:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should the stuff in Category:Primates (taxa) be moved to Category:Primates? Fuelbottle | Talk 21:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be, but it is probably worth hanging on a while til SRG is around again, assuming he ever is! Pcb21| Pete 12:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New style taxobox problem

What's gone wrong with the taxobox at Cashew? - it should be:
Anacardium occidentale L.
but is actually showing:
Anacardium occidentale
L.. {20 August 2004 (UTC)}
Can anyone solve it? - MPF 20:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite simple. You used the footer with authority, but that one requires both the authority and the date. However you omitted the date, so instead the standard template {{date}} is instead used. I added the standard Linnaeus 1761. andy 20:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Andy - thanks; I didn't use the new taxobox, that was someone else put it in, I was just changing the citation of Linnaeus from spelled out to standard Botanical 'L.', and removing a question mark that had been there before. As botanical author citations (unlike zoological ones) don't cite dates, there should be no date there at all, just L. for Linnaeus. Can the relevant template be changed to one that doesn't require a date, please? - MPF 22:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I made Template:Taxobox_section_binomial_botany which is like Template:Taxobox_section_binomial but doesn't have a date. If you don't like it, please change it, but don't put it in too many articles right away. It is currently in use at Garden Chervil. --Yath 06:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; I've copied across to Cashew. I've still not got round the new taxoboces yet, so won't be adding more, only editing any new-style that I run across MPF 09:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References - short names not unique between botanists and zoologists?

According to IPNI the abbreviation Gray belongs to Samuel Frederick Gray, while quite a lot of the animals described by his son John Edward Gray also have the short reference Gray. If those are correct than we have to make Gray (taxonomist) to be a disambiguation (there was only one taxobox pointing there anyway, which I fixed now), or have to change to use something like Gray (botanist) and Gray (zoologist) instead. BTW: is there anything comparable to IPNI for zoologists? andy 11:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Andy - I'd go for the Gray (botanist) and Gray (zoologist) option, or maybe for their full names (i.e., [[Samuel Frederick Gray|Gray]] and [[John Edward Gray|Gray]] respectively - MPF 14:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And there is Asa Gray, George Robert Gray and there are a lot more. I suggest using the full name or the name plus all the initials, unless a link can be made to a biography, then you can use a link such as [[John Edward Gray|J.E. Gray]]. You can consult List of biologists, List of botanists or you can write a biography yourself, such as I have done a few times. JoJan 14:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood - the other botanists Gray's have their own abbreviation, e.g. Asa Gray is A. Gray, so those are not the problem here. The problem is that apparently the Gray for flowers is a different Gray than the one fort animals. And of course once we have a full article about an author it should be at the full name, and only use a disambiguation if that one isn't unique. However for taxoboxes it's handy to insert something like [[Gray (taxonomist)|Gray]] which then is a redirect to the plain author name, so not everyone who adds taxoboxes needs to know the translation table from short names to the full names. andy 15:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gray (taxonomist) is no solution, since all the other Grays were also taxonomists. The University of Wisconsin offers this solution : "Citations of botanical authors are standardized and abbreviated as per Brummitt and Powell (1992), with one exception. British naturalist Samuel Frederick Gray, abbreviated simply as Gray in Brummitt and Powell, is abbreviated in this Checklist as S.F.Gray to distinguish him from the American botanist Asa Gray (A.Gray). " See here [[2]]. I suggest we do the the same. JoJan 16:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think, indicating the full reference would solve the problem. See Nymphaeaceae - the first reference gives enough information for any purpose. Iorsh 16:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "What links here", Clownfish and Image:Common clownfish.jpg

The image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Common_clownfish.jpg is used in the article Clownfish, yet the way it does so (using a taxobox expansion) somehow precludes discovering that fact via the usual automated "What links here" mechanisms. Apparently it is related to a known bug, see Bug #48. Is there a workaround? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 08:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing on images I have uploaded and used on articles recently. Not really much of a workaround but I have been adding stuff like "This image is not an orphan. It is used on the article blah" to stop people from deleting it as an orphan. Pcb21| Pete 08:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I created Clownfish/images as a workaround to this bug. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 13:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clownfish/images does not appear to exist at the moment. nroose Talk 08:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another option is to repeat the pic on the page's talk page; I've done this with Image:Araucaria.columnaris1web.jpg which now shows up as being on Talk:Araucaria, even though its main appearance on Araucaria doesn't show - MPF 21:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another approach might be to put the images in categories, so that at least the category pages link to them. I think this could be useful even after the bug is fixed, since it lets people know what images are available for a group. Meanwhile, it looks like Image:Common clownfish.jpg found the best protection - getting featured. Josh

Apparently the bug is fixed now - pages which use an image via templates now show up on the image page. However it needs on edit to the article to get an update of the link table. Thus the workarounds to mark images an non-orphan are no longer needed. And together with it some other template bugs were finally fixed. Now we just need optional parameter in templates and ToL will be fully happy with templates. andy 15:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How many layers of taxa?

The number of layers of taxa that are included in a taxobox varies a lot - Ascaphidae is an example of a completist, modern approach. Other places we are traditional KPCOFGS only. Is it worth standardizing these? Pcb21| Pete 10:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Ascaphidae includes way too many ranks, and a number of them are non-standard. While it's nice to have a modern system, there's no need to promulgate it on every family and species page, which provides very little information about them and makes it harder to change when the system does (which they still do routinely). In general, KPCOFGS should be the rule, but some intermediate ranks may important depending on the group in question. This is already detailed on the taxobox use page. Josh 16:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amen. You need the in-betweens for a beetle family with 30,000 species in 2,000 genera, but "microphylum"? Pointless. Williamb seems to be the energetic adder, someone should have a talk with him. Stan 16:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He hasn't been doing it recently. Josh
I would go from Vertebrata straight to Amphibia. Gnathostomata excludes just the lampreys, of which there aren't many, and non-cladists (traditionalists?) don't consider frogs to be fish. On beetles, I agree; likewise other big insect orders, such as wasps and moths. -phma 16:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gnathostomata also excludes the Pteraspidomorpha, not just Cephalaspidomorpha. By going straight from Vertebrata to Amphibia the encyclopaedia will be giving a very false and simplistic impression of the complexity and precision involved in determining the consituent groups of vertebrates. "Just split it up in amphibia and reptilia, etc., easy as one two three!" thinks the proverbial man in the street - and then he comes across the lamprey article (for example) and
1) it won't use the same taxa, or we will have Petromyzomidae sitting nakedly in Vertebrata! WIKIPEDIA MUST BE CONSISTENT!
2) He won't be able to understand how it is classified, because it won't use the childishly simplistic system he saw for amphibia - and what is the point of taxoboxes if not to let readers understand classification?
3) He won't be able to understand the relationship between Amphibia and cephalaspidomorpha because the former won't be shown as being in the Gnathostomata but the latter will have to be shown as being Agnathan - where has that extra taxon sprung from?, he will think. Systematics is supposed to systematic! Systematics is all about coherence, not simplification. This isn't a primary school textbook! He won't know that in one case taxa have been left out for "convenience" but in the other case such exclusion is impossible for a meaningful table. He will simple be confused and will not understand the incoherence.
There is a clear division between full, accepted taxa and not universally accepted taxa. Whilst I can understand that leaving out taxa that aren't really standard is reasonable, for factual correctness' sake, Gnathostomata is not one of them. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why Gnathostomata should be ommitted. It is lunacy! Why do you not want to see correct, thorough, factual information on wikipedia? 80.255 00:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Gnathostomata is a standard clade, but that is not the same as it being standard within a ranked classification system. On the contrary, they are not always given a rank, and when they are it may vary. More importantly, corresponding groups for the other vertebrates are not well-defined, since many consider Agnatha obsolete. That gives an odd situation where some classes have a supergroup and others don't, and I don't think that's inherently more obvious. The idea that the division between fully accepted and controversial taxa is clear is simply false.

Anyone who understands how classification works should not have a problem with omitted levels, and other people won't get any benefit from including obscure microphyla everywhere. In fact, I don't think restricting intermediate ranks to those immediately relevant will confuse anyone. Either way, though, constantly presenting an enormous array of unfamiliar taxa would be far worse, especially since intermediate ranks are often inconsistent between sources, even when the groups are generally accepted. The current system is a simplified presentation, but I see no reason to believe it is over-simplifies things, except in that it presents a single taxonomy when there are usually several alternatives to choose from.

What exactly do you propose to do about the lampreys? Use Agnatha, although they are generally abandoned by modern systems, or something like superclass Hyperoartia, that won't correspond to almost any of the literature? The names won't convey any information about systematics to people who aren't familiar with them, and those who are will already know the relative positions of lampreys and amphibians. Detailed discussion of relationships should be available in the articles. So why are these options better than simply treating the lampreys without a supergroup, which far better reflects their current treatment?

I'm all for keeping our policy flexible, but I don't see why we should re-evaluate our position here. It's not like this is a new idea, or these points haven't already been discussed several times. Of course the current system isn't perfect, but if we have to re-open old arguments every time someone isn't entirely satisfied with the agreement, we may as well not have a standard. Josh 06:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Titmouse

The current page titmouse is a family page coveing the whole of the Paridae (tits & chickadees in Parus, titmice recently split off as Baeolophus, and a few monotypic genera) - I'd like to suggest (1) re-naming the current titmouse as Paridae (currently a redirect to titmouse), (2) re-model titmouse as a genus page for Baeolophus, (3) make a new page for Parus, and (4) the remaining genera names as redirects to their current sole species. Only problem is that the AOU split Parus up into several smaller genera (not followed by any other authorities, as far as I know). Anyone any thoughts? - MPF 18:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. --Yath 21:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rat kings

Is there a mammal expert around here who is able to answer a question about rats and especially rat kings? The question is, if rat kings do really exist or if they are just a product of forgery. See Talk:Rat king. Thanks for any answers. -- Baldhur 21:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Should we be using domains?

A number of biologists have objected to the three-domain system, including several big names like Mayr, Margulis, and Cavalier-Smith. Although this is treated lightly on relevant pages, some of their arguments are substantive. In particular, it is argued that the morphological differences alone don't justify the separation, and that the eubacteria are paraphyletic to the archaebacteria (and eukaryotes), removing the phylogenetic reason for separating them.

I would like to add some notes about this controversy, but I can't seem to find the other side. The only papers I could find arguing that the eubacteria were monophyletic were the originals by Woese, which are based upon his progenote hypothesis and rRNA studies. The former is not widely accepted, and the latter are no longer considered a reliable guide to phylogeny, at least among the eukaryotes where they contradict protein gene studies.

Is the three-domain system still the de facto standard in microbiology, and can someone refer me to a source justifying why? Otherwise, if it is obsolete, should we tone down our support for it and switch to a more neutral organization scheme? Josh 17:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never much liked the three domain system. :) But the 6 kingdom system is a nice working system even with its drawbacks. Since I do not work in a biology-related field and have not continued my biology education beyond my 2001 BS, I can't say just which system is most commonly used today. I would suspect that the 5/6 kingdom system is still the most commonly used system and would hope that we continued using it. --mav 02:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
When considing what to include in taxoboxes, it is a perfect moment to consider how to come to a universal taxobox. The de: taxobox only starts at subordo. When en: decides to use only up to regnum, that should be possible too.
One solution to this problem is to have a universal taxobox in WikiSpecies (or WikiCommons as the difference is technically immaterial) for all validly published names. For de: potentially en: there might be a parameter that defines the level where to start. By having taxoboxes for _all_ valid names, it will be possible to have a wikipedia on a particular revision and notify this when there is a later valid name.
Obviously having a box for all validly published names is only possible when there is enough intrest in creating the data. This is where the need for a big scientific intrest is needed for. GerardM 08:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This particular problem isn't whether we want to show domains (we don't most of the time), but whether they're an appropriate system to use. That's something that has to be decided, regardless. Even invisible domains impact the division of the prokaryotes - for instance, they would prevent us from using Monera.

What I would like to do is generally reverse the decisions we made on Talk:Bacterium. I think treating the prokaryotes in two kingdoms is the best option, but the names Eubacteria and Archaebacteria should probably be used, since they are unambiguous. The two empire system isn't actually obsolete, since prokaryotes are assumed to be paraphyletic, and I would prefer it as a more neutral alternative to the three-domain system. However, I think it would likely face constant reversion attempts. It is nice to have a supergroup, domain or empire, for all eukaryotes, but not necessary. Josh 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies

As for the wikispecies idea, I think my initial reaction was too harsh, but I do have several concerns. Most notably I think it would end up requiring a full classification for all species, and so preventing us from being flexible in cases where the classification varies or is uncertain. For protists, which are my main interest, phylogenetic taxa are only recently emerging, and I don't think they could be used if the groups had been locked into the old morphological system, instead of being left as unclassified.

Also, I think it's very useful to have language-specific descriptions in the taxoboxes, as for instance on plant. Taking these away would hurt all the wikipediae, making them less accessible, in order to coordinate them. And the most important part, the information in the articles, still wouldn't be coordinated.

The things is, such matters are rarely considered by people interested only in the taxonomy and not the organisms in question. As such, I worry that a wikispecies project would end up dictating systems to the rest of us, without much regard for special considerations or the needs of the articles. It may be worth trying, but it would be nice if you could allay some of these concerns, and discuss some of the details of the proposal. Josh 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When in wikispecies a taxobox will be included, there will be a link to the wikipedia. With this link is created with a syntax like [[taxobox:Homo sapiens|Human]] the passed parameter can be stored in WikiSpecies for a language. When for the higher taxons a vernaculkar name is known, the result can be a taxobox like with plant.
As to the "dictating" of wikispecies, at this moment considering the use of taxoboxes considering outside en:ToL has been little enough while there is a demonstrated need. With taxoboxes usable in all wikipedia, the basic information will be Latin, with more links to the Wikispecies more and more vernacular names will be available.
This may result in stubs like nl:Rode eekhoorn. This is perfectly reasonable when it coincedes with an interwiki to wikipedia that _has_ an article about the red squirel. GerardM 11:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That covers the languages, but nothing else. The ability to coordinate taxoboxes quickly is only a small part of coordinating articles. Compare es:Protista, where someone had little difficulty copying our taxobox, and as a result we've gone from two systems in two wikipediae to two systems in one. That's not helpful.

In any case, this coordination is only one issue. I think it's more important to be able to maintain flexibilty and meet the needs of the specific groups in question, and I'm asking if we can figure out a way for wikispecies to addres these matters. It doesn't matter what benefit it has in coordination if it breaks what we're coordinating.

Remember taxonomy is a fluid and changing discipline, and there isn't a single system out there for all to follow. How do we decide what systems to use, and most importantly, how do we coordinate a change? This isn't such an issue when the taxoboxes are part of the articles, since they can be updated together, but your proposed separation leaves the prospect of major inconsistencies. This needs to be considered before we decide this is a good idea. Josh 18:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A truly studly wikispecies would allow for multiple taxonomic entries, as in "Curculionidae is a family in Joe Blow's system", "Begoniaceae was in Violales in Cronquist", or whatever. A much-shifted taxon would have quite a few relationship/system entries. An advantage is that appropriate DB queries could reconstruct old systems in their entirety, and in theory, not necessarily useful, one could construct accurate historical taxoboxes as well as current ones. For the table of systems, one would then want a way to choose one as "current", and that would produce the usual taxoboxes for WP articles. Not an easy problem of database design, needs someone who really understands taxonomy deeply, but doable I think. Stan 19:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inline taxobox help

I feel like we probably want to find some way to point editors to Taxobox_Usage right from the main article or edit page. We can certainly make a template linking to the Taxobox_Usage page and add it to article talk pages, but I feel like for important help like this it's good to have something right on the article page too, in case notes on talk are overlooked. I have some preliminary suggestions that I've prototyped here:

  1. We could just put a link to Taxobox_Usage in the main article. This is not optimal, since we'd like to keep these details hidden from non-editors, but it's not unprecedented. See the navigation box for Train. Compare to the small note at the bottom of the taxobox. The help message is in the table caption tag and I think pretty unobtrusive.
  2. We could put a message for editors in HTML comments on the article page. To standardize this a bit, we could agree on an HTML message like <!-- TaxoboxHelp: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage for help building taxoboxes -->, for example, and put it in a template. Using the {{subst:blah}} construction would put this message in the edit page where it might help some people.

I don't consider either solution optimal, but both are better than doing nothing, and maybe someone else will be inspired to a better idea. --Chinasaur 17:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a new page, explaining the taxoboxes to readers - referring them to how classification works, explaining the color code and bolding, and so forth. Something like that would be entirely appropriate to link to from the main page, and could send new editors to our taxobox use page for further information. Meanwhile, most of the templates have a link there on their talk page, on the hopes people might look there for explanations. Josh 19:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember you mentioning that you were adding that to the talk pages. I also like your suggestion; it's a good compromise to avoid exposing "readers" to too much nitty gritty but still give editors an avenue to find the template help straight from the article page. Ideally the link from the article page would use language that tempts both readers and editors to find out more... How about the HTML comment approach? I like this, but like UtherSRG, I'm a little more HTML friendly than some editors. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to use templates to make an HTML comment easily changeable and still appear on the edit page, but I thought it we standardized the comment it would at least be easily bot parseable if it ever came to that. (Despite my better judgement that encouraging bot parsing situations should be avoided, there doesn't seem to be a better way to implement a notice in the edit box.) --Chinasaur 19:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New pictures for you guys to use

Iv'e added several new pics to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants_and_animals_of_Belize and as always I'm takeing request. Belizian 17:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] yukkity yukkity yuk

This is what happens when people with no science background start writing about themselves. A fairly NPOV human article got hugely POVved. this is just a heads up, folks. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks

Do we have a standard for how groups are ranked? There are at least thirteen well-known and reasonably stable groups between phylum Chordata and class Aves (Chordata — Craniata — Vertebrata — Gnathostomata — Teleostomi — Sarcopterygii — Tetrapoda — Amniota — Reptilia — Diapsida — Archosauria — Dinosauria — Saurischia — Theropoda — Aves). How are these to be ranked (if at all)? And what should taxoboxes look like in these articles? Gdr 18:37, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

See also "How many layers of taxa" a few sections above and the taxobox usage subpage of the project.
Roughly speaking if you are describing a family or species within Aves then you probably want none of the intermediate groups. For the aves page itself? The only strong guideline is "use your own judgement". We've tended to stay basically KPCOFGS within the taxoboxes and be a bit more -phyletically descriptive within the article body. Pcb21| Pete 19:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are plenty of "sub-", "infra-", etc prefixes to cover all these, but although the names are well-known, it would be misleading to suggest that there's any consensus on how they would all be ranked. Cladistic types just finesse by calling them "clades" indiscrimately. Might be worth introducing a special type of taxobox that makes some links to containing groups, but discourages edit that try to hack it into the main hierarchy. (Unfortunately, our ToL is more rigid than specialists would prefer.) Stan 20:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that these groups aren't entirely stable. Sarcopterygii may exclude the amniotes, and everything from Reptilia to Theropoda may exclude the birds. Not everyone has agreed that paraphyletic groups are invalid; they are logical necessities for extinct groups. Those that avoid them have difficulty ranking vertebrates, since you have large groups like Aves and Amniota with tiny sisters like deinonychosaurs and lungfish.

I don't think we should include any of these groups in the taxoboxes until a more generally acceptable system that uses them emerges. We could add a more phylocode-like table, but outside of the vertebrates and perhaps the higher plant groups, the ranked systems seem to work fine. Josh 21:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's useful for a taxobox to mention the immediately containing clade, even if unranked. It makes it easier to browse in a deep hierarchy like this, without having to jump up to the top each time.
What system are we using to rank these groups? At the moment I see we have these ranks:
Chordata — phylum
Craniata — subphylum
Vertebrata — subphylum
Gnathostomata — infraphylum
Teleostomi — no article
Sarcopterygii — class
Tetrapoda — infraphylum
Amniota — microphylum
Reptilia — class (but Sauropsida is a nanophylum)
Diapsida — superclass
Archosauria — class
Dinosauria — superorder
Saurischia — order
Theropoda — suborder
Aves — class
Gdr 13:25, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

At the moment there isn't a system. People have been using the phylogenetic groups as formal taxa randomly, making up ranks as they go without worrying about inconsistencies. This is largely because there isn't an established system that uses them.

I tried discussing what classes we should use on Talk:Chordate, but it didn't attract much comment. However, most low-level groups are happy using the classes Actinopterygii, Amphibia, Mammalia, Aves, and Reptilia, with the last understood to be paraphyletic. We should probably stick with this and standardize other pages to it, although it means we can't use Reptilia through Theropoda as clades in the taxobox.

If you have ideas on better systems, I'd be happy to hear them. However, note that clade-only schemes simply don't work with extinct groups. For instance, whatever we rank Aves, we'd need to rank crocodylians, pterosaurs, ornithischians, coelophysids, ceratosaurs, spinosaurs, allosaurs, tyrannosaurs, ornithomimids, therizinosaurs, and deinonychosaurs at least as high. We could try a rankless system, but I don't think it would do too well for such common animals. Josh 16:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Candidatus - a new naming code

Azhyd added an orphan page on an interesting proteobacterium, Pelagibacter ubique. However, strange to say, it looks like the formal name of the organism is actually Candidatus Pelagibacter ubique. There is some information on this type of name at LSBN. How do we want to handle it? A new binomial name template can be made easily, but how should it show up in the placement (or subdivision boxes), and should the article be moved or kept where it is? Josh 22:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Candidatus isn't part of the name, it is a qualifier to indicate that the name has not (yet) been validly published. Since inclusion in wikipedia does not constitute formal publication, the page won't do any harm as it is, except possibly that it could alert others to the existence of this organism, who might then rush to print with their own formal valid publication and 'steal' the kudos of having described it. But I'd guess that anyone with the ability to do this will know about it from other sources anyway. The page needs a bit of cleaning (it's -> it is, etc). I'd also think the page might be better titled as the genus name only, not the full species binomial name (c.f. other monotypic genera). - MPF 23:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In this case, it looks like Candidatus is used because the species hasn't met the qualifications for formal publication. If it is just a status, I guess the page doesn't need much changing, but the sudden inversion of whether the name is italicized when it is included makes me wonder if it can be validly excluded. At any rate, it should definitely be included along with the attribution, and I will make |- style="text-align:center;" ! style="background: {{{color}}};" | Binomial name |- style="text-align:center;" |Candidatus {{{binomial_name}}}
{{{author}}}, {{{date}}} accordingly.

As for monotypic genera, are you proposing the page be moved to Pelagibacter, or simply that the title be changed? I'd be happy to do the former, but it would probably be better if the redirect was deleted first. We should probably draw up some standards for such pages. Josh 01:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Newsletter

Hi all - Several of us have been working on creating a Wikimedia Newsletter on Meta. Since ToL is by far the largest WikiProect in Wikipedia we would like one (or more) of you to write a quick summary of where the project stands for the newsletter. We are especially interested in how the different language versions interact and the possible use of the Wikimedia Commons to store taxoboxes. Anything you can add will be appreciated. :) --mav 04:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category structure

To whom it may concern: Please feel free to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds/Categories because I think that structuring various animal articles and Dog articles could take a similar tack--would be nice to use same subcategories for consistency. I've left messages all over various Cat and Horse articles and topics to this same effect.

One thing I see (that someone else also just noticed) is a slight inconsistency of the listing for wild vs domesticated dogs & cats. Non-domesticated canines are listed in Category:Canines, while domesticated dogs & articles about them are in Category:Dogs, a subcategory thereof. Category:Cats, however, lists all--I'd think for consistency it should be Category:Felines for wild cats and Category:Cats similarly structured to Dogs; looks like Category:Equids follows this, but then there is no Category:Horse. Elf | Talk 04:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional note: The WikiProject Dog breeds is already linking to a dozen of other languages. To see the status please look here. Would be happy about any support to align additional related categories in thouse languages. Thanks Gangleri 00:43, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

[edit] Use of templates

Shark articles have picked up a Template:Sharks, which is incomplete, redundant with the category, and will be gigantic if all 368 shark species get included in it. Between taxoboxes and categories, I'm inclined to say that's plenty of navigational machinery, and the template on top of that is just extra noise. Any other opinions? Stan 15:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Little job

Could someone identify the plants pictured here and add them to the appropriate article? →Raul654 03:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be impressed if anyone could do better than genus - need closeups of leaves, seeds, etc usually, as one sees in Pine for instance. Stan 03:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Foreground, isolated single plant - probably an Eastern Juniper.
Main clump, front row bushes, left to right - one not identifiable, three dogwoods, possibly but not definitely Cornus kousa (deciduous, not evergreen).
Main clump, medium-size trees, left to right - a Norway Spruce, two pines probably Scots Pines, another probable Eastern Juniper.
Main clump, large tree(s) at rear - a poplar (deciduous, not evergreen), species not determinable.
I'd guess the best place for this pic would be at park or garden, not evergreen. - MPF 16:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] General purpose placement template

With some non-classification entries, Bagworm moth has a few lines in there that don't fit with the current taxobox. I'm sure there's a separate debate as to whether those things actually belong in the taxobox, but for now, I think we need a Template:Taxobox_foo_entry for them (Taxobox_unranked_entry is not it). Unfortunately, I cannot think of a good name for it. Help would be appreciated :-) -- Yath 07:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Prosimian vs Strepsirrhini

The current page is prosimian, but I think it would be best to split it into two articles. "Prosimian" is a polyphylogenic grouping that includes all strepsirrhines, plus the tarsiers and the extinct omomyids. Please follow up on talk:prosimian - UtherSRG 15:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for taxoboxes

We are planning to use taxoboxes in Finnish Wikipedia. However, there is a major obstacle: I have found nowhere a guide what templates are needed for a taxobox. Of course I can find some templates by looking at the page markup, but where is a thorough list? -Hapsiainen 23:29, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. --Yath 00:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am aware of that page. I wanted to make sure that the templates mentioned there are all that are needed. -Hapsiainen 11:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage#Complete_classification was misleading: it claimed to be "a complete list of taxobox entry templates" when in fact it is "a complete list of taxobox templates". I changed it. That should clear things up. --Yath 20:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispecies nov.

So apparently, a separate wikispecies project has been created to handle taxonomy. So far it seems copying our material has been a higher priority than notifying us here, but since they exist and will probably want to work with us in the future, I'd encourage participants here to help them draw up standards that will maximize their utility and minimize the overlap in content. The main URL is species.wikipedia.org, and most of the discussion seems to be on their village pump. Josh 08:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The extremely shabby way that wikispecies was introduced into the stable of wikimedia projects was the major reason for the dramatic reduction in time I give to the project.
Wikispecies was the pet project of one person who had never before shown any interest in Wikipedia, and certainly had never tried to engage in the ToL project here. Many people protested that the current design of wikispecies meant that it offered nothing not already offered in the ToL project, and thus it was in effect just a fork. People flatly denied it was a fork, but never explained why. Unfortunately these people were the founder and one of the other two active board members, who concluded in private that wikispecies would go ahead and to hell with the objections. (Jimbo indeed basically told people to shut up during one mail, despite the fact that there were obviously unresolved issues.
Needless to say, these people that pushed wikispecies ahead also have shown virtually no interesting in making the ToL project good.
For wikispecies to be different enough from the ToL pages to warrant a separate project, it needs to be of a dramatically different design (basically it needs to be an openly editable database, not a wiki).
Wikispecies appears a bit stillborn at the moment - here have been no edits for two weeks. So maybe my concerns about splitting of efforts are unfounded.
Pcb21| Pete 08:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It occurs to me that what WikiSpecies could be is a phylogeny Wiki, much like Mikko's Phylogeny Archive but as a Wiki. - UtherSRG 11:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ironically wikispecies has had more energy put into the meta-discussion than the design. I don't see it going much of anywhere either - from my study of systematics, it's clear to me that a wikispecies is possible, but it would need a very high-powered database design to be of even minimal interest to scientists, and so far they haven't got anybody able to do that. Stan 15:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One need only be familiar with the effort at Tree of Life to understand what it takes to get the cutting edge taxonomists interested in a web project of that sort. Having said that, I think there is a clear place for a Wikipedia ToL. I'm just not sure why there is a need for one in WikipediaEn and one outside WikipediaEn. As a biologist, I find the sometimes funky additions to taxonomy pages here quite interesting and refreshing (and always educational). But there is always the opportunity to add more rigorous material to the text. There remains the problem at Wikipedia of tendency toward the mediocre, but I'm still confident that can be overcome. The only way to avoid it is to strictly regulate who gets to add stuff to what pages—the approach used at Tree of Life, but not at WikipediaEn, and presumably not at Wikispecies (?) - Marshman 16:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you want to strictly regulate additions, you don't want a wiki in the first place. As far as I know, the foundation approved wikispecies with the expectation that it would be a wiki also. Stan 18:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That would clearly make sense. Although, inputs to any wiki are regulated by a cadre of editors whose "attitude" can establish the quality of the contributions - Marshman
Amen! - WormRunner | Talk 04:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf

Someone added two lines (Eutheria and Vertebrata) to the taxobox on Wolf, and I removed them. then they were added back, and I removed them again. Please go to talk:wolf and vote on whether the lines should be added or not. - UtherSRG 16:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can't say I'm delighted that someone who has chosen "Clockwork Troll" as their username has started contributing to various articles in the ToL domain.
I agree, although he seems more legit than his ID would prove. He's not unreasonable when approached in a mannerly fashion. I blew it fro the start by assuming hewas just a troll. - UtherSRG 15:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal

I’m attending the Wikimeeting in Rotterdam, Netherlands on November 27. I’m going to propose there an idea, that I ‘ve had for some time and which may also concern ToL. I have encountered many websites, which made requests for appropriate images or photos. Usually with a good measure of success (cfr. The Seaslugforum of Dr. Bill Rudman), with unique photos of seaslugs sent by enthusiasts and divers from all over the world. The same goes for many other websites about fauna and flora. This gave me the idea : why can’t we do the same ? Many of our articles lack the right or fitting image. There must be enough viewers in the world, willing to put THEIR photo in that article, even under the stringent copyright restrictions of Wikipedia. Therefore, if we could put an OPTIONAL textbox at the bottom of the article, it could be done this way :

  • First of all, the box is optional. If there is no image needed, no box
  • In the box we could put a short text like : Do you have an appropriate photo for this article ? Click here (here being a hyperlink to the next page).
  • On the next page, we could explain the advantages of having their photo in Wikipedia ( = a bit flattering their vanity) and then explaining in simple words the copyright restrictions, without frightening away the potential contributor).
  • On the same page, there would be a possibility to upload the image, if possible, to the Commons.
  • Through a bit of (new ?) programming, the orginal author or authors of the article would be notified on their watchlist.
  • They can then decide whether to use the photo or not.
  • And if too many photo would come in, why then not making a photogallery on a new tab page, just like ‘edit’, “history” or ‘discussion’ (again a bit of programming needed here).

This way, we can avoid having to beg all over the world for photos. You can call yourself lucky if you even get a reply. These are then mostly negative, because of the stringent restrictions on copyright. A few times, you strike lucky. But in the end, it is a lot of work that could be avoided by this textbox. I realize that this goes beyond ToL and this may need new programming. But I think that this idea has its merits, even if it is a first draft. Ãny reactions ? JoJan 18:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. Perhaps it could be something that is made part of the underlying Wikicode so that it is autogenerated for articles without an image. - UtherSRG 12:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It sounds like a fine plan. It seems very possible that there is a pool of readers who wouldn't to get deeply involved, but would donate a photo lying around on their hard disk.
From implementation point of view: It is hard/long/slow to get new features into mediawiki because it requires the attention of the few people who understand the system. However, as luck would have it, we don't actually need to change the internals of this. It isn't perfect but you could:
  1. Add a "Have a photo for this article?" link to the blurb at the bottom of every page - any sysop can do this.
  2. The link goes to some webpage form (needn't even be on wikipedia servers) that takes in a) location of picture to upload (as in the current upload form) b) the page to use image on. The form then automatically uploads the file to Wikipedia and sends a message to the talk page of the page in question saying "new image available for this page". An experienced user sees the messages and uses the photo as appropriate. The new script only interacts with the publically available features of mediawiki (uploading a photo and writing a talk page message), no internal changes required.
This implementation is just one possibility of many, but I really like the general idea, and it should be spread around to more general audiences. Pcb21| Pete 13:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like to add a few more thoughts. To construct the original textbox, a simple template would suffice. On the following page, it would be preferable to insert, next to the explanations, a tickbox where the contributor can choose between copyrights such as {{GFDL}}, {{PD}} etc.. When uploading, this would then automatically implement the right copyright tag on the edit page of the image, and thus also on the image page. Everything must be done to keep things as simple as possible. If we can push this idea through (and why not ?), this may alleviate our workload a lot. Especially now, when all those images with copyright problems (such as not to be used commercially...) are being deleted. Finding alternatives can be very hard, if not impossible. JoJan 20:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The tickbox for copyright options ought to be part of the normal upload form, and hopefully will be in the next release of MediaWiki. Even without the script that writes the talk page message, this could be useful and people could then use Special:Unusedimages to find them. The only implication is that people need to be logged in to upload an image, which might deter some people. Angela. 01:53, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've talked about this proposal with Jimbo Wales at the meeting in Rotterdam. He seemed favorable to this idea, but then in a different form : more as a revolving text in a textbox, together with other messages, since space on a page is limited. If any of you see Jimbo on a next Wikimeeting, it would be a good idea to pursue this matter. There may still be hope for this initiative. JoJan 08:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Public Library of Science

The PloS is a new open-access organization whose mission is to make the world’s scientific and medical literature a public resource. They operate under the Creative Commons agreement {{cc-by-2.0}}, in other words within the copyright restraints of Wikipedia. I bring this to your attention, since PLoS Biology will contain articles which might be of interest to us. JoJan 12:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kewl! - UtherSRG 12:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox Standard

I have a problem with the taxobox entry line called "Species" and I'm somewhat surprised no one else has caught it (maybe I'm just unaware of past discussion?). It is incorrect (see definition under Species) to call the second term in a binomial name a "species". The species is the binomial name. A correct listing would be (for example) Genus: Colocasia, Species: C. esculenta. It might be cleaner to simply eliminate the "Species" line and, following "Genus," have the next "box" called "Binomial" give the actual species name (w/o shortened genus and with authorship). The situation as it is now suffers from being both redundant and misleading. - Marshman 21:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Apt remark. A species name consists of a binomen, the combination of the generic name and a specific name (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ICZN). The specific name is the second name of a binomen (or trinomen). JoJan 21:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is discussion of this specific point in the (admittedly vast) archives. However a change might be more possible than in the past once all the taxoboxes use the templates. Pcb21| Pete 22:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is any easier now than in the past, since each taxon entry is a single line just as it was before templates. - UtherSRG 20:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You could blank the "taxobox_species_entry" template to convert hundreds of articles to the format that Marshman suggests with one edit. However I don't think we should do this. Pcb21| Pete 13:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not detect much disagreement here. I think my suggestion that a taxobox NOT have a line "Species:" is better than the alternative of putting a binomial after "Species:" with the full (or shortened) species name (i.e., Colocasia esculenta or C. esculenta), and that the following lines DO give the label "Binomial", followed beneath by the full species name (as most updated taxoboxes presently do, I believe). I put an example of how I think it should look on the right. - Marshman 19:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In the situation where a taxobox is placed in a genus article, the line "Binomial name" is replaced by "Species", and that followed by a list of binomials - Marshman
  • I object. I really don't want to drag up the arguments pro and con from the archives. At least not today... I have a cold and don't have the energy. *grins* Suffice it to say the concept was thoroughly hashed out and the current status quo was agreed to. I think one crux of the argument was the distinction between "species name" and "species epithet": the difference being that the "species name" consists of the "genus name" and the "species epithet". I believe another aspect of the discussion revolved around the fact that the species epithet is never used without the context of the genus it is in; the resolution was that the taxobox itself provides that context - the genus name appears right above (or two lines above when there is a subgenus) the species epithet. Also, see this scientific page for a non-wiki example of this practice. - UtherSRG 20:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice to see there are other opinions. Sorry about your cold! While I've not dug through the archives, I can imagine (and from your description) what various arguments might be. However, it is simply incorrect to state "Species: esculenta", so context or not (or other bad examples) really does not alter a fact basic to the definition of the term "species" in a biological context (and one generally well known among biologists and certainly among taxonomists). I'm unclear what your resistance is. Does it just look neater to lay out all the taxonomic terms and then fill in each with a proper noun? If so, then "Species:" gives an incorrect impression of the entry that follows (since it is not a species). In that case, the correct approach would be to put the species name in after, as such: "Species: C. esculenta". Please provide me with an argument based on biological reasoning that supports your objection. - Marshman 00:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I already did. "esculenta" is the species epithet. "C. esculenta" is the (abbreviated) species name. There is no ambiguity as to which genera "esculenta" is refering when placed in the taxobox - it is refering to the genus (and subgenus) immediately above it. - UtherSRG 02:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • We are not talking about ambiguity here. Of course there is no ambiguity. But you brought up context. It is the context that is the problem. The list provides a series of taxa after each of which is the correct proper noun. Then it comes down to "SPECIES:" after which you suggest we put in an incorrect entry, essentially an adjective that has no meaning in that context. The species is either Colocasia esculenta or C. esculenta, it is NOT esculenta. By putting "esculenta" as the "Species:" we are stating (not just implying) something that is incorrect. Why lead our readers astray? This project is supposed to be one where people come and learn; not where they are greeted by a nice orderly presentation of dubious correctness. I suppose another approach that would fix the problem is to replace "Species" with "Species epithet"; that would provide proper context - Marshman 17:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Another approach that would be correct and look good, is to replace "Binomial Name" (really not used by biologists very much outside of the classroom) in the green line with "Species". That would reinforce the concept I am espousing. It would also provide a nice balance between the top line (frequently a common name entry) and mesh well with articles on genera, which would look the same, excpt that below "species" would be a box listing all of the species (instead of just the one as in a species article). - Marshman 17:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to rehash this. I've given you my reasonings. Please peruse the archives for this already answered and (IMNSHO) closed debate. - UtherSRG 17:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok... so I'm feeling too run down to do any real work, so I searched the archives. The original discussion is buried in Archive 4, and a later review is in Archive 6. - UtherSRG 18:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. Thanks. I'll check those out when I have time - Marshman
  • OK. I reviewed the Archives. They were difficult to follow, because several unrelated points were interwoven in a confusing fashion (bolding and "Binomial Name" and "Genus species" or just "species"). I see several people arguing out of ignorance—never a good thing— but to be expected in a democratic process. In Archive 4 it came down to UtherSRG saying it was ok to have Genus: "xyz" and then Species: "abc". Following a statement by Josh, an erroneous statement was made (rebutting Josh, who again challenged it):
[Josh] "As for saying giving the species as G. species, it's consistent with plenty of literature and taxonomic websites I've seen. Simply put, the name of the species is Genus species and not species,.."
[UtherSRG] "That's not true. The species name is species, but it should never be given alone because it is non-specific (more than one critter can have the same species epithet), except when context already denotes the genus."
[Later UtherSRG wrote] "People do refer to innesi, but not as often as P. innesi (or at least it is true on the more generic level - I don't know that particular species well enough to judge)"
Hope I did not get things out of context, but Josh is exactly right and UtherSRG is simply incorrect on that point. The species name is NOT "species", the species name is always "Genus species" (or G. species after the first complete spelling of the genus). That is basic to biology. Further, other than in casual notes and conversation, it is considered (in published literature) poor form to refer to innesi alone in any way; it should always be P. innesi. Some publications may allow shortening to save space; but certainly none in the fieldof taxonomy. One can always find exceptions of poor writing, but holding such up as a valid argument is not wise.
What concerns me, is this argument is being driven towards some sort of "I prefer this" or "I prefer that" conclusion. This question was settled by biologists a few centuries ago, and resistence to get it right at Wikipedia should not be all that difficult. I see in Archive 6 Ingoolemo brings up exactly the same error in the taxoboxes, and UtherSRG writes it off prretty much as having been discuissed and therefore old stuff (while including this time a correct summary, but again stating incorrectly:
[UtherSRG] "The Species epithet is almost never used without a local reference to the Genus name. However, the taxobox provides that local reference."
The taxobox does not provide a "local reference" simply by including the genus close by. What I and Josh and Ingoolemo are saying (and all taxonomists will happly confirm for you) is that the species is still G. species AFTER local reference, and not species. As I point out above, it is acceptable to do it this way:
GENUS: Colcasia
SPECIES: C. esculenta
I see very little in the Archives to indicate biologists were ever much involved in this "debate" although a number of people had correct knowledge, but were easily swayed by poorly written web sites like the one on lemurs. - Marshman 00:49, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although I'm personally opposed to deciding anything by vote as it is foolish to think that "facts" can be decided in such a way, there are obviously a few here who believe there is a "taxobox standard" that all should adhere to. Since this issue of erroneously declaring a species name "species" is championed by only one person with apparently no biological training, the rest of this "standards" group needs to step up and be counted. Essentially, the taxobox has been taken over as one person's personal venue (essentially it has become a POV item), a situation that will continue to drive off competent contributers like Clockwork Troll in the Wolf controversy (below). - Marshman 17:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was unaware of any debate over the "species line", and so never weighed in, but it has also been troubling me for some time, because it seems redundant; there is always a full binomal name section immediately below. Unlike every other line in the placement section, the epithet line will almost never have a link - in the rare case that a subspecies deserves its own article, the links will likely be in the text, not in taxobox. As far as I can tell, the species line is mostly there because it was in the original design, and hasn't been seriously re-evaluated since. So I'd like to concur with Marshman's proposal to just whack the line altogether; no capability or information will be lost, and taxoboxes will be smaller. Most importantly of all :-), it makes the nomenclature discussion moot! Stan 18:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about for subspecies? - UtherSRG 21:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that taxoboxes apply to all ranks, not just species. The reason the species name or epithet is in the placement box is because it parallels other groups like Rosaceae, Carnivora, and Heterotrichea. The decision as to whether to restrict the placement to supergroups should be made with all of them in mind, not just this one case. It would require creating a new box comparable to the binomial name box, which would be useful for indicating authorship, but it makes it very difficult to handle groups with multiple ranks such as Symbion.

Whether or not the species epithet can be given by itself is a different issue. Originally I had thought a few other sites used them, but checking now I can only find uBio, and that's only because their database doesn't allow spaces. I think Marshman can be taken as authoritative here. Since the matter has been brought up three times now, it's safe to say the present system should be changed.

I'd propose that we start by changing the taxobox placement to read G. species, or at least change the standard to suggest that. This is something that would have to be done anyways, since species will be listed as supergroups on subspecies pages. Then, as a separate issue, we should consider changing the placement or binomial name boxes to make things less redundant. Personally, I don't really like Marshman's suggestion, and would much rather change the placement box to include the authorship, as shown at right. Josh 23:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need not associate me with any particular proposed format other than the removal or modification of the line "Species:" which I consider to be in error if it does give the species name in fact (that is, only provides the not-unique modifier). It does, however seem redundant when followed by "Binomial name" and below that the correct entry: the species name with authorship. My personal preference, although I would consider all to weigh in as important here, is to eliminate the "Species:" line altogether, and change "Binomial name" to "Species name", just because the latter is a term more widely used in and out of taxonomy (to me, "binomial name" is what you learned in class, but later never used). I'm not suggesting there is any other problem, and I agree with UtherSRG that we need to keep the taxobox generally simple rather than complex with sub- this and supra- that. These groupings can be handled in the text where they become important in some taxa. I looked at Symbion, and I see no special problem with what I am proposing here (there may be others). This site simply is in error giving the species name as pandora (it is Symbion pandora) and redundant to have both a "Species:" line and a "Binomial Name", as these are synonymous. Josh's proposal would also work.
Maybe spirochaete is a better example. My point is that sometimes multiple taxa correspond to the same group, but using a second box would require singling the lowest one out.
UtherSRG also brings up a point about subspecies. Again, the correct way to handle a subspecies is to present the full name. The subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens is not sapiens but H. s. sapiens or H. sapiens subsp. sapiens. Although here, botanist at least, do speak of "subsp. sapiens" after introducing H. sapiens in the same paragraph (anyone that has actually met a botanist will undrstand ;^) - Marshman 05:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, I've not said that species is the "Species name". What I've said I'll say again: "Species name" is Genus species or G. species). "Species epithet" is species. The strong caveat is that the species epithet should be used alone sparingly and only when the context is perfectly clear. To prove it, I open randomly to page 160 in Groves' Primage Taxonomy. (If anyone can refute Groves' standing as a learned biologist and taxonomist, I give up). On 160, he uses the epithets boliviensis and sciureus on their own (thrice for boliviensis) while using full or abbreviated names twenty times, all from the same genus. Species epithets can and are used alone as I have been describing over and over by learned and scholarly biologists and taxonomists. If it was absolutely forbidden to use the epithet alone as Marshman suggests, I'm absolutely certain that Groves would not have done so. If need be, I'll type in the relevant passages from Groves to show just exactly how he used the naked epithets. - UtherSRG 05:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My question about subspecies was about how should the taxobox be utilized. Should there be a species line following the genus line? Should there be a subspecies line following the species line? The standardized format is that the lowest line in the placement section of the taxobox be the most specific part of the taxonomy. To remove the species line (or the subspecies line) from the species (or subspecies) taxobox breaks this format and makes the placement portion of the taxobox identical for a genus, a species, and a subspecies taxobox. This does not work for me. Marshman's suggestion of using the abbreviated species name also doesn't work, for then a subspecies taxobox will contain Genus, G. species, and G. s. subspecies. It gets even worse when there is a subgenus as well, for we get a bit of skippage: Genus, (Subgenus), G. (S.) species, G. (S.) s. subspecies. - UtherSRG 05:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's the extreme case, though. Putting G. species in the taxobox is somewhat redundant, but not if the alternative involves repeating the binomial name in full. It also makes it plain what the name of the species is, whereas the current system switches from taxon names to epithets without explanation. And it is closer to other taxonomy sites, like NCBI, tree of life, and Systema Naturae, which universally list the genus name or abbreviation.

I've never seen a text use epithets by themselves, and this is the third argument that it can't be done, this time by a practicing biologist. As such it doesn't matter whether it's officially permitted or not, it's evidently very rare. The alternative form might be a little repetitive but I think it adds clarity, and it is definitely preferrable to using something so obscure, which will only lead to further debate. I know you don't like using G. species as much, but how much support for it does there need to be for us to change? Josh 07:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P.S. uBio does give epithets by themselves, but it capitalizes them, so I'm going to assume that's a database thing.

Not sure where you are looking on that site. All I saw were genera listed (hence the caps)? - Marshman 08:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, there's a couple places where it gives species - try looking up Entamoeba. I'm just mentioning it because I had listed it as an example back in /Archive4. Josh
Uther sez "The standardized format is that the lowest line in the placement section of the taxobox be the most specific part of the taxonomy." My question is why do we need to have that as the rule? One could just as usefully change to "most specific down to and including genus but not species epithet". I think the people who do taxoboxes are well able to deal with the one extra clause in the rule, tighter taxoboxes are better, and you remove a bit of redundancy. If there are a horde of subspecies articles (which I don't think is the case, subspecies are usually paragraphs in a species article), then amend to allow species epithet if it's a live link (piped of course) to a species article. Fatter taxoboxes so as to simplify taxobox rules just seems like backwards reasoning to me. Stan 07:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The people who write taxoboxes could handle it but it would make their meaning less obvious. If we remove the species, we should also move genera, families, and the like to boxes. The only problem is groups that have multiple ranks, as above. Do you actually have any objection to the alternate form I proposed? I don't think the G. makes things excessively wide. Josh 08:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like having the two halves though - the first half is "context/links", while the second half is "what's here", whether it be the name+authority, or list of subtaxa. It's also nice to have the full scientific name in the taxobox, for Googlematching purposes, unless you can expect that it's always in running text. The G. epithet approach would want a redesign of the subtaxa stuff, for consistency, not sure how. Stan 09:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The binomial name box says what group is here, and the subdivision box says how it's broken up, so they aren't interchangeable. If we pull the group from the placement box, in most cases we would need to have both. I'd support that, if we can come up with a good way to handle pages like Chloroflexi, but I don't see one. Note subdivision lists already give species as G. epithet, and the full scientific name can always be a redirect. Josh 21:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm unable to format a taxobox to demonstrate this other approach (someone here could), but why not have the bottom green box just say "Species" (that is, "Genus: Genus" being the last entry above it); and then the bottom box below the green box could contain the binomial (with author) for articles about a single species, or could be a list of species for articles about several species (a common occurrence). An entry of (one or more) subspecies in that bottom box would also work. In essence, the same setup would fit all three cases, and would be taxonomically correct, saying in essence "The species (one or more) covered in this article is (are)....." - Marshman 08:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. I need acknowledgement that epithets are used alone in some instances where the context is well understood. I've given an example on a web page, and I've given an example from a well respected primatologist. Why is the Groves example unacceptable? I need the acknowledgment and an explanation of why Groves is an unacceptable reference for the usage. - UtherSRG 15:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can only offer this: zoologists are much less anal about such things than botanists. I was a zoology/ecology major and worked in field studies with some taxonomy for 20 years. I never found anything consistent about the way zoologists did such things. Indeed, avian biologists have ways that are a complete mystery to invertebrate biologists. And botanists were regarded as strange. I then moved into botany over the last 10-15 years where there is considerably more agreement on the rules. So, you are right. You can find authors like Groves (probably you will find the practice demonstrated by Groves common to a number of other primate bilogists) that develop styles a tad outside the mainstream. I do not think it is good practice and looks sloppy to me (from a botany perspective and despite Groves "reputation") and it could be something being pushed by the editors of the journal(s) in which he published that book/article. Just like citation styles, there are editoral pressures at work. But the taxobox is an important part of all Wikipedia articles on taxonomy and should not reflect a POV that is less than correct - Marshman 17:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For botany, I looked at my new copy of Gentry on agaves, and there's a lot of A. foo. Epithets do appear by themselves in tables and keys however. Leaving off the A. does save a tiny amount of space and typography, I bet there are editors who encourage it. While intelligible, epithets seem a bit sloppy, like field notes rather than a published work. But, I'm strictly an amateur naturalist, mainly trying to avoid getting my eyes put out while leaning in to look for agave weevils. :-) Stan 17:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you do not understand what our taxoboxes are for. The placement section is the equivalent of a navbox - allowing easy access to the higher rankings the creature or group is place in. The lower section either gives access to those groups or species that branch from the current article's topic, or if there is no further branching, the full name and authority of the species or subspecies. The change you propose changes the purpose of the taxobox. - UtherSRG 15:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No problem, really. You are at (or in rare cases one step from) the "end" when you get to the Genus article. Then the lower section is either going to list all the species and link to those with separate articles; or list one or more species discussed in the Genus article text. - Marshman 17:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An excerpt from Groves (2001). - UtherSRG 15:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is a waste of time and energy. I am a taxonomist, and while I would NEVER use a species epithet by itself in the text of a taxonomic article (so the Groves example does not apply), I see no problem with having such an epithet just below the generic name in a table. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in this case. Why not leave well enough alone. If we were starting something new, perhaps there could be a reasonable argument, but already more changes are being made tweaking unimportant things than in real substantive editing. WormRunner | Talk 06:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The taxobox as it now stands relates the species name to species which is incorrect. I would agree that using species in a table that lists a number of species of a Genus is sometimes done (although I personally would cringe), the direct implication in the taxobox is that there is a level or taxon, "GENUS: Genus", and another level or taxon below it, "SPECIES: species". That is the heart of the ambiguity you are missing. And of course, it is never your choice to decide what is a waste of time and energy for others who have their own perspectives on all such matters. The fact is that the vast majority of users and editors here are not biologists, and preventing the promotion of bad habits in biological matters is (IMHO) far more important than what you consider "substantive editing." Of course, you can continue to do your "substantive editing" while others concern themselves with matters they deem important. - Marshman 19:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would say the worst "bad habit" in biology is paying less attention to the real organisms than to formatting tables. WormRunner | Talk 06:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've heard that some biologists see taxonomists as spending too much time on trivial points of morphology instead of analyzing the truly important underlying mechanisms. :-) Stan 07:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good point, though not true of all taxonomists. -- WormRunner | Talk 05:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And to each his own. But Wikipedia is more of an encyclopedia (learning tool) than a biology project. By WormRunners list of bad habits, teachers are not "real" biologists. I would argue they are THE most important biologists. Without an educated populace, there would be no money or societal interest to support the many esoteric things biologists like to do - Marshman 17:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is a straw man, and a misrepresentation of what I said. Teachers who introduce people to the wonders around them are more precious than gold and are as REAL as any other kind of biologist. In fact most of the REAL biologists I have known have been teachers of one sort or another. But teachers who bore people with minutiae of what letter goes where have turned more people away from science than they have brought to it. My point was, and remains, that the current tables are good enough, and spending a lot of time correcting them all to some new format is a waste of energy that could be put to better use adding to the educational value of Wikipedia. -- WormRunner | Talk 05:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer using abbreviations at all levels above the lowest level in the table. So an entry for Gongora armeniaca subsp. cornuta would look like

Genus:Gongora
Species:G. armeniaca
Subspecies:Gongora armeniaca subsp. cornuta (Klotzsch) Whitten 1991

-- Nighthawk4211 19:44, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox Examples and vote

Box 4
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Liliopsida
Order: Arales
Family: Araceae
Genus: Colocasia
Binomial name
Colocasia esculenta
(L.) Schott
Box 3
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Liliopsida
Order: Arales
Family: Araceae
Genus: Colocasia
Species: C. esculenta
Binomial name
Colocasia esculenta
(L.) Schott
Box 2
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Liliopsida
Order: Arales
Family: Araceae
Genus: Colocasia
Species: esculenta
Binomial name
Colocasia esculenta
(L.) Schott
Box 1
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Liliopsida
Order: Arales
Family: Araceae
Genus: Colocasia
Species: C. esculenta
(L.) Schott

I've moved the taxoboxes from above to here, and added two more (the current format and another possibility). I think we've all had a say and I don't expect there to be any change in positions. Which means it's getting close to time to lining up the options and coming to a concensus on which option to use. To facilitate that, voila. Let's see about doing this for a week. (Polling closes 16:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ) - UtherSRG 15:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Box 1

[edit] Support

  1. UtherSRG 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. - Marshman 16:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Josh 21:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. --nixie 22:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Tkinias 18:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Nighthawk4211 19:29, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Yath 18:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ram-Man 18:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. gadfium 17:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Box 2

[edit] Support

  1. UtherSRG 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Yath 18:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. WormRunner | Talk 06:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ram-Man 18:03, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. - Marshman 16:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (contains an error)
  2. - Stan 17:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. gadfium 17:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Josh 21:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. ugen64 00:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nighthawk4211 19:29, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Box 3

[edit] Support

  1. UtherSRG 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. JoJan 16:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Stan 17:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. gadfium 17:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Yath 18:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. --nixie 22:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tkinias 18:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Nighthawk4211 19:30, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. - Marshman 16:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (redundant although no error)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Josh 21:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Box 4

[edit] Support

  1. - Marshman 16:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (change "Binomial Name" to "Species"); has wide application to species or genus articles
  2. Stan 17:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (ditto on the "Species" change)
  3. gadfium 17:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nighthawk4211 19:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. UtherSRG 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Yath 18:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Josh 21:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) (it depends entirely on how we choose to treat higher rank and multi-rank groups)
  2. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The status quo is Box 2. It's my preference to keep status quo, and it's what we should do until we have concensus to change. My least favorite is Box 4. Of the others, I think I'm equally ambivalent about them, but can support using them. Box 1 would require a new template to be created (not a bad thing, just stating facts), or the existing genus entry template to be modified, and it wouldn't be difficult to do. - UtherSRG 15:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note boxes 1, 3, and 4 eliminate the reasons for bolding the genus. Josh

Quite so. Ain't that gonna be fun. - UtherSRG 22:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The next step

Well the poll isn't closed, but the results have been unchanged for some days, and it is clear the status quo doesn't enjoy support. Box 1 and box 3 look like being the only contenders worth thinking about (5/1/1 and 7/1/1 respectively). Yath is your opposition to box 1 strong? Marshman box 3? Pcb21| Pete 08:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. :-) --Yath 00:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No problem, I can accept box 3. I think it is redundant (since species name and binomial name are terms that refer to the same thing) but if it is felt it is in keeping with the taxobox form, I'll use it - Marshman 19:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm updating the page to make box 3 the tentative new standard. Josh 18:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Olive family

Should an article like this be at the title Oleaceae which is now a redirect. Some of the species seem pretty far from the common understanding of an olive. Rmhermen 14:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say yes. While it's good to have the article title be a common name, it's not good when that common name is misleading, as in this case. - UtherSRG 14:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ditto. -- WormRunner | Talk 16:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Technically, "olive family" is just as accurate as "Oleaceae" - note that a large number of botanical writeups write "olive family Oleaceae" at least on the first usage, which says two things; a) they're synonyms, and b) the "-aceae" names are still not quite second nature to everybody, what the computer nerds would call a "human interface"

problem. :-) But we've signed up with the Latin names. (Might not hurt to have redirs tho, "soapberry family" garners several thousand matches, 600 of them not mentioning Sapindaceae at all.) Stan 17:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say "yes" to Oleaceae. While I can understand the concern that common names are more familiar to most people, it is not the case that "olive family" should mean "all plants that look like an olive." The terms are, in essence and as notedabove, synonyms; therefore olive family means: "plants related to and sharing specified morphological characteristics with the familiar olive plant." As cladistics advance this becomes "plants related to and sharing a specified genetic similarity with the familiar olive plant." - Marshman 17:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 'Old' style taxoboxes

When I come across a taxobox created with the table code rather than the new ToL template I update it. I'm not sure if people are of the opinion 'if it ain't broke -don't fix it', or if its better to update them to make any subsequent updates simpler. A list of entries with the 'old' template can be found here .--nixie 02:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's good to make the changes in an ad hoc manner. No need to rush out and change all the taxoboxes at once, but if one happens upon an article and it's got an old format, update it. If one is bored they could pick an article that needs an update taxobox and start there and work up and down the tree as appropriate. I've done that with Canidae and Felidae and with some other mammals. - UtherSRG 14:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit]  ! Important ! Kiwi page sorely out of date!

(Posted by new User:Fledgeling on my user page - can anyone help out? I'll have a look in HBW, but I suspect that's not up-to-date enough) - MPF 09:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There were tought to be three species and two sub-species untill 1995, when DNA tests on the different Kiwi populations proved otherwise. Today we know that the species formerly known as Brown Kiwi is actually three distinct species – Brown Kiwi, Rowi and Tokoeka. And the Tokoeka currently has two varieties - Haast Tokoeka and Southern Tokoeka. The Rowi was identified as a seperate species in 2003, the latest to be identified as a seperate species.--- http://www.kiwirecovery.org.nz/Kiwi/AboutTheBird/TheKiwiFamily/

I have noticed this page is sorely out of date, but since i only came yesterday i do not have the expertise, 'Wikification' knowlege, or guts to take on the task of editing such a large, prominent peice. Since you listed one of your interests as birds, i was hoping you might be interested in takling this project. You dont have to, of course, but i felt this topic should be brought up

P.S. Is there a better place to put this information?

Thanks 04:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Common name capitalization

Back in the spring I was working on some fish articles, and someone moved them all to title capitalization (the infamous one being Neon Tetra instead of Neon tetra). AFAICT this is not mandated anywhere in the ToL pages, and it violates Wikipedia standards about using normal English sentence capitalization for article titles. I was told back then that capitalizing everything was the new standard for ToL. However, from looking around, it doesn't seem like most articles follow this (undocumented) standard. Can anyone help me out? —Tkinias 18:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation is the agreed standard for birds, with a mandatory lower case redirect. AFAIK there is no agreed stanadard for other groups, although there are some de facto ones, such as cetacean, which are all capitalised. I'm not the most assiduous follower of ToL, so you may be right about caps for everything asa new standard, which I would approve of. Fish in general, though, have been the bastion of lower case common nemes. jimfbleak 19:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe this is somewhere ornithologists and ichthyologists disagree? I'm not an ichthyologist, just a hobbyist, but I've never seen all-caps for common names outside of Wikipedia. The OED doesn't, Britannica doesn't, FishBase doesn't, ITIS doesn't, and none of the hobbyist's references I have here do. Where does this "standard" come from? I'm just frustrated with the inconsistency, since I was forced to do something that nobody else seems to be doing, and there seems to be a one-man campaign to force capitalization. —Tkinias 20:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think lower case is largely American (sometimes "american"!} style. All my dozens of bird books use caps, including the NAm ones. The bird agreement was at least two years ago, so I'm not sure that I could easily track it down , althougn I'll try to do so if it's important. It may not be idea, but it seems to be the case that different animal groups have different practices as well as the NAm/other differences. I don't think in practice that standardisation is even possible. For exanmple, there are 2-3,000 bird articles, some of which have species lists with up to 3000 named species. I'm sure a similar situation applies for fish, mammals and plants at least. jimfbleak 20:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not disagreeing on the birds, just saying that generalizing from birds to fish doesn't work. (Even if the cladists tell us birds are really fish *grin*). Oh, and don't tell OED and Britannica they're following American style... —Tkinias 20:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There was once a "push to generalize" out from birds to the whole of Animalia from some (including me). However others pointed out it wasn't really appropriate, particularly for fish. I think the best thing to hope is consistency across "large-ish" taxa. Caps for birds (this is an agreed standard), caps for mammals in scientific contexts but don't bother in less scientific articles (this is probably best described as a de facto standard, but I think defensible), no caps for fish (because no-one else does). Pcb21| Pete 23:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I will try to keep the fish I work on consistent with that then. —Tkinias 01:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree; I don't believe there is any reason to capitalize common names, unless they include a proper noun or adjective. As mentioned above, this is consistent with the OED and Britannica, as well as standard biology textbooks and indeed any source I've ever come across. I don't doubt the ornithology books, but this practice of capitalizing avian common names does not seem to have been embraced even by the scientific community, not to mention the larger academic community or lay publishing in general. I especially see no reason for capitalizing mammalian names in general or cetaceans specifically. In my opinion it would be simpler and more consistent, both within Wikipedia and without, to use lower case. The fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, admittedly a North American work, has the following to say: "8.136 Common names. For the correct capitalization of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127. In any one work, a single source should be followed. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary" (the examples given are Dutchman's-breeches, mayapple, jack-in-the-pulpit, rhesus monkey, Rocky Mountain sheep, and Cooper's hawk). Of course scientific names, except for species names, should be capitalized, as CMS also states. I of course understand that individual groups may have separate views about their field of interest, but I advocate a less complicated, more accepted approach. Furthermore, in my opinion, capitalizing common nouns (common as in not a proper noun) in the middle of the sentence looks unprofessional (for instance, "A group of Bottlenose Dolphins, apparently sensing danger to the swimmers..."). Finally, I should mention that it seems quite odd to me that there would even be a discussion concerning capitalization of vernacular animal and plant names. It never occurred to me that anyone would want to capitalize them. I admit I have not read any books specifically on ornithology; however, I have read quite a large amount of scientific literature, in addition to popular literature, and I can think of no examples of this. I know this comment is long, and it is not my inention to offend, but in short, my proposal is this: vernacular names of all plants and animals should be in lower case, unless 1) it contains a proper noun or adjective, which should be capitalized (a dictionary like the OED or Merriam-Webster can help give guidance), or 2) an authoritative source such as the ICBN or ICZN recommends such capitalization. Perhaps a bit broad, but it makes sense to me. What are your thoughts? — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 03:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Reverting to no-indent...) Naturally, I agree with User:Knowledge Seeker. I note that, unfortunately, the Oxford Style Manual (a UK style manual) gives no guidance on the specific subject of capitalizing common names. OED, of course, does not capitalize them. ICBN/ICZN I don't think concern themselves at all (and from what I've seen avoid mentioning) common names. I note that ICZN docs on their Web site downcase anglicized versions of names of higher taxa -- therefore, "the Centrarchidae" but "this fish is a centrarchid". I've proposed a standard specifically for fish at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes, but there's not been much response. —Tkinias 03:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Survey of several on-line taxonomic sources: NCBI Entrez, University of Michigan Animal Diversity Web, Tree of Life Project, and Integrated Taxonomic Information System all uniformly use lower-case common names for taxa of all levels. So do the journals Nature, American Journal of Botany, International Journal of Plant Sciences (just some for which I had easy on-line access). I could not readily determine if Science has a policy on this since I didn't find any unambiguous use in their on-line number. I found no use of capitalized common names in any on-line taxonomic sources I checked. The only use I have seen is in things like bird-watcher' books and aquarium hobbyists' works; apparently capitalization is a standard in specialist ornithological works, but I don't have access to any of that. (Maybe some of our ornithologists could provide journal names which use this standard?) —Tkinias 04:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This isn't so much a conflict between American and British/Australian etc usage; it is more a conflict between old-fashioned (what I would regard stick-in-the-mud) dictionary usage, and rather more modern popular field guide usage, with the latter setting the recent trend to capitalisation for excellent practical reasons (as have been outlined here before on numerous occasions; look through the archives). Pretty well all field guides that I have seen, whatever the group (plants, birds, fish, etc, etc) on all continents (including North America) capitalise names, and have done so for 30-40 years at least. The dictionaries are quite simply out of date here (I can also if desired find plenty of cases of dictionaries failing to keep up-to-date usage of e.g. scientific names in their pages; dictionary compilers just don't appear to have a clue when it comes to modern sciences).
How far back field guide capitalisation rules go I don't know exactly, but my parents' old The Observer's Book of Sea Fishes (1958) capitalises all common names fully.
One excellent reason for doing so is uniformity of capitalising in a list, instead of having seemingly random or arbitary capitalisation; uniform capitalisation is on a par with uniform treatment of scientific names (Genus upper case, species lower case), where scientific conventions over-ride traditional grammatical rules.
Another is that there are a large number of cases where determining whether a species name is derived from a proper noun or not is impossible, or at the very least, extremenly difficult to know. Should, for example, Pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) be capitalised or not under dictionary rules? Or Koyamaki (Podocarpus macrophylla)? Do you know enough Maori or Japanese etymology to say? I certainly don't, and I don't think anyone should be expected to have to find out, either.
Third, and perhaps the most important of all, is that capitalisation helps distinguish the general from the specific. A Common Tern is a particular species (Sterna hirundo), while a common tern refers to any species of tern that happens to be common in an area (where I am, Sandwich Tern is a common tern, but it isn't a Common Tern). - MPF 14:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whistling duck

There is something of an edit war starting with User:Mario and Dario on Anseriformes, Anatidae and the various whistling duck species' pages. I posted the following on their talk page:

I noticed that you made changes to Penguin (new species) and Anseriformes. Usually we follow the taxonomy of Handbook of birds of the world (list available on-line). Where we want to show an alternative view, we normally make it as a comment in the next.
I've done this with the whistling duck, since your change makes it inconsistent with related pages and with Wildfowl of the world. I've left the penguin species for now. On the relevant talk pages, could you please indicate the sources for the proposed changes? Many thanks, jimfbleak 06:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi again. The problem with ITIS is that it is a bit eccentric, and, as a USDA source, strongly linked to one country. Unfortunately, the USA taxonomy is also the one most out of step with the rest of the world, which is why we settled on HBW as the standard source. HBW

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life

Unfortunately, their only response has been to revert my changes, which I thought were a fair compromise. Any views? Should the relevant pages be protected pending resolution? jimfbleak 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...unfortunately, my knowledge of ornithology is not strong enough to be able to offer factual support to either side. However, it looks like you have good evidence for your version. What I'd recommend is for each of the pages involved, explain on the article's talk page your reasoning, including documenting your sources if possible. Then go ahead and update the article in line with your ideas, including a statement about alternate views as you did before, if its appropriate (that is, if it's seriously a controversial topic). In your edit summary, I would very briefly explain the edit and make a note to discuss changes in the talk section before making them. If that doesn't work, or if this is too much or unfeasible, then protection may be necessary. Hopefully good documentation and explanation, along with vigilance, will suffice. Also—are there any other ornithologists who can help out here? — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ (talk)]] 05:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category and article names

I haven't found any guidelines on this in the project page or in the talk archives, but if it's there just point me in the right direction, please! *grin*

There seems not to be consistency regarding the anglicization of names for higher taxa. Since I'm working on fishes (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes), I'm primarily concerned with them, where the family names are normally of the form Fooidae and the order names of the form Fooiformes, where both derive from the generic name Foous (or Fooa). It is common to anglicize the family name as "fooid", and (less so) the order name as "fooiform". Should articles and categories be using Fooidae/Fooiformes or fooid/fooiform? The Latin forms violate the singular and the English-language rules for article names, but in some cases the anglicized forms just look a bit odd. The plural angicized order names in particular look strange, because they look like misspellings of the Latin forms (Fooiforms for Fooiformes). In most cases, the anglicized systematic names are the only unambiguous English names available (how else, for example, to distinguish Perca, Percinae, Percidae, and Perciformes?). I'd like to do cleanup on this as I go through the taxa, but I'm not sure which to standardize on. What does the ToL community think about this?

One way to handle it might be to use (singular) anglicizations for article names and (plural) Latin forms for categories.

(On a related subject, can one anglicize a subfamily name of form Fooinae as "fooine"—e.g., can one refer to the "percine fishes" for fishes of subfamily Percinae?) —Tkinias 03:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a whack at this. The preferred article title should be the common English language name for the group. Barring that, it should be the formal taxon name. The anglicized terms can be used casually through the article, and yes, "fooid" and "fooin" are perfectly acceptable casual terms for creatures classified in "Fooidae" and "Fooinae", with acceptible adjectival forms being "fooide" and "fooine". I'd guess the same could be said about "fooiform" and "Fooiformes", but since I primarily work with primates and cephalopods, I don't encounter the -iformes ending very often. Categories are less rigorous and generally less formal. For instance, look at the category tree starting at Category:Primates. On the other hand, there's way many more fish taxa than there are primate taxa, so you'll want someting more than what I've got. lso, I'll probably want to add some finer granularity if all the primate artices are created. - UtherSRG 04:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Common names

I'd like to get a feeling for peoples like or dislkie for the 'always used common names' paradigm. I don't like is for a few reasons:

  1. Common names aren't universal, and it irks me when an article's name gets changed to the USDA PLANTS common name especially when that plants isn't from the US or a significant agricultural or horticultural species there.
  2. The same common name is applied to different species in different countries, like Mountain Ash or wood duck (there is also an Australian wood duck Chenonetta jubata).

I think a better system would be to have redirects to the species or disambiguation pages where a common name applies to many species. Since wikipedia isn't paper an integrated system of cross referencing shouldn't be a problem, nor should updating if name changes occurs. Let me know what you think, and I'll decide if I should take this on to the Village Pump--nixie 04:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been in favor of this for some time. Go for it! -- WormRunner | Talk 06:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, let's have some of the plant and bird folks weigh in on this one. - UtherSRG 12:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd very much like to go with scientific names for the individual articles, certainly for plants. What Nixie points out is true; it'll also promote accuracy, and add A LOT to the reputation of wikipedia as a serious reference source. Just wishing I'd joined wikipedia before the 'use common names' was settled on! It'll be a huge task to move everything now, but I'll be happy to help do so. Birds, I'm not quite so sure; even some surprisingly high-powered ornithological journals use common names more than scientific names (typically a species is referred to by both common and scientific at the first mention, and thereafter only by the common) - MPF 13:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, this is a never-ending story. We have agreed upon rules in the past, with in the end as golden rule : use your common sense. I agree with MPF. I use the scientific name for the title, unless the common name is really commonly known and indicates univocally the taxon discussed. Anyway, when I use a scientific name as title, I put an eventual common name on top in the taxobox. Scientific names in titles also have the advantage of easily being found by bots, linking the diverse Wikipedias. BTW, have any of you noted that our Tree of Life-articles are being taken more and more seriously by the rest of the world ? For instance, the article on the orchid family Orchidaceae, where I and several others have worked on, is mentioned as reference on On-line orchid references, in the company with the best, such as Kew, IUCN and several other great orchid sites. We have the eyes of the world upon us. Therefore we must have a correct and uniform standard for naming taxons. If the rules of the past don't agree with several of us, then the discussion is wide open again. But if we have to change the rules again, the task of changing the existing articles will be gargantuan. Better think twice. JoJan 14:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)