Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 13

REFERENCES!!!

I hope it's not frowned on to delete a big chunk of my own writing here. Found answers for some of the questions I had.

I'm really bothered by the lack of references in Wikispecies. Lots of genera with species lists, but no indication where the list came from. Tons of species pages with no references whatsoever. Information is useless without a source.

I'm also bothered by the lack of templates for references (lack of templates perhaps being why references are so little used?) Why isn't there a template for Species Plantarum? Templates are used extensively for the Taxonavigation, but are basically nonexistent for references. The templates for USDA PLANTS and ARS-GRIN create a link to the website, but don't provide a full biblographic reference. Amphibian Species of the World and Mammals Species of the World have nice templates. As a newbie, should I make a USDA PLANTS template that gives a complete citation? Would people use it if I did?

I'd like to add species pages to some plant genera, but by using available web-based resources, I'm not going to be able to create a complete, global list of species in the genus. The major references being used for vascular plants at Wikispecies, ARS-GRIN, and to a lesser extent, USDA-PLANTS, are not exhaustive lists of world species, nor do they purport to be. More exhaustive references (e.g. IPNI) don't provide any information about synonymy

I kind of feel like it's better to leave a genus page uncreated (red link), which at least alerts people to the fact that it needs work, than it is to create a genus page with a partial/regional list of species. Should I bother adding partial lists of species to genus pages? AndrewT 06:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point concerning lack of references and I take responsibility for the primitive state of the USDA PLANTS and ARS-GRIN reference templates. I had hoped someone with more template experience would improve them or, after I had used them on a couple of pages, I could at least go back with a bot and fix them using a list from "What links here" after I made a more sophisticated template... it just hasn't happened yet but you're more than welcome to improve the templates. The English Wikipedia probably has reference templates for some of these exact websites, like they do for ITIS, so we could probably just copy them. But the core issue is, should I even reference USDA PLANTS in the first place? I'm more of a programmer than biologist and not a taxonomist at all so I couldn't tell a Cronquist system from AGP-II classification. The PLANTS website provides a checklist file with 90,000+ entries, while IPNI wants you to contact them if you're going to pull down more than 5,000 plus records and they say you can use the data *inside* your own organization (so they may not like us harvesting their database and basically posting it on this alternative website - see http://www.ipni.org/conditions_of_use.html It seems safer using a government (USDA, presumably public domain) site (PLANTS) if I'm going to use large batches of their info - that way no one feels that we might divert web traffic from them (which maybe one of the justifications used in grant applications?). I hope contributors with taxonomy experience say which sites are the most appropriate for Wikispecies' use and say so here: Help:Project sources. So far I've found ITIS/Species2000 to be the most comprehensive but therefore most general so maybe say, a vascular plant taxonomist, would know it's not the most up-to-date for his specialty so database X is better? --Georgeryp 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess if I'm using the PLANTS and ARS-GRIN templates, I should refrain from embedding the in a full bibliographic citation, like I did on Nyssa? Otherwise, if the template is later expanded, there will be a superfluous citation.

I think PLANTS and ARS-GRIN are fine sites to reference. Usage conditions aren't too much of a worry. They've got a lot of data (with some overlap between the two). Neither is a complete list of all the species in the world. PLANTS covers North American species, pretty much completely. ARS-GRIN covers a wide range of species from around the world, but is far from complete. IPNI is a (complete for practical purposes) list of all the plants NAMES in the world. Unfortunately, IPNI doesn't tell you anything about synonymy. A name in IPNI could be regarded as a good species, considered a synonym by a minority of botanists, or universally rejected as a synonym since the day it was published. Without further research, you can't tell. I would avoid using IPNI for a species list. However, IPNI would be a good source for author/publication citations for species listed elsewhere.

Unfortunately, there is no global checklist for plants. There are global species lists for some groups, but in many cases there may not be a better general reference than PLANTS/ARS-GRIN.

ITIS is the single largest contributor to Species2000. Excellent for some groups, woefully incomplete for others. ITIS mostly draws information from other databases, so it may be better to see who ITIS cites for a particular group and go with that as a source. All their information about plants comes from (an older version of) the PLANTS database, so for plants, ITIS isn't really worth bothering with.

Species2000 pulls from several other databases SP2K besides ITIS. These may be good sources to consider for some groups.

AndrewT 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tasks

Is there any maintenance tasks which I could perform. Terra ^{What do you want?} 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Our ongoing task is to create more templates and articles. Recent change patrol also works. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the local wikignome and vandalwhacker; everybody else is an article writer. :-) Maxim_(talk) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} Mønobi 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin assistance

Can someone add a link to User:Monobi's RfA to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, please? Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag

I'd like to get a bot flag for MonoBot. The task I intend to do is to subst the {{Welcome}} so changes can be made to it if needed. Thoughts? Mønobi 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename it to WelcomeBot? You need MonoBot for generating WikiSpecies articles, eh? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy on formatting

I spotted discrepancy on the formatting in taxonavigation section. Most species articles show the full name of the species name. However, templates in Help:Taxonavigation section show that they are shorthanded. Which one should we use? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a very good point here. My opinion is to use the abbreviated form, which is the standard notation for species. The full name is anyway specified in the "name" section. One way or the other we must reach a definitive conclusion and it should be articulated in the help section to prevent ambiguity and impose standardization.

Mariusm 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And how about the ones in image caption? Full name or abbreviated name? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we must use the full name on images because the genus is not always obvious (as in the case of an image in a family page).
Speaking of standardization there's another point to settle: author formating -- some editors write it in the form of "Homo Sapiens (Linnaeus, 1758)" while others use "Homo Sapiens Linnaeus, 1758" I think the brackets are superfluous, and we should use the second form. Again it should be clearly specified in the help section.

Mariusm 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When do we use the brackets around the author? This puzzles me a lot but I never asked. And some have Linnaeus all capitalized. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it was my ranting on Talk:Panthera tigris triggered Mariusm's post. Parentheses are important, not superfluous. The short version is that parentheses appear around authors if the species has been moved from the genus it was originally described in. The long, technical version: ICZN

"Homo Sapiens (Linnaeus, 1758)" was in another genus when originally described. The parentheses tells you that you aren't going to find "Homo sapiens" if you look through Linnaeus's book (species will be "sapiens", but in a different genus). "Homo Sapiens Linnaeus, 1758" tells you that "Homo sapiens" actually appears as such in Linnaues. If you're using a good source, you should just be able to follow it for presence or absence of parentheses for each species.

For plants, you'll may see something like "Scaveola taccada (Gaertn.) Ruxb.". Both the author in parentheses and the author following the parentheses should be cited. In this case, Gaertn. described the species "taccada" in a different genus, as indicated by the parenthesis. Ruxb. moved "taccada" into Scaveola.

Animal authorship doesn't indicate the "combining author" (whoever moved a species with a parenthetical primary author into its current genus). Plant author citation doesn't include the year.

You may sometimes see authors listed as both "Smith" and "Jones ex Smith". The "pre ex author" can be left at a user's discretion. For the sake of completeness, I'd encourage citing with the pre ex author if a reference uses it. "Ex" is basically a way to give credit. "Jones ex Smith" can be interpreted as "Jones thought this was a species, but didn't get around to formally publishing it. Smith published it".

In contrast to "ex", authors on both sides of an "in" should always be cited (e.g. "Smith in Jones and Lopez")

I assume by all capitalized you mean, small caps as in Linnaeus, not "LINNAEUS". I believe I've seen small caps used in taxonomic literature, but it's not common. I'd go with "Linnaeus". I've seen both small caps and mixed on Wikispecies, and mixed seems more common here.

AndrewT 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AndrewT, thanks for your enlightening explanation. I think it should be incorporated in the help section. I myself use here the small caps (Linneaus - using the template "aut") because it is encouraged in the help section, and because it makes the author name stand out next to the species name. The help section is very ambiguous about all this.

AndrewT, being obviously a knowledgable person regarding taxonomic issues, can you please tell us what you think about adding a distribution (range) section to a species page. I think it is an essential info, and we are loosing a lot not adding it to our data.

Mariusm 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, distribution information is kind of nice to see. However, my understanding is that Wikispecies is supposed to only present "essential" taxonomic information. Distribution information is not "essential" taxonomic data, so as I understand the Wikispecies mission, it should not be included. Range of species change over time, as habitat and climate change, and as the species are introduced to new regions. Our knowledge of distributions is imperfect, and as biologists study new areas, known range of a given species is likely to expand. Since knowledge of distributions is always imperfect, it's not something taxonomists are really concerned with (at least when they're publishing as taxonomists; somebody may be interested in knowing exactly where a species they've described is found, but that is a separate matter from the basic taxonomy). As others have mentioned here, including distributions also raises issues of language independence.

Speaking of "essential" taxonomic data, why images are part of the Wikispecies standards? The images I've seen don't really have much taxonomic value.

A special case could be made for images that are types (a type specimen can be an image, although this is relatively uncommon, and subject to several further rules). Other figures from the original publication may also have some taxonomic merit. Descriptions of fossil plants (after 1912) and algae (after 1958) must be accompanied by an illustration, so these specific images would be taxonomically important. Also (in botany), figures in the original publication could be considered as a replacement (lectotype) should the original type be lost or destroyed. Copyright may of course mean that images that are types and figures from the original publication are not available for use on Wikispecies.

Barring these special cases, widespread use of images on Wikispecies feels to me like a creeping expansion of the overall narrow focus of Wikispecies. What is the rationale for including so many images?

AndrewT 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, as I see right now from the model pages which supplied our expert, AndrewT, and having no one else contributing to this discussion, I think we should use the full species form, rather then the abbreviated one. (This form is anyway represented in the majority of the pages). As for the author format - it is more complicated then I thought before, but the rough form would be "Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758, while refferences will look like Linnaeus, 1758: bla bla... Can we agree on that do you think? Mariusm 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't wiki-link if we use {{Aut}} on author's name. I agree that we use full form on the name section, but using it on taxonavigation section is a no-no. Using full form will make our templates on Help:Taxonavigation section totally useless. Also bear in mind that the page will get too long if there're quite a lot of subspecies and each subspecies is written out in full format. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited, I think you got things a little mixed-up... The debate was only on the format of the "Species: Homo sapiens" line at the species page, and not on the list of species on the genus page, which shall remain abbreviated... As for Linnaeus, it is linkable, but the practice here is to leave names on book and article references free of links. Mariusm 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about Homo sapiens sapiens. Should the subspecies name in the taxonavigation section be "H. s. sapiens" and not "Homo sapiens sapiens"? (I'm not talking about page name) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just been following the Wikispecies model as shown on Panthera tigris in the taxonavigation section on the Stapelianthus pages I've worked on. I really have no objections to the structure of the taxonavigation section. As far as I'm concerned, precedence for establishing any Wikispecies guidelines should be:

1. Explicit/mandatory practices in the nomenclatural codes (ICBN ICZN) (e.g., parentheses around author names)
2. Well established practice on Wikispecies
3. Implicit/(recommended?) practices in the nomenclatural codes
4. Emerging practices on Wikispecies (not yet widespread or well discussed)

Use of abbreviations like H. sapiens is certainly allowed (but not mandated) by the codes, and they both make widespread use of abbreviations in their examples (implicit practice). Taxonomists may also avoid using abbreviations; the paper I was using for Stapelianthus never abbreviated "Stapelianthus" as "S.", although almost every name in the paper was in that genus. Using abbreviations is good for saving space. Check out Camponotus on ITIS for the largest (databased) genus I know of; this page sure uses a lot of space.

Anyway, I think the taxonavigation exemplified by Panthera tigris is great. If that isn't being consistently followed, then it would be good to achieve consensus on proper presentation format. I like having the line in taxonavigation corresponding to the current page as "Species: Panthera tigris" (not abbreviated), but with children (the subspecies) shown in abbreviated format. I think the examples in Help:Taxonavigation section and Help:Project Templates already make it clear that this is the format to use.AndrewT 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion for a better Main Page

Please look here [see the pre-edited version[1] before I had to remove a copyvio. -EV] for a suggetion of a revamped Main Page, which hopefuly will be more attractive. Of course it's only a rough draft, and it should be updated every week. Any comments? ... Mariusm 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So we are using the Wikipedia-style as main page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The layout seems more in-line with other wiki projects. And it looks cool. Except the taxonavigation bit is ugly like that, and I'm not sure we want the news items like species in the news, new species discovered, etc. Also we did have a vote for species of the month/week/year/whatever, and it didn't make it. --Kempm 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "taxonavigation" looks too big and too bright, imo. (I'm using firefox 2.0 with 1024 X 768 pixels) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Made some adjustments. Is it better like that, OhanaUnited? Mariusm 08:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the symbol again in the welcome box? And the split boxes aren't divided evenly. The top 2 boxes are divided about 70/30 and the bottom ones (species of the week, species in news, etc.) are divided about 60/40. Plus words in "Wikispecies in other languages" are so tiny. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have any suggestions. It looks good. One thing: Aureophycus alueticus should be Aureophycus aleuticus. It would be good to not to have any red links on the main page, but I don't want to see a page started based on a misspelling. From Google, it looks like this misspelling came from NOAA. Grrr, NOAA. They constantly have typos in their gray literature.AndrewT 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressed the criticism: removed the duplicate logo etc., but I feel people here (apart from OhanaUnited and AndrewT) aren't interested in improving the looks and feel of Wikispecies, or aren't really concerned about this site at all, which is a pity... Mariusm 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true Marius :) The Wikispecies community is only very small, and not many people read these pages. But all work is always appreciated. I believe some users like user:Open2universe are on holiday, so give it some time. --Kempm 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that we don't have the community to do this sort of thing (do up DYKs, write up featured species blurbs, find and write about species in the news, etc) in any language other than English. I think there are some good ideas here, but they need to be done differently (and for the record, I'm not a fan of the superfluous imagery; there seems to be very little rhyme or reason to them, and they don't look particularly good in Safari). If I weren't so busy in real life (see my wiki-break notice on en.wp) I might take a crack at it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Arg, I hate to be an ass, but copying/pasting content constitutes a copyvio; I've removed the snake story because it was ripped from elsewhere.[2] The "New species discovered" blurb is ripped from a government website[3], but I'm allowing that under an assumption that it's in the public domain. I realize it's just to show off the new layout, which is why I wouldn't think to block you or anything over this, but copyright violations are a strict destroy-on-sight sort of thing. You can still look at the history to see what it looked like before I removed it.[4] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The foreign words looks better now. Species of the week wouldn't be hard, consider that I write Signpost every week. For the remaining sections, we can update whenever we feel like it. I was browsing through other sister projects and found that Wikisource has same selected text for the duration of an entire month. (And I realized that WikiSpecies is the only project which has all 3 colours of WMF, apart from meta.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

EVula - I re-wrote the "species in the news" item, so it won't infringe on copyright issues. As for a weekly update - I'm willing to take it upon myself to do this - although my mother-tongue isn't English, and I shall probably need some editing... Mariusm 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed (possibility of sockpuppet)

I suspect a sockpuppet on loose in our project. It all started with me deleting Diplocardia due to improper formatting. Then User:124.169.1.153 added a notice on my talk page and telling me not to delete the page.[5] 124.169.1.153 recreated the page with exact contents. So I deleted it again due to recreation of exact deleted contents. This time, User:203.59.66.225 comes to my talk page and leave a similar message urging me not to delete stuff. So I finally went to that article and correct the format. 203.59.66.225 added 2 species and some comments, which I removed them. 124.169.75.64 added them back, citing "Undo fascist revision 414187 by OhanaUnited (Talk)"[6] and went to my talk page citing to "educate OhanaUnited" [7] Furthermore, those 2 IPs edited the same article Neotrigaster, which made me further believe that these 2 IPs are linked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence that Diplocardia was created on 04 March 2008 on en.wikipedia.org too? --Georgeryp 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This would require a cross-wiki checkuser, I believe, per OhanaUnited's evidence. Get a steward with permanent CU permissions on enwiki to do it. I suggest someone like meta:User:Lar. Maxim_(talk) 11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request is made on Requests for CheckUser information. Result pending. Should we semi-protect this page in the meantime? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for two weeks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please could You explain why a checkuser would be needed here? Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To see if Graeme Bartlett (on en.wp) is the puppet master of those 2 IPs. It's more effective to leave a note to a registered user urging him to remain civil than leaving a note on IP talk pages. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still can't see a need for checkuser, where are suspected puppets, You are talking about one account on another wiki and 2 IP adresses here, this is not really socketpuppeting... Checkuser is not for fishing, sorry, I decline a check here (what would You want to check here anyway, fish for accounts?), maybe You can convince a cu in en.wiki to do that check there for You, I won't see a need for it, (besides what would You do as consequence if he was useing those IP adresses? block him on en.wiki? for? block his IPs here? - for the latter You don't even need a cu, because You know the IPs...) best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The connection between me and 203.59.66.225 is that 203.59.66.225 contributed an article at en:WP:AFC at 16:37, 4 March 2008, which I accepted as an article in the English Wikipedia, and created for that IP editor on request. Read en:WP:AFCP to find out more about the Articles for Creation project! There is no sockpuppet relation at all. Just editors cooperating to create an article.Graeme Bartlett 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup required

An anon IP (84.84.150.164) created a lot of species page but they aren't in proper format. Instead of deleting them all, let's dive right in and clean them up. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC) "It all started by me deleting Diplocardia for improper formatting..." Surely then the problem is with OhanaUnided? Why vandalize and entry rather than just fixing up format? You do not own Wikispecies, nor do you know anything about the family nor species, nor ofr that matter, the genus Diplocardia. Look to yourself!

Example Pages, Help and Section Guidelines

I find my self having to set my own examples if I want to build a page. Taxonavigation system has well defined by standards, but there are only minimal guidelines for the other sections. I'd like to see more discussion of guidelines and attempt to find a consensus.

1. Ideal pages. I would like to see more ideal pages highlighted. I'd like to see at least 1 page for each of the codes (ICBN, ICZN, ICNB/plant, animal, bacteria), and preferably, a genus, species and subspecies page for each code. Each code does things slightly differently, it would be good to have some examples of that.

2. Example pages. Panthera tigris and Lonchophylla orcesi don't have a whole lot in the Name. Entering Stapelianthus decaryi, I had trouble finding examples to follow to deal with: a lectotype, a holotype with no museum, and citing a type that is an illustration. Stapelianthus pilosus added isotypes into the mix. No real world "ideal page" is going to have all the information that would be appropriate to add a species page (syntypes and paratypes, for example, are mutually exclusive). I've been playing around with User:AndrewT/Name Section1 as an example of a maximally data rich name section. Most of the data shown wouldn't be applicable to the taxonomy of any one species, but I think any of it could be appropriate on Wikispecies if it were applicable. Does anybody else think there's merit in developing a large example page to show case different formatting guidelines/suggestions?

3. Help Looking at Panthera tigris and Lonchophylla orcesi, as guidelines, I see formats being followed implicitly that aren't explicitly addressed in the Help pages. Assuming there is consensus on these formats it would be good if Help mentioned it explicitly. Can anybody confirm the following?

• "Type locality: " "Holotype: ", "Lectotype: ". I gather the format guideline is to have first letter capitalized, other words lower case, a colon, a space, and a blank line above and below any of the pieces of information in the Name section besides the name itself? No italics or bold (I've seen some Type locality: and Basionym:)? No period at the end of a line (i.e., "Type locality: Java" not "Type locality: Java.")?
• "References", "Synonyms", "Vernacular names". Are these section headings always pluralized, even if there's only 1 item in them? Panthera tigris shows that to be the case with "Synonyms", but Lonchophylla orcesi only has a single "Reference". Help:General Wikispecies discusses a "References section", versus Help:Reference section

4. To discuss guidelines, is it better to post on Village Pump, or do people actually monitor Wikispecies talk:Policy and Help talk:Name section? AndrewT 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I need some time to digest all these materials before I can comment on them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the help section isn’t adequate – especially as the overwhelming majority of contributors aren’t really experienced in taxonomy to say the least. What is sorely needed are examples – of familia, genus species and subspecies, so an editor can quickly copy and paste and perform only the changes needed for the specific species at hand - so they don't need to build pages from scratch. AndrewT, Since you seem to be the most knowledgeable person among us, can you please post here what to your best judgment are the thorough and complete example pages, so we can comment on that and reach a consensus?. After debating on these example pages, we shall need to place them in the help section.

Mariusm 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular names and Wiktionary

Looking at the vernacular names section of pages here, for example Homo sapiens, I can see benefit in linking to Wiktionary to provide more detail on the usage of the words.

If so it will need to be decided whether to link to the Wiktionary for the language of the word in question, e.g. wiktionary:en:human, wiktionary:de:Mensch; or to the entry on the English Wiktionary for all, e.g. wiktionary:en:human, wiktionary:en:Mensch; or to link to both.

If possible (and I don't know whether it is) then the English Wiktionary link should be replaced with the Wiktionary of the language the user has chosen to have their interface language as - i.e. if the user has chosen in their preferences to use French as their interface language, then it would make sense to link to the French Wiktionary rather than the English.

I'm new to Wikispecies, so I'm sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere before. Thryduulf 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionary is a start. The problem with linking to wiktionary is that wikispecies is a multi-lingual project. The only way I could think to make this possible would be to bug the devs about the interwikis link. For example, [[en:<name>]] will link to the English Wikipedia and will produce the little header "On wikipedia" in the sidebar. However you could add [[wikt:en:<name>]] but the "On wikipedia" header will still be there. That's my thoughts. I'd support this if their was a practical way to do it. Mønobi 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Wiktionarian here. We have many entries that are "Translingual", principally scientific names. We are unlikely to ever be successful at maintaining whole taxonomic hierarchies whatever ambitions folks might have, but are likely to want to have the individual words used in taxonomies. Translingual is not pan-lingual. It uses the Latin alphabet, as does Wikispecies. The principal reason to link to those would be that we would have an etymology, usually through Latin. I would think that you would prefer to link to the appropriate language Wiktionary for each vernacular (at least until users can select a target preferentially). en.wiktionary hosts a number of languages besides English, things like Scots, Tok Pisin, Jamaican Creole, Classical Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English (which have no home elsewhere at present and are derived from English or ancestral to English). We also have many German, French, Finnish, Italian, Spanish words (with English definitions) and would like to be able to link from those to Wikispecies. I would thank that we could manage some wholesale transfers of information to facilitate linking.

Monobi's RFA

Is due to be closed. Could I oblige a crat to do the deed? ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can use another active 'crat? There are many 'crats that exists, but most of them are inactive, except Open2universe. Maxim_(talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Or may be add +crat to all admins as they do at the spanish wikipedia. The tasks here for 'crats are really simple and we can trust all admins to do them. Maxim_(talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of smaller projects do that. With this being such a low-key project it couldn't hurt. Mønobi 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that you can +bureaucrat to admin. I guess we can go towards that direction since nobody is requesting for username change or approving bots. But how can we change this setting? Do we have to go through yet another community approval vote? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For new users they can request both sysop & 'crat at the same time I'd say. For the current sysop, I think it'd be best if they re-stood (which really shouldn't be any problems, no controversial things here ;) ). Mønobi 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is community consensus to do it, I'll make some more bureaucrats. I'll also promote Monobi tonight. Note that in the beginning, new admins were automatically granted bureaucrat status, but I stopped to do that, for reasons I have forgotten. We do have quite some bureaucrats, but most (including myself) are not quite active. Ucucha (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit this project has quite a high admin-to-crat ratio. Look at en.wp. They have ~1500 admins but only 26 crats (not counting the recent week's outburst of crat noms). But I think we can go for admins=crats in this project because there's virtually no chance to abuse once they're bureaucrat, plus we have a quiet project here. If we need more bureaucrats, I will self-nom myself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but you're still the fresh meat of admins. :P I'd be more than happy to request 'cratship if we need another one, but I think this only comes up every once and a while. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:p I really don't have any strong opinions on it. It might be useful, but than again there isn't much of a need. Also, I don't think Ucucha was talking about just promoting me, but the other sysops too. Mønobi 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about promoting you to adminship. However, if there is community consensus, I will of course also promote bureaucrats, though I don't actually think there is much of a need for more bureaucrats, seeing that (basically) the only thing they have to do is promoting a unanimously supported admin candidate from time to time. Ucucha (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to oppose on this? If there's no oppose then that's the consensus. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on RfB %

Since en.wp sparked a controversy where the majority of editors think 90% (85-89% is discretionary zone) is too high to become a bureaucrat yet most bureaucrats vow for status quo. (See en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar) My question is, what is the % to become a crat here? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. It has never come up, since we have never had dedicated bureaucrat votes and only a handful of adminship votes which did not either have everyone supporting or everyone opposing. I think I'd go for 75% for admins and slightly more for bureaucrats (note that 90% would in practice mean "unanymous" on Wikispecies, at least with current numbers of votes). Ucucha (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Current precedents for adminship are as follows: 75% support (Totipotent): promoted (by me). 50% support (or 43% as one vote was discounted, Monobi 1): not promoted (by Open2universe). All others had 0% or 100% support. There are no real precedents for bureaucratship, as the only two dedicated votes were supported unanimously, though by only two voters. We might decide on a policy for this, to prevent future problems if close votes take place. Ucucha (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

80% seems good to me - as you say 90% is impossible, as would 85% be. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Block required !

Please some admin block 84.84.150.164 who's generating lots of garbage pages! Mariusm 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't merit a block. At least he took the time to read my message that I left in his talk page and he replied. He's learning. Look at his recent creations, they're a bit better formatting than before. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This IP is now User:PeterR. Any concerns regarding this IP's contribution may be redirected to Peter's talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sysop flag

I propose removing the sysop flag from:

1. User:Dan Koehl - last edits in Sept 2005
2. User:UtherSRG - last edits in June 2006
3. User:Benedikt - last edits in Dec 2006
4. User:Brion VIBBER - last edits in 2006

for security purposes. Of course if they become active again they can request the flag back :) Mønobi 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I believe there may be even more than those listed... ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to contact any of these users? Maxim_(talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Brion to the list. Talked to him on IRC and he said it's fine to remove it. Mønobi 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident: I have cross-checked the admins and crats with the auto-generated list [8]. The list on WS:ADMIN is accurcate. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto - page creation

Discussion has been copied to Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval for centralized discussion OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

editing toolbox

would be very useful, like the one below the summary box on 'pedia. It'd be especially useful here, and could contain special items that would be useful on Wikispecies. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Do you want to copy the entire toolobox, or do you only want some specific characters? Maxim_(talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The top few layers, but the specialised characters would be useless. Also, I was thinking we could devise ones that would be useful on here especially. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see buttons for adding the Taxonavigation header, the genus, species, author templates, and the † symbol; These are all frequently used on new pages and all take a significant amount of time to created over and over. The addition of a tolbox withthese would speed and simplify page creation greatly. --Kevmin 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only but second this idea. How is it done? Lycaon 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit MediaWiki:Edittools. Maxim_(talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, rather, copy them from place like enwp, and make necessary modifications. I can do this this afternoon. 59.101.21.140 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above was me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the toolbox, please feel free to add some more items that would be useful. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job everyone!! These will reduce page creation time significantly and possibly reduce style variation. I just thought of anther Item which should be in the toolbox, a button for adding the Image template. Oh and one for nonbreaking spaces --Kevmin 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The toolbox really speeds up the process, could someone add a button for "Synonyms" and for the Genus template please?--Kevmin 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

vernacular capitalization: "Rainbow darter" vs. "Rainbow Darter"

I don't know if capitalizing all words e.g. "Rainbow Darter" is a policy that has developed on Wikispecies, but I would encourage editors to exactly follow the source in capitalizing a vernacular name, rather than imposing a Wikispecies capitalizing scheme on source data.

In some cases, "official" lists of vernacular names are published, with a consistent, explicit capitalization scheme. The American Ornithologist's Union produces a list of bird vernacular names (ex: "Black-capped Chickadee". The American Fisheries Society produces a list of fish species names (ex: "rainbow darter", or "Ozark darter"). Both the AOU and the AFS lists mandate a capitalization scheme, but their schemes are different. "rainbow darter" appears on ITIS, following their use of the AFS list (the book by Nelson et al.) There may be other groups of organisms that have "official" list of vernacular names that I am not aware of.

It looks like Wikispecies always capitalizes the first word of a vernacular, but following words are often lowercase. Although the AFS give the vernacular as "rainbow darter", I think Wikispecies usage of "Rainbow darter" is defensible, since this is how it would be written at the beginning of a sentence (e.g. "Rainbow darters are found in rivers...", but "The rainbow darter can be found in...".

I see that Wikipedia has articles at "Rainbow darter" and "King salmon" not "Rainbow Darter" or "King Salmon", so capitalizing all words doesn't even conform with interwiki links.

Full disclosure: I honestly don't care about vernaculars much, but I'm not exactly neutral here. Monobi's work on Etheostoma was an interesting choice of example. I was the person who entered "rainbow darter" in ITIS in 2005 (along with a lot of other fish data). There were some capitalized fish vernaculars, but we were working to change those. Not that Wikispecies has to follow ITIS's example, but at ITIS, we discussed capitalizing vernaculars, and decided to follow our source reference (AFS for fish), rather than coming up with our own capitalization scheme. I advocated this position at the time, and now I am advocating it here (with allowance for having the first word capitalized as is already widely done on Wikispecies). AndrewT 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I suggested Rainbow Darter remain as capitals for the beginning of both names was American English language rules state proper names are capitalized. If the AFS (and Wikipedia) has rules for capitalization, I'd defer to them. Sorry for the confusion........Pvmoutside 11:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I try to defer to what Wikipedia (in any language) uses for their article name or, if the name is the same as the species, what the body and/or infobox use. As these are the vernacular names localized to each individual language, using American English rules on, say, Dutch or German names doesn't strike me as a Good Idea. If that means the names aren't standardized, that's fine; the true purpose isn't a comparative display between them all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Making life a little easier...

There's a section which repeats itself on every species page, and it is: (for the example species Coleophora citrarga)

species: ''[[Coleophora citrarga]]''

== Name ==
''Coleophora citrarga'' [[Meyrick]] ,1934

I constructed a little template named "Sps" which is eqivalent to the three lines above. It takes advantage of the tamplate PAGENAME. So you have to type only:

{{Sps|Meyrick|1934}}

The first parameter being the author name and the second the year. You don't have to type the species name at all - it is taken automatically from the page's title.

So the template will generate the above 3 lines automatically! - A lot less of typing!

Any comments? ...

Mariusm 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The first problem, Im not sure if it would be major or not, is the large number of pages which are named "examplegenus (examplefamily)" or a similar combination. These are used for the many pages where the taxon name is already in use on a different wikispecies page for a different taxon with the same name. The template is great but the author didn't name the taxon the way the page is created. --Kevmin 10:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What if there are subspecies? Where are they going to fit into the middle? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are some problems:

1. What to do with subspecies
2. What if the format should be (Meyrick ,1934)
3. What about author format for plants which is different.

These problems can be taken care of (for instance by construting 3 different templates).

I just wanted to know what you think about the concept...

Mariusm 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens with multiple authors? Lycaon 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's another problem... If I only knew how to extract only the genus name from the binomal in the PAGENAME, I could include two more lines, and save some more typing. The problem is I'm new to templates and need some time to experiment... Perhaps someone here knows how to take only the first word out of a parameter in a template? Mariusm 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Improved Template

Made a template - spi which overcomes some of the above difficulties:

1. It can handle author parantheses format or no parantheses format.
2. It can handle multiple authors (up to 4 authors).

The first parameter tells the template which format to use:
1 -- 1 author, no parantheses
1p -- 1 author with parantheses
2 -- 2 authors no parantheses
2p -- 2 authors with parantheses
3 -- 3 authors no parantheses
3p -- 3 authors with parantheses
4 -- 4 authors no parantheses
4p -- 4 authors with parantheses

Examples: Suppose you want two authors with parantheses, then type:

{{spi|2p|Meyrick|Johns|1934}}

You'll get:

Species: ''[[Coleophora citrarga]]''

== Name ==
''Coleophora citrarga'' ([[Meyrick]] @ [[Johns]] ,1934)

Suppose you want 3 authors without parantheses, then type:

{{spi|3|Meyrick|Johns|Smith|1934}}

You'll get:

Species: ''[[Coleophora citrarga]]''

== Name ==
''Coleophora citrarga'' [[Meyrick]], [[Johns]] @ [[Smith]], 1934

Hope it will be useful... Mariusm 11:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Edittools

You may have noticed, but a new toolbox for editing has been imported for quick reference when editing. Please make adjustments, improvements and additions to this new feature. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good change. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag AND sysop flag for MonoBot

Discussion has been copied to Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval for centralized discussion OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life (EOL)

If you read the news recently, there's a new website that has similar goals as us, to categorize all species in the world. (You can read more at Encyclopedia of Life). At the moment, the database is filled with extensive information on fishes with images (even more than en.wp). Most info on EOL are cc-licensed. Is anyone interested in building a bot to extract info from EOL? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I Recently checked both ITIS and EOL (for Diastylis on Wikispecies, EOL and on ITIS.). The last two are both not up to date. ITIS can take years to catch up sometimes. I may probably be better to use taxon specific databases such as e.g. MSW3 or CWD. Lycaon 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

EOL released 3 weeks ago. Not bad for a new website. Oh yeah, EOL is combining Sp2000 and ITIS Catalogue of Life, Fishbase and the Assembling Tree of Life project of NSF. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree they released 3 weeks ago, but they didn't do that work in those three weeks. They've been at it it for more than half a tear now. They combined data from other sources, so the main work was the interface and the grabbing. I'm convinced, with the volunteers we have here, we can always outrun them in up-to-dateness. Completeness is being addressed (hopefully) soon with Mono's bots. Maybe we can combine EOL and the more specialized databases ;-). Lycaon 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more than just 1 bot to retrieve from one database, that's what I'm suggesting. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it might be time to bot-ize WS, to do tasks rapidly and constantly, so a Requests for bot approval page may sometime be needed, if not for the bureaucracy of another requests page, then for a central meeting place where we can discuss and request new automatons. ;) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did this afternoon. See Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of parentheses on author name

I've noticed lately many pages with errors in the author's name format.

Two formats are used (in animals):

1. Genus species (Author, year)
2. Genus species Author, year

The parentheses are to appear only when the original genus name assigned by the author is different from the genus name currently used.

For example:

Coleophora pagmana Toll, 1962 should be without parentheses because the genus name which Toll used originally was Coleophora and not something else.
Suppose now that Smith decided in 1965 to transform the species pagmana to a different genus - Abaraschia
Now the name will look like this: Abaraschia pagmana (Toll, 1962). Parentheses were added to mark the transition.

Be sure to follow this rule, to maintain the data correct!

Mariusm 09:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, therefore a page that is talking about Abaraschia pagmana (Toll, 1962), can only be complete when at least one synonym is giving, the original genus to which pagmana belonged to. --Kempm 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

the user PeterR is repeatedly making this mistake but he doesn't seem to understand me. Can someone help?

Mariusm 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Lycaon. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of conservation status icons

Panthera tigris
Conservation Status
Endangered

I suppose you are all aware of the importance in conservation of threatened species. There are 7 stages of threats to species existance:

1. Extinct: the last remaining member of the species has died, or is presumed beyond reasonable doubt to have died.
2. Extinct in the wild: captive individuals survive, but there is no free-living, natural population.
3. Critically endangered: faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the immediate future.
4. Endangered: faces a very high risk of extinction in the near future.
5. Vulnerable: faces a high risk of extinction in the medium-term.
6. Near Threatened: may be considered threatened in the near future
7. Least Concern: no immediate threat to the survival of the species.

Icons like the one at right (I modified it a little) are used in Wikipedia to denote species status (Set by IUCN - IUCN Red List of Threatened Species home)

What do you think of including these icons in Wikispecies?

Mariusm 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies is supposed to be language-neutral; popping an English image up there runs contrary to that. Furthermore, the conservation status for an animal isn't really within the scope of Wikispecies; we're a director of all species. Conservation status is best suited for an encyclopedia, which is why you'll see those on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• English is a problem? We discussed it before: people who don’t have the basic knowledge in English can’t contribute to Wikispecies, nor can benefit of it. English is a must for taxonomists, professionals or hobbyists alike. So the words “conservation” or “endangered” must be known to everyone who thinks of using this site.
• Encyclopedic feature? I really don’t think so – it doesn’t go into details, only tells us at a single glance what is the status of a species. You must admit that the format of a species page leaves a lot of white space at the page’s right hand, so why not make good use of it?

Mariusm 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but "there's whitespace there" isn't a particularly compelling argument; just because there's space doesn't mean we should just cram something in there, especially when it's information better suited (in my opinion) for Wikipedia. One could make an argument that the space would be better utilized by adding additional imagery to the article.

As for the use of English, you're not without merit, but your idea still requires understanding of eleven words plus seven abbreviations. I'd prefer to minimize our use of English as much as possible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a picture to show haw it will really look on the screen.

Mariusm 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this issue because EOL has this in their database while ITIS doesn't. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like it, but I'm a sucker for fancy graphics. I think we could make use of it in someway, if it could be fairly language neutral. Mønobi 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also neutral, though this is due to me mainly working on extinct and fossil taxa. My main concern is of the ~1.2 million species known, how many have been accessed? This would be a very spottily used template with no way of explaining why something is the status it is without sending people off site. --Kevmin 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not neutral. I am Strongly opposed. Wikispecies is supposed to be language-neutral, and that blatantly tarnishes that. Mariusm, your tone here is unrequired, and is disruptive, especially your boldened, coloured and yelled (that's what the exclamation points make it look like) remark. Settle down. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... removed that... Mariusm 09:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Panthera tigris
IUCN Red List: EN

Well, got the idea: no one is enthusiastic here. So maybe we can settle on a reduced version of the conservation status, which can look like this: (Every conservation stage will have a different color - and as a bonus - the picture framed like this looks a lot better)

Well what do you think now? Surely not a lot of English here...



Mariusm 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one better. Mønobi 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No colour please. En.wp is removing all taxo box colours using a bot. I'm now neutral but leaning towards oppose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually what happening on En.wp is the bot is removing the color option from the templates because the color has been coded into the default template. This reduces the vandalism which the color component attracted. The actualy color-coding for the various phylla is still present and used.--Kevmin 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Panthera tigris
IUCN Red List: EN

OhanaUnited - If you don't like colors I can make it look like this... :(








Mariusm 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I love the current Wikispecies format; it's formal, it's scientific, it's clean. I don't like it recently how people are pushing motions to detract from the vision of Wikispecies, and that is to become a taxonomic resource. Nothing more. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Anonymous Dissident. This proposal is very unlikely to pass, judging by so many !votes of neutral and opposes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Exceptional Newcomer Award

 Done Who's on board with me to give "The Exceptional Newcomer Award" to PeterR? He created a lot of articles, exceptionally quick to learn wiki-language, and willing to correct his mistake. If you're on board, just sign the name in the award and I'll paste it into his talk page. (And feel fee to add your comments to the award)OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		:This award is presented to PeterR for his exceptional work in WikiSpecies even though he is a newcomer. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Good work PeterR! Keep it up! — Mønobi 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC) PeterR, considering there are more than 180,000 species of Lepidoptera, you are very brave to start with them. I expect you to persist to the finish... ;) Mariusm 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea!!--Kevmin 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mariusm: Are you serious? There are 180,000 species?! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - he's working now on the order Lepidoptera (butterflies, moths & skippers) which contains 180,000 species! Mariusm 06:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular Name

I am not sure what language it is but "ka" does not appear in the vernacular names area when added to the template of a page. See Blastoidea, I added it from the interwiki list but it doesn't actually appear. could this be added? --Kevmin 04:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Request it at Template talk:VN OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing the MediaWiki space

I'd like to propose updating the MediaWiki parts of this site. I recently copied the Common.js from Wikipedia, removing the parts I thought weren't needed. I've also asked a few users to work on Javascripts that would make things easier. Thoughts? — Mønobi 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, what does it do? I'm not familiar with anything that deals with mediaWiki and anything that ends with ".js". Can you explain what it does? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt have to end with .js. The MediaWiki: space deals with the interface you see around you - the toolboxes on the side, the tabs at the top of the page - everything. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Ideally if we bring it up to a similar level with en.wiki, we should be able to "import" some of the scripts from the site. Mønobi 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

.js pages in the MediaWiki namespace are for any site-wide scripts. However, these generally are tied in with templates and CSS classes; just copying over the scripts alone doesn't necessarily do anything. It might be more practical to see a specific effect you want and then copy just those relevant lines of code. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Page creation bot is online!

Just in case you missed everything, MonoBot is up and running. If you have to create a huge chunk of species articles that have corresponding entries at ITIS, you can place your request at User talk:MonoBot/Requested Articles (or if you're admin, you can place your request directly on the userpage instead)

The bot runs every 2 hours and it automatically extracts information (such as name, reference, and vernacular names) from ITIS. Hopefully this will speedy up the article creation process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bot needs fixing

I must point out a "bug" in the bot: It inserts automatically parentheses on the author name, while at ITIS the parentheses aren't allways there -- take for example Etheostoma trisella (Bailey & Richards, 1963). at ITIS it's written as Etheostoma trisella Bailey and Richards, 1963 -- trispot darter.

It looks like a minor detail, but we must keep our data correct, and the parantheses do make a difference - They tells us if the author described the species at the same genus as is used now.

Mariusm 07:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, additional pieces of script need to be implanted into the mix. I dunno how that'd be done, but, then, I'm not Monobi. :P ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop it until I fix it. Mønobi 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Mønobi 17:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it running again? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is now ;) Mønobi 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are some pages, like Percina rex and Percina roanoka link the year as well? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've stopped it. Mønobi 03:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Monobi, any plans or timeline when the bot will be running again? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, sometime soon, I hope. Mønobi 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to change an icon

If you use IE7 or Firefox, you will know that when you visit a website, the tab will display the site's mini-icon. For wikispecies, it's a DNA double helix. But other projects use their own project's icon. Is it possible to change the double helix back to wikispecies' icon?

P.S. I might be making a Image:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png except the image is wikispecies icon. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Further note: an exact copy of the original mosaic is pasted to commons:User:OhanaUnited/Wikispecies logo mosaic, feel free to go there to change images. (But try to use species images as many as possible, so no wikiball, lightning animation, etc.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the favicon will require a developer. I'd be fine changing it to a miniature version of the Wikispecies logo, though I honestly can't get particularly worked up about it either way. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

nomen dubium - misleading links

HI!

I have a little problem with linking the Isopoda (Crustacea) taxonomic group Diplocheta to the Taxonavigation (and anywhere).

However, although isopodologists frequently use these groups (because of their rather good fit to molecular and morphology based classifications), I haven't found any exact taxonomic class for these "groups".

My problem emerges from the fact that the taxonomic name Diplocheta refers to another taxonomic group in the Classis Diplopoda (Superordo: Diplocheta) as well. Whenever I click on the Isopod Diplocheta link, it jumps to Diplopods and not to the related isopod pages.

Thus I decided - until reasonable decision - to change the group name to Diplochaeta.

I'd be appreciated to any comments and help! Thank you in advance! :)

Feri 07:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide references that support your argument. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By clicking on Diplocheta is my reference. I think it's solid enough. :)

Feri 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I do beleive what OhanaUnited^{Talk page} was looking for was reference for the generally accepted use of the name "Diplochaeta" by isopodologists not the diambiguation problem.--Kevmin 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not being a taxonomist, I'm not sure I understand - are you saying two different branches of the taxonomic tree both use Diplocheta for totally different organisms? If that's the case, maybe you can create a disambiguation page like how it was done for Acrocephalus? --Georgeryp 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I discussed with an expert and got the following papersas references in the related topic:

References

• Schmidt, C. (2002): Contribution to the phylogenetic system of the Crinocheta (Crustacea, Isopoda). Part 1 (Olibrinidae to Scyphaidae s. str.). – Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin (Zoologische Reihe) 78: 275–352.
• Erhard, F. (1998): Phylogenetic relationships within the Oniscidea (Crustacea, Isopoda). – Israel Journal of Zoology 44: 303-309.
• Schmalfuss, H. (1989): Phylogenetics in Oniscidea. – Monitore zoologico italiano, Nuova Serie, Monografia 4: 3-27.
• Tabacaru, I. & Danielopol, D. (1996b): Phylogenèse et convergence chez les isopodes terrestres. – Vie et Milieu 46: 171-181.

Feri 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a disambig page Diplocheta, thanks for the advices!

Feri 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Single login for sysops

The developers have finally enabled single login. For now it is only available if you are a sysop on one or more wikimedia projects. The feature is accessible on the first tab of your preferences. --Kempm 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New Bot

Ok, I have created a bot that uses AWB for some maintenance tasks. Please read Wikispecies:Bots/Requests_for_approval#OhanaBot and give some suggestions to it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ran 50 trial edits, request for approval to flag as bot. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you make a wikipedia article also a wikispecies article?

I have already created a wikipedia article about Cochliomyia hominivorax and Cochliomyia macellaria, which are New World screwworm flies, and I was wondering if there is a way to make it be in both wikipedia and wikispecies.

Phodges09 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First, try read through all help pages first. Now I noticed that Cochliomyia is not created, nor its subfamily. The closest I got is Calliphoridae. So you have to create articles in a step-wise motion from top to bottom (taxonomy speaking) so you need to create Chrysomyinae, then Cochliomyia, and finally Cochliomyia hominivorax OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikispecies search disabled?

Why am I getting the message that Wikispecies search is disabled? Is that a something we control at this site our is this a developer thing? Thanks --Open2universe | Talk 13:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I don't have such a problem. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the answer. Check here (server admin log) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Open2universe | Talk 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gnathophausia zoea

I've got permission and upload Image:Gnathophausia zoea.jpg, I create article and categories tree at commons, but I do not understand any at biology (especially in English). Please, help to fill article Gnathophausia zoea. Thanks. #!89.223.67.221 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User Friendlyness

Why don't any sites on this project seem to explain what anything is? Im not trying to bash wikispecies or anything, and realize how big of a scope the project has (all you contributors are surely severely underworked), but isn't the goal supposed to be for anybody to look and find the information they need? Personally, I don't just look at a latin scientific name, and know what it means. It seems like a directory of species should: 1) be made easier to find a species by their common name, which most people use. I understand why for taxonomical reasons the actual title needs to be scientific name, but on many pages you have to search for a few seconds before you can find its common name. 2) explain more what characteristics all animals in one group share. For instance, on the subfamilia page for "Lissodeminae", I personally feel there needs to be a description below the taxonomy chart explaining how animals in this subfamilia differentiate from animals in the subfamilia "Salpingidae" 3) on individual species pages, it seems like there should be more on them, and not just their taxonomy. Maybe talk about what kind of nest a bird makes, or what a particular beetle has mainly in it's diet. Just make it more alive. I don't go on wikispecies that much, but when I do, I never seem to find what I'm looking for. I may be missing the point of what this website is meant to be, I don't know. However, placed next to its sister project, Wikpedia, this project seems way to scientific and taxonomically oriented for my likes. Again, maybe this is what wikispecies is meant to be, but it seems an unusual foil to the more everyman-oriented articles, where there are lots of links in-article so that you can look at anything you don't understand. What is here on this site is great, the taxonomy and the awesome pictures of species, however I don't see at all how it is enough for a species directory. 24.207.132.192 04:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This project is designed, formatted and written for the purpose of being a useful taxonomic catalogue and directory. Nothing more. Anything diverging from that should not be included in any of the pages. If you want encyclopedic information, any of the various Wikipedias is where you should be searching. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tribolium

The latest "Nature" describes this as a beetle (its genome has been analyzed) - but we only have it as a grass. 82.18.22.160 10:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please feel free to make any needed alterations. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful before making any drastic changes!

Here is a case where Tribolium denotes two different organisms:

1. A Beetle genus in the family Tenebrionidae.
2. A grass genus in the family Poaceae.

So the grass Tribolium should be left alone, and a new genus - Tribolium (Tenebrionidae) to be opened, plus a disambiguation page to be introduced to take care of the double designation.

Mariusm 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Election Notice

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

Petition

Hello,

I would like to notify you of a petition against the recent decision by the board to reduce community representation. Please find it here. I am sending this message to most English Wikimedia projects as I think it is important the community is informed. If you have any questions please ask me at my Wikinews talk page.

Thanks,

Anon101 (on Wikinews) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note- I did not create the petition)