Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 15


Well, the DNA verdict seems to be in...[1] And oh boy, is it a shake-up... Interestingly the tree of life people have wasted no time to redo their trees. What is Wikispecies going to about it? Take the accipiters and buteos out of falconidae? Cut up the gruids in -what is it? four, five different groups? Create a land-bird clade? Make herons Pelecaniforms?

Or ignore science?

Jcwf 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History Shannon J. Hackett,1* Rebecca T. Kimball,2*† Sushma Reddy,1* Rauri C. K. Bowie,1,3,4 Edward L. Braun,2 Michael J. Braun,5,6 Jena L. Chojnowski,2 W. Andrew Cox,2 Kin-Lan Han,2,5,6 John Harshman,1,7 Christopher J. Huddleston,5 Ben D. Marks,8 Kathleen J. Miglia,9 William S. Moore,9 Frederick H. Sheldon,8 David W. Steadman, Christopher C. Witt,8,11 Tamaki Yuri2,5 SCIENCE VOL 320 27 JUNE 2008
Well, Jcwf, looks like there is a vacancy here for you to fill ;-). Be bold!. Lycaon 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the icelandic main page

Hi, I need an admin to fix some typos and other errors on the Icelandic version of the main page. I dumped the right edition here if someone could be so kind to move it to the right place, as the main page is protected (and I can't edit it...). — Jóna Þórunn 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Open2universe | Talk 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Jóna Þórunn 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew main page

please unlock the Hebrew version of the main page so I can fix and update it. Thank you, daniel B 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily unlocked for edit by registered users. Lycaon 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think that once you get down to the species, there should be a link to the Wikipedia article on that species (if there is one).

there are interwikilinks to Wikipedia on the sidebar. daniel B 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dealing with vandalism

Hi, I ran into a vandal earlier today. Is there a place where I can report them? Thanks. --Kjoonlee 11:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can best do that here; there is (as far as I know) no dedicated page for that. OhanaUnited has already blocked this Mutant Pig infinitely. Ucucha (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we stopped it. In fact, it might be the beginning. Look at what I removed from different users.[1][2][3][4][5] See the similarity? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article created

Hi. Please help fix this article. Thanks. AstroSapiens001 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, new reference templates eh? I'm not sure how we can cope with them, since they add author red-links to non-taxonogist and to dates. {{Cite book}} is used in only 13 pages while {{Cite web}} is used in only 1 page. Should we develop our own unique templates instead of using the generic Wikipedia's cite templates? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the "Synonyms" section

The section name "Synonyms" doesn't reflect in my opinion the true nature of its contents. Our practice here at Wikispecies is to use it for all the names which were ever assigned to an organism. In fact there are several categories of "synonyms":

  1. Original combination
  2. New combination
  3. Synonym
  4. Misspelling
  5. Misidentification

The word "synonym" in its strict taxonomic context means two (or more) different taxonomic names which were defined separately, but which in fact refer to the same organism. A different case arises when a species is transferred by an author to another genus. The new name is then called a new combination. A misspelling or a misidentification aren't synonyms proper either. So "Synonyms" is not an accurate word by which to denote these cases. The professionals use to gather all these categories under the heading "Synonymy", (look here for the exact terminology.)

To make this site more scientifically accurate I suggest we change the section name from "Synonyms" to "Synonymy", and run a bot to alter all the pages accordingly. It seems a minor modification, but for the professionals it makes a lot of difference.

Mariusm 07:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small correct: the meaning of the term "synonymy" in official taxonomic glossary is "list of synonyms". No reason to rename the section. I don't know, who composed the glossary you linked, but some terms are not of "exact terminology". FALSE broad using of terms "Synonyms" and "Synonymy" are nearly equally common. Both are NOT CORRECT for a group of different names of a certain species. My opinion is that we should use three different subsections:
  • Combinations (In meaning stated in the ICZN). To illustrate the history of generic and species-group belongings.
  • Synonyms (In meaning stated in the ICZN). Synonyms in "strict" meaning. Unjustified emendations also here.
  • Unavailable names (In meaning stated in the ICZN). Misspellings, misidentification, rejected names and others.
No problem to anyone to distinguish all three categories. But if we want use one section for all names we have no rights to name it "Synonymy" - we should use different title: "Names", "Mentions" (or no title as in most faunistic or taxonomic artciles). Andrey A. Kuzmin 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Andrey, I'm inclined to disagree with your insinuation that "synonyms" and "synonymy" harbor the same meaning (taxonomically speaking); "synonymy" being used to indicate a section or an article's part rather then the plural of the term "synonym".
  2. For a non-specialist (and that's what the majority here at Wikispecies are), it's exceedingly difficult to distinguish between a 'true' synonym and a combination, so the grouping into sub-categories is arguably unrealistic.
  3. You may indicate the sub-category in parentheses beside a particular synonym, if you feel it adds to the clarity and accuracy of your data.
Mariusm 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mariusm. When I tell about any term concerning taxonomy I open the Code. In my own exemplar of the IV Code (on Russian) and in official English version of the Code published in paper and on-line we can read that "synonymy, n. (1) The relationship between synonyms. (2) A list of synonyms." I didn't write that the "synonymy" is plural form of "synonym". In our context: "synonymy" and "synonyms" are synonymous as names of a section where a LIST OF SYNONYMS placed. But that is not correct to name by either of names ("synonymy" and "synonyms") a section where not only synonyms are written.
I don't understand what do you mean saying about difficulties in distinguishing synonyms and combinations. Combinations are distinguished by the same species-name combined with names of different genera. For example we have a species Iais pebescens. Combinations are: Jaera pubescens (original) and Iais pubescens. Synonyms of the name are Iais hargeri, Jaera neozelanica etc. We can write:
Iais pubescens (Dana, 1852)
  • Jaera pubescens Dana, 1852
  • Iais pubescens, Someone, 1890 [note the comma!: "Someone" is not author of the name, but author of the combination]
Andrey A. Kuzmin 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey, your reasoning makes sense, and I myself am willing to accept your proposal for splitting the Synonyms into subsections. The problem is this community is unwilling or uninterested in accepting modifications which will make editing more difficult or cumbersome. I prefer that you go-on working according to your system than you stopping your edits entirely, because you are one of the more professional members here, and I value your work. Mariusm 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with replacement names. I have now twelve new species replacement names. See Zootaxa 1848: 47–56 from Gerardo Lamas. Have I create == Replacement name ==? and then no == Synonyms ==? PeterR 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, OK. Anycase you are more advanced user here - I will listen to your advices and comments.
About rerplacement names. We have discussed them with Peter here. See my decision on Heterias and Peter's decision on Arhopala ariana wanggu. Andrey A. Kuzmin 12:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei: I know it sounds like a shameful conformism, but in a project like this, we have to sacrifice our personal preferences to the good of the project as a whole. We can never have here “our best way”, and to “bend” a little sometimes means success when we examine the big picture. I’m glad you’re starting to understand this. Mariusm 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change it so that it becomes multilingual? We can borrow the setting of Meta's welcome message so that it detects the language of user's operating system or browser and displays the correct language. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. daniel B 03:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian version ready: {{Üdvözlet}}. ~ Boro 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, it's not that easy. We still use the {{Welcome}} to include all languages, but I need to rewrite the code completely so that it detects language preference and changes itself. I have exam on tomorrow so I can't investigate the source code until then. For "live demonstration", go to Metapub and watch how the welcoming message first shows all languages and then all languages disappear but only leaving behind the one that your browser/OS is using. If the source code is too long or too difficult, try go to Wikimedia Canada page. They only have 2 languages to choose from (English and French) OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class Amphibia is complete

At last, after a hard work, I managed to complete the class Amphibia (which includes frogs, salamanders and caecilians). This class has about 6300 living species, and I tried creating or revising each and every one of them. In this process I've noticed that major taxonomic sites like ITIS, eol - Encyclopedia of Life and GBIF - Global Biodiversity Information Facility are hopelessly outdated. The Amphibia is a very dynamic taxon. Each year many new species are discovered or transferred to new genera or familia. Even new familia are created in order to reflect the modern genetic and molecular research. All these mentioned sites, and the English Wikipedia too, are stuck in the year 2004 - when they last updated their data.

I only hope that no-one will try "correcting" the Amphibia to conform to ITIS or eol, as these sites do not reflect the current taxonomic state.

Mariusm 06:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even EOL is outdated? O_o So what sites should we use? OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None, I'd say; we should use current scientific literature. I think that if Wikispecies wants to be a useful resource, it should not just copy other resources already available, but be better than them through including more up-to-date and complete taxonomy (i.e., including subspecies and fossil taxa). Ucucha (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was also surprised to realize that EOL literally copied its Amphibia data from ITIS without any changes whatsoever. For the Amphibia I used a reliable source which is updated twice a year - Amphibian Species of the World. I do not say that sources like ITIS should be completely ignored. Some taxa may be perfectly updated. We just have to double-check with other sources, and find the best sites and sources which suits us. This information can be shared here, at the village pump. Presumably ITIS hasn't the man-power to deal with such rapid changes as the Amphibia is going through, and this is the main advantage of Wikispecies - it can be daily updated according to the latest information.
Mariusm 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see two options by users namely


Type species




What is correct.

PeterR 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, certainly there’s no justification in creating a new section for the Type species. The correct way which is backed-up by the help section is:
Type species: Janirella pusilla Sayce, 1900
Mariusm 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Let me draw your attention to bug 14407. For those that don't realize, we're the only "major project" that is left out of SUL auto signin (the definition of "major project" is defined on WMF's our projects page). Some have suggested, by their response in the bug report, that our project is not as significant as others and don't deserve a chance to integrate SUL into this project. Other projects are starting to receive a steady amount of new contributors thanks to SUL, yet we're missing out. Furthermore, we actually faced the most competitions to other non-WMF projects (such as ITIS, IUCN, EOL, etc.) Personally, I'm close to the stage of being outraged at their reactions. They're comparing whether this project is bigger/better/more significant than that project. They might just as well suggest us to no longer be part of WMF sister projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty weak reasoning. I don't see why we'd get cut out of the SUL integration, and I've read (and re-read) the official explanation. Lame. EVula // talk // // 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not just lame, but close to being ridiculous. Just in case all else fails, I'll grab Wing to do something about this. He's a board of trustee, and even though this matter is not related to donations, I still think he can have a say in this poorly-made decision to exclude us. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is ITIS reliable ???

As I've pointed out earlier, ITIS isn't updating its Amphibia data. I sent a mail to ITIS asking why is their site so badly outdated. Here is what ITIS' David Nicolson replied:

As to the state of the amphibian data in ITIS, we are in communication with amphibian specialists, are well aware of the changes in amphibian classifications proposed in recent years, and considered undertaking an overhaul of the group after the major 2006 paper on the topic was released. We were informed at that time by our steward for the group that there were some new problems created by the paper that for which resolutions were planned in upcoming papers, and to hold off on any major efforts until those papers were available. Since that time there has been a stream of important updates made to ITIS that happen to have been in groups other than Amphibia (such as the recent completion with bee specialists from around the world of a world bee checklist, covering nearly 20,000 species). Once there are resources (in time and personnel) to undertake the amphibian update it will be tackled, and in the meantime we will continue to push forward with the work plans set with the help of ITIS' steering committee.

So if you're working on bees, you can rely on ITIS, but for frogs you might as well go elsewhere... Mariusm 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS or any other side is reliable. I have this earlier mailed to OhanaUnited in March or April. This means allso for the Insects. People has to use original books and original bulletins to add Wiki.

PeterR 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation mark is missing on Chinese homepage


首页 here, a '”' is needed.

--Liangent 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, silly mistake. Going to corect it now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present your project


do anyone of you folks is interested in make a presentation of your project on the next Wikimania? The next Wikimania would probably held in July in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The actual date is not confirmed yet. Traditionally in February there would be a Call for Participation, where you can submit your talks and about in April you can request for a scholarship to finantial your flight and accommodation as a speaker on the conference. I would like to see someone of you folks to make a presentation of your project there. Is anyone interested in this and can prepare for a presentation?--Wing 08:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wing, I suggest you should look at this issue first OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't want to intervine in the intra project policy discussions. But I would like to push you to make your project more visible :-) -- 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

Hi, Can someone update the meta logo on the main page per m:Meta:Babel/Wiki_logo. The new logo is Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. Thanks 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please update also Huvudsida (page is protected). Flrn 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time Wikispecies considered a new logo. The current one is definitely very different from the logos used on the other Wikimedia projects, and does not look half as polished as most of them. See the images below. I'd like to propose that a poll of sorts, or even just an informal discussion, be conducted, so that we can decide whether a) we need a logo and b) if so, what this new logo would look like. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current logo: Image:Wiki.png

Few suggestions:

  • Wikispecies are about nature, thus I'd call for nature-natural colors. I think the green should be probably the dominant one, I'd play the blue down as much as possible since blue is the least occurred color in nature. (There were also many calls for not having all WMF projects logos tuned into blue.) I'd also add yellow or some shade of it.
  • The DNA-like spiral on flat logo does not look like double spiral but two "sinusoids" crossing each other. Adding symbolical bars between them in different angles would make the impression of 3D spiral.
  • The current logo way so much suggests the logo of Wikimedia Foundation, I'd recommend changing the structure.

Danny B. 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just like the current one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? That's not very good reasoning, I'm sorry. Thematics are an important thing here, and the fact is that the current logo is simply outdated. Your edit summary "ain't broke" is particularly strange; hardly anything is broke, but this does not mean that we do not improve things. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just like the way it is. Plus only us and Wikipedia's logo looks like 3D with (which is a good thing) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I will be helpful here. None of the examples look that different to me. Or perhaps it is my computer graphics. I am not particularly wedded to the existing logo but none of the proposed logos strike me as worth the bother of changing. Just my 2 cents. We have changed logos before, so it is not that I am opposed to doing that. --Open2universe | Talk 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice DNA image on the tab of Wikispecies pages as I look at them in Safari and Firefox.

  • I have to agree with EVula et al.: the current 3D logo looks much more polished than the flat proposals. In order to orient the discussion, below are the current logos of the other major projects, for comparison purposes. Note that only one of them still uses the dull red-dull blue-green palette. Urhixidur 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I like the old logo best. It may be 'polished', but so is the wikipedia logo. And besides, a new logo doesn't make much difference and will surely cost more. So I'm with keeping the old logo. Anonymouse

No consensus for new logo - fair enough; the community has spoken. I just thought that a more clean logo would have been nice, but I guess the current one is fine too. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

150,000 articles

We have reached another landmark (150,000 articles) on September 8! The 150,000th article is Diaeini, created by AchtSegel. I already considered the deleted articles and adjusted my counting accordingly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know how to change the toolbox (located on the left panel) from directing people to Wikipedia's definition of upload to Wikimedia Commons? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be changed to? Maxim(talk) 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From a link to the definition of upload in Wikipedia, to commons' upload page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Maxim(talk) 19:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not a big fan of MediaWiki section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although that JavaScript works, it's not the nicest solution. It does not work always (some clients do not have JS support or have it turned off) and it's unnecessary client-side computing while it can be done on server. Would you guys like to set fix link to Commons upload? And rather to commons:Commons:Upload or commons:Special:Upload?
Danny B. 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think I did it right. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the entire upload location fixing script from MediaWiki:Common.js now, since it has been set on server-side, thus the script is worthless now.
Danny B. 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, how? Can you tell me what do I replace with what? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove last nine lines in MediaWiki:Common.js. I'd actually take care about technical stuff like this (such as styles, scripts, gadgets, site config and so) here myself as I do it on other projects, but I guess I'm not enough suitable for you here, because I mostly don't do regular content edits (which I guess are required here), but technically related stuff.
Danny B. 16:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a caretaker admin: I haven't done any content stuff. If you wanna fix up the .css and .js and other more technical stuff, I guess, if no one objects temporarily flip on the +sysop bit for you. Maxim(talk) 19:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections. I have seen Danny's contributions and I have no concerns. So maybe give him +sysop flag for a month and then we'll see if he wants to apply to go for long-term sysop? OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new language

I request Malay language to be added in the Main page languages. I'll offer myself to do the translations. Kurniasan 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just write it and let us know when it's done. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Page title: Laman Utama; Language: Bahasa Melayu (ms). Kurniasan 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Please check {{Languages}} if there's any error. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It works very well. Thanks for helping. Kurniasan 01:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikispecies Reliable??

We have about other sides that are not reliable but is Wikispecies Reliable? I find not. If I want add new species it cost a lot of time to do this. (No complete Main page, making templates etc.) I try to make the lepidoptera reliable. I order books by the library and full text bulletins by NEV. The costs are about €500,00 till €1000,00 pro year. I will make this costs for a reliable lepidoptera side but I see that many users add species etc. without a background. I think we need a forum with professionals. They can tell the status of new subfamiliae, tribus etc. It can't be that people spend a lot of their time to update Wikispecies and a new contributer destroy their update with false information.

PeterR 10:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all Wiki-Projects always will be subject to speculation of false information. In fact, there are many political and business interests in many articles, mostly in Wikipedia. But the Wiki-way show us who there are much more people concern in do the right and more trustworthy articles.
I also belive that Wikispecies would be one of wiki-projects more reliable because where are the interests of the a big corporation or of a political in do a wrong article about a specie ????
CaCO3 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info de Wikipédia en français : prise de décision concernant les liens inter-projets

Salut. Pour information : une prise de décision concernant les liens inter-projet est en cours de vote. Elle concerne donc indirectement les contributeurs aux projets frères de Wikipédia. Si vous avez, sur Wikipédia en français, un compte ayant un mois d'ancienneté et 100 contributions dans l'espace principal, vous êtes invités à donner votre avis : w:fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Lien interprojet. Le vote dure un mois. Cordialement, Kropotkine 113 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For information: decision-making on inter-linkages project is underway to vote. It thus indirectly contributing to projects brothers Wikipedia. If you have on French Wikipedia, an account with one month of age and 100 contributions in the main space, you are invited to give your opinion: w:fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Lien interprojet. The vote lasts one month. Best regards.
Translation via Google Translate. EVula // talk // // 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Abnormal user-creation activity?

If you guys take a look at Special:Log/newusers, you can notice that a few recent user registrations are done very shortly and closely with one another. One group consisted of 5 editors created account in 3 mins. Another group consisted of 6 editors created account in 15 mins. I smell something fishy here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Paraphyletic assemblage"

Should the opinion that a taxon is a "paraphyletic assemblage" or not be addressed on wikispecies entries or not? I as because of the recent, mostly good work being done by User: As shown by the contributions a number of pages have been broken out into sections based on whether the included taxa are paraphyletic or not. I think this should be addressed more broadly in the community. --Kevmin 06:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]