![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This has been discussed a number of times before, but the way things are now seems absurd.
I think the rules of the English language state that a common name is a proper name, and thus should be capitalized.
Conventions for capitalization of species' common names seem to differ.
There are massive inconsistencies between article names, between the article name compared to its content, as well as mention of the common name within a given article.
Some examples:
(Most articles are a mixed bag.)
I think this problem has arisen because the policy is likey wrong. Editors don't know which to pick, and the outcome is split. There are constant page moves from one convention to another, and back again. If this gets sorted out either way, MOST animalia articles will be flawed or inconsistent. This is a serious problem, and a very visible blight upon Wikipedia.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In general:
Special cases:
Group | Case | Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | Remarks/exceptions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Birds | Upper | Grey Currawong | African River Martin | Red-billed Chough | lower case should be used in non-bird articles |
Primates | Upper | Green Monkey | Hamadryas Baboon | Brown-headed Spider Monkey | |
Dragonflies | Upper | Dancing Jewel | Hamon's Sprite | Yellow-winged Darter | |
Moths | Upper | Grease Moth | Indianmeal Moth | Black-lyre Leafroller Moth | |
Butterflies | Upper | Passion Butterfly | Swallowtail Butterfly | Duke of Burgundy | |
Fishes | Lower | red snapper | spotted trout | ray-finned shark | |
Mammals | Lower | black rat | red panda | man-eating platypus | |
Actually, I'm having second thoughts about whether or not any of this is trivial. One article entitled Gypsy moth, and another entitled Indianmeal Moth just looks bad.
It's such a shame that this wasn't settled earlier. A bot could do this by finding articles with specific taxoboxes, with titles not in italics, and move the page to upper case name. Then search and replace all occurrences within the article. Then fix the redirects. Of course, this would cause the servers to catch fire, and Jimbo would be furious.
I think this needs to be addressed sooner or later. This is a long-term encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to all for opening this can of worms yet again. I really hope that something can be agreed upon, at least in terms of the visual layout of the guidelines.
If you see this discussion as a waste of time, please consider the thousands of hours that have been spent, and will be spent in coming years and decades, on edits and page moves from one case to the other and back again. This problem won't go away. It needs to be addressed at some point, so why not now? All of this hard work on the content, and we can't even get the titles right. This sort of inconsistency would never exist in Encyclopedia Britannica. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, looking at everything I can find, I would like to guess how things will turn out to be in 25 years:
I can't see it going any other way in the end.
So, I have a suggestion:
If we can't (and ought not to) have things consistent across Wikipedia, at least we can have the guidelines as clear as can be. If this subpage/table thing has been done before, please forgive me. I couldn't find it. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
With due respect to everyone, I made a suggestion for a strategy to at least get the currently agreed-upon guidelines clarified, and maybe even to sort the whole thing out. But, everyone just keeps giving opinions on what should be uppercase. Maybe it would be best if we approach this strategically -- maybe from the point of view of "agree on what can never be tolerated, and see what's left". (We can start with: "The current inconsistency existing for the next 25 years is intolerable. What's left is: "something else". That's logical, right?)
May I create a subpage here by myself? I would like to add the table and list of guidelines. There, everyone can give opinions on what should be uppercase, and what should be included. At least the uncontested rules and table entries might go in the guidelines in a quick-reference format. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Too everyone: Thanks for all your input. I am not enjoying this one bit. I know it is a case of "Fools rush in where fools have been before". If the only thing that is accomplished is a bit of clarity in the layout of the guidelines, I will be pleased. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid the current draft won't clarify the guidelines much. In particular, some of the "In general" rules just confuse things. For example, they say "Vernacular names (eg. lion) are lower case", but proceed to list a number of vernacular names (e.g., "Green Monkey") that are not capitalized. Then it says, "Use lowercase for well-known animals (e.g. "a cow")", but surely the brown bear is also a well-known animal, and the next rule says it must be capitalized. That rule is "Uppercase for ambiguous names (e.g. Brown Bear)", but it contrasts with a table entry that says mammals are lowercase and gives a much more ambiguous example for that (there are many more rat species with black fur than bears with brown). I think it would be better to have something like this:
Group | Capitalization mode |
---|---|
Birds | Title case |
Fishes | Sentence case |
(Table incomplete.) Ucucha 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I will tweak the rules and table. Again, the objective is just to nail down the uncontroversial conventions for inclusion into the guidelines. I think that's all we can expect. That might lead us down the road to a long-term resolution of this mess.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha: Good points and wording. I have made a few changes and added it to the draft. I could use a bit of clarification on:
Does that mean if the article is about Red Panda, then spotted trout should be Spotted Trout if occurring within the same article? Thanks for the valuable input. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Does "individual" mean "occurrences within an article" or from one article to another? Thanks for having patience with me. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't dropped this. Just taking a bit of time to gather an opinion or two. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The key in the capitalization debate is whether groups have standardized names, like with birds. Once names are standardized, they become proper nouns and should be capitalized. As far as I know, no other group has standardized names, and as such, they should be lower case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I was invited to join something and it might be somewhere here. I am an amateur in this topic and sometimes expand or brush up plant/bird/mammal/rodent articles for DYK. General comments: (i) Nearly all publishers copyedit their journals. So what we see is not what the authors wrote, but what the publishers set as their policy, and they tend to stand by those policies and ignore other publishers. (Example,
IOP Publishing will remove your full stops everywhere they feel like, so et al instead of et al.) (ii) At WP:CHEM we first look at common usage and then vote, no matter what some external authorities says. Example: IUPAC (the top authority in chemistry, which names elements, etc) is ignored on WP when its naming choice is ignored by scientists :-). Another example: endless edit wars over sulphur/sulfur, aluminium/aluminum were quenched once and for all when WP:CHEM decided "aluminium" and "sulfur" (per IUPAC, in this case).
While I understand the logic of the birds project on capitalization, the only benefit I see in it is convention. WP:MOS generally favors letter case. If there is no strong reasons against it, I suggest setting conventions by the project, through voting.
Materialscientist (
talk)
06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notice to all the WikiProject Animals members, its the start of the new year and with it brings about the start of a new term for the WikiProject Coordinators position/s. I hereby vacate the positions of Coordinator for WikiProject Animals along with User:Intelligentsium. Kind regards Zoo Pro 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A simple approval vote system is used to nominate and vote for candidates, current coordinators can be nominated again and can choose to decline or accept nomination (as can all users nominated).The nominations are open for 7 Days to be closed on the 15 January at 1800 hours (UTC). Positions are held for a period of 12 months from January to January, consecutive terms are allowed.
If you would like to nominate a User, please add the following to the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think they should be chosen.
For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating a user.
==={{User|Example}}===
Support:
Comments:
----
For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support a user.
#~~~
Support:
Comments:
Support:
Comments:
Do you think that Animal is B-Class quality? Bramble claw x 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let people know that Template:Automatic taxobox is now stable and suitable for use in articles. The template should be able to replicate any existing taxobox, although its documentation is still incomplete; if you can't work out how to do something, the best option is to ask at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. The template may not be appropriate for every article; please use your discretion when upgrading, and preview the taxobox before saving. In particular, please check that there is consensus for the taxonomy in the new taxobox!
The template provides the following benefits:
I've made a start automating some minor phyla (such as the Rotifera). There are rudimentary instructions detailing how to perform the upgrade. Let me (or others at Template talk:Automatic taxobox) know if you need any help! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on a requested change to the way Appendix 1 conservation status in the CITES system is displayed in taxoboxes. Please stop by if you have any opinions on the subject. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Trichomonadidae and Pediculidae. mgiganteus1 ( talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been granted the File mover flag for English Wikipedia. If anyone has discovered a mis-named animal file or image that they would like renamed please contact me or leave a note below and I will attempt to correct the error, I am at present only interested in renaming animal related files to assist the project (however I will consider reasonable requests for other files), such renames should be non-controversial (such as a file named "Leopard" when the image is in fact of a Cheetah) or if are controversial then consensus should be reached about the name before asking for the change. The usual process of renaming files can often be long and can create backlogs, I am hoping that keeping this within the project will place less strain on the admins and other file movers and make our project run more efficiently. Kind regards Zoo Pro 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we really need to work on the article Animal. It is currently rated a C class article (its more B then C) and is our flagship article. I would like to propose a 1 month collaboration to turn it into GA or FA. If anyone is interested please head over and start working on some of the issues raised on the talk page. This really is our projects top priority. Zoo Pro 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F -- Philcha ( talk) 11:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
When writing articles on obscure species I often find studies for which I can only view an abstract. Does Wikipedia have any facilities {like a joint subscription) for viewing full length articles? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex. Note that the term copulation redirects to sexual intercourse. Kaldari ( talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP ( talk) 10:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Summer of 2011, Wikimedia UK and ARKive are colloborating on a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of threatened species. This will involve recruiting a fixed-period in-residence role that we are calling Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador. This will be a volunteer, with access to desk space at ARKive's offices in Bristol and with travel and subsistence supported by Wikimedia UK. Their role will require both on-wiki activity and involving the wider community through online and offline events. If you can attend meetings in Bristol, and are interested in both wildlife and free knowledge, please visit the project page for further details. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article on the European edible sea urchin be renamed to Echinus esculentus. Please leave your comments on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is list of species where endagered status on enwiki is different than this on official IUCN website (to avoid 2.3 version problems I listed only articles with the same IUCN status on plwiki as on enwiki) Bulwersator ( talk) 03:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course my bot may be wrong, interwiki (to plwiki) may be wrong or IUCN id in plwiki may be wrong Bulwersator ( talk) 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Help: follow interwiki to plwiki and use ref on IUCN status in infoboks - it should include link to IUCN website, based on animal id Bulwersator ( talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirects from latin name to normal:
Generated using bot Bulwersator ( talk) 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
IUCN status is assigned to species. But on enwiki there are multiple higher or lower taxonomic ranks with IUCN status in infobox - for example Tuatara. Is it mistake? Bulwersator ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
So I will remove IUCN info in similar situations: [1] [2]
Probably situation is similar in en:Gorilla and en:Pupfish Bulwersator ( talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Why Dolphin is without {{Taxobox}}? Bulwersator ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I generated suggestion for illustrations.
IMHO adding them to articles is easy way to have better stubs. (tech info: illustrations are from plwiki articles linked with interwiki, where there is infobox with illustration on plwiki and infobox without illustration on enwiki) Bulwersator ( talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an image in article, named Mustelus mustelus described as Mustelus asterias - is this change correct? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have come upon the page Semelidae by chance. As you can see it is quite a mess and I propose to correct the formatting shortly. But first, is there a means of automatically detecting pages such as this that need attention? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This has been discussed a number of times before, but the way things are now seems absurd.
I think the rules of the English language state that a common name is a proper name, and thus should be capitalized.
Conventions for capitalization of species' common names seem to differ.
There are massive inconsistencies between article names, between the article name compared to its content, as well as mention of the common name within a given article.
Some examples:
(Most articles are a mixed bag.)
I think this problem has arisen because the policy is likey wrong. Editors don't know which to pick, and the outcome is split. There are constant page moves from one convention to another, and back again. If this gets sorted out either way, MOST animalia articles will be flawed or inconsistent. This is a serious problem, and a very visible blight upon Wikipedia.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In general:
Special cases:
Group | Case | Example 1 | Example 2 | Example 3 | Remarks/exceptions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Birds | Upper | Grey Currawong | African River Martin | Red-billed Chough | lower case should be used in non-bird articles |
Primates | Upper | Green Monkey | Hamadryas Baboon | Brown-headed Spider Monkey | |
Dragonflies | Upper | Dancing Jewel | Hamon's Sprite | Yellow-winged Darter | |
Moths | Upper | Grease Moth | Indianmeal Moth | Black-lyre Leafroller Moth | |
Butterflies | Upper | Passion Butterfly | Swallowtail Butterfly | Duke of Burgundy | |
Fishes | Lower | red snapper | spotted trout | ray-finned shark | |
Mammals | Lower | black rat | red panda | man-eating platypus | |
Actually, I'm having second thoughts about whether or not any of this is trivial. One article entitled Gypsy moth, and another entitled Indianmeal Moth just looks bad.
It's such a shame that this wasn't settled earlier. A bot could do this by finding articles with specific taxoboxes, with titles not in italics, and move the page to upper case name. Then search and replace all occurrences within the article. Then fix the redirects. Of course, this would cause the servers to catch fire, and Jimbo would be furious.
I think this needs to be addressed sooner or later. This is a long-term encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to all for opening this can of worms yet again. I really hope that something can be agreed upon, at least in terms of the visual layout of the guidelines.
If you see this discussion as a waste of time, please consider the thousands of hours that have been spent, and will be spent in coming years and decades, on edits and page moves from one case to the other and back again. This problem won't go away. It needs to be addressed at some point, so why not now? All of this hard work on the content, and we can't even get the titles right. This sort of inconsistency would never exist in Encyclopedia Britannica. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, looking at everything I can find, I would like to guess how things will turn out to be in 25 years:
I can't see it going any other way in the end.
So, I have a suggestion:
If we can't (and ought not to) have things consistent across Wikipedia, at least we can have the guidelines as clear as can be. If this subpage/table thing has been done before, please forgive me. I couldn't find it. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
With due respect to everyone, I made a suggestion for a strategy to at least get the currently agreed-upon guidelines clarified, and maybe even to sort the whole thing out. But, everyone just keeps giving opinions on what should be uppercase. Maybe it would be best if we approach this strategically -- maybe from the point of view of "agree on what can never be tolerated, and see what's left". (We can start with: "The current inconsistency existing for the next 25 years is intolerable. What's left is: "something else". That's logical, right?)
May I create a subpage here by myself? I would like to add the table and list of guidelines. There, everyone can give opinions on what should be uppercase, and what should be included. At least the uncontested rules and table entries might go in the guidelines in a quick-reference format. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Too everyone: Thanks for all your input. I am not enjoying this one bit. I know it is a case of "Fools rush in where fools have been before". If the only thing that is accomplished is a bit of clarity in the layout of the guidelines, I will be pleased. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid the current draft won't clarify the guidelines much. In particular, some of the "In general" rules just confuse things. For example, they say "Vernacular names (eg. lion) are lower case", but proceed to list a number of vernacular names (e.g., "Green Monkey") that are not capitalized. Then it says, "Use lowercase for well-known animals (e.g. "a cow")", but surely the brown bear is also a well-known animal, and the next rule says it must be capitalized. That rule is "Uppercase for ambiguous names (e.g. Brown Bear)", but it contrasts with a table entry that says mammals are lowercase and gives a much more ambiguous example for that (there are many more rat species with black fur than bears with brown). I think it would be better to have something like this:
Group | Capitalization mode |
---|---|
Birds | Title case |
Fishes | Sentence case |
(Table incomplete.) Ucucha 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I will tweak the rules and table. Again, the objective is just to nail down the uncontroversial conventions for inclusion into the guidelines. I think that's all we can expect. That might lead us down the road to a long-term resolution of this mess.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha: Good points and wording. I have made a few changes and added it to the draft. I could use a bit of clarification on:
Does that mean if the article is about Red Panda, then spotted trout should be Spotted Trout if occurring within the same article? Thanks for the valuable input. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Does "individual" mean "occurrences within an article" or from one article to another? Thanks for having patience with me. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't dropped this. Just taking a bit of time to gather an opinion or two. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The key in the capitalization debate is whether groups have standardized names, like with birds. Once names are standardized, they become proper nouns and should be capitalized. As far as I know, no other group has standardized names, and as such, they should be lower case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I was invited to join something and it might be somewhere here. I am an amateur in this topic and sometimes expand or brush up plant/bird/mammal/rodent articles for DYK. General comments: (i) Nearly all publishers copyedit their journals. So what we see is not what the authors wrote, but what the publishers set as their policy, and they tend to stand by those policies and ignore other publishers. (Example,
IOP Publishing will remove your full stops everywhere they feel like, so et al instead of et al.) (ii) At WP:CHEM we first look at common usage and then vote, no matter what some external authorities says. Example: IUPAC (the top authority in chemistry, which names elements, etc) is ignored on WP when its naming choice is ignored by scientists :-). Another example: endless edit wars over sulphur/sulfur, aluminium/aluminum were quenched once and for all when WP:CHEM decided "aluminium" and "sulfur" (per IUPAC, in this case).
While I understand the logic of the birds project on capitalization, the only benefit I see in it is convention. WP:MOS generally favors letter case. If there is no strong reasons against it, I suggest setting conventions by the project, through voting.
Materialscientist (
talk)
06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notice to all the WikiProject Animals members, its the start of the new year and with it brings about the start of a new term for the WikiProject Coordinators position/s. I hereby vacate the positions of Coordinator for WikiProject Animals along with User:Intelligentsium. Kind regards Zoo Pro 08:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A simple approval vote system is used to nominate and vote for candidates, current coordinators can be nominated again and can choose to decline or accept nomination (as can all users nominated).The nominations are open for 7 Days to be closed on the 15 January at 1800 hours (UTC). Positions are held for a period of 12 months from January to January, consecutive terms are allowed.
If you would like to nominate a User, please add the following to the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think they should be chosen.
For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating a user.
==={{User|Example}}===
Support:
Comments:
----
For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support a user.
#~~~
Support:
Comments:
Support:
Comments:
Do you think that Animal is B-Class quality? Bramble claw x 16:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let people know that Template:Automatic taxobox is now stable and suitable for use in articles. The template should be able to replicate any existing taxobox, although its documentation is still incomplete; if you can't work out how to do something, the best option is to ask at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. The template may not be appropriate for every article; please use your discretion when upgrading, and preview the taxobox before saving. In particular, please check that there is consensus for the taxonomy in the new taxobox!
The template provides the following benefits:
I've made a start automating some minor phyla (such as the Rotifera). There are rudimentary instructions detailing how to perform the upgrade. Let me (or others at Template talk:Automatic taxobox) know if you need any help! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on a requested change to the way Appendix 1 conservation status in the CITES system is displayed in taxoboxes. Please stop by if you have any opinions on the subject. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Trichomonadidae and Pediculidae. mgiganteus1 ( talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been granted the File mover flag for English Wikipedia. If anyone has discovered a mis-named animal file or image that they would like renamed please contact me or leave a note below and I will attempt to correct the error, I am at present only interested in renaming animal related files to assist the project (however I will consider reasonable requests for other files), such renames should be non-controversial (such as a file named "Leopard" when the image is in fact of a Cheetah) or if are controversial then consensus should be reached about the name before asking for the change. The usual process of renaming files can often be long and can create backlogs, I am hoping that keeping this within the project will place less strain on the admins and other file movers and make our project run more efficiently. Kind regards Zoo Pro 14:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we really need to work on the article Animal. It is currently rated a C class article (its more B then C) and is our flagship article. I would like to propose a 1 month collaboration to turn it into GA or FA. If anyone is interested please head over and start working on some of the issues raised on the talk page. This really is our projects top priority. Zoo Pro 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F -- Philcha ( talk) 11:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
When writing articles on obscure species I often find studies for which I can only view an abstract. Does Wikipedia have any facilities {like a joint subscription) for viewing full length articles? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex. Note that the term copulation redirects to sexual intercourse. Kaldari ( talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP ( talk) 10:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Summer of 2011, Wikimedia UK and ARKive are colloborating on a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of threatened species. This will involve recruiting a fixed-period in-residence role that we are calling Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador. This will be a volunteer, with access to desk space at ARKive's offices in Bristol and with travel and subsistence supported by Wikimedia UK. Their role will require both on-wiki activity and involving the wider community through online and offline events. If you can attend meetings in Bristol, and are interested in both wildlife and free knowledge, please visit the project page for further details. MartinPoulter ( talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article on the European edible sea urchin be renamed to Echinus esculentus. Please leave your comments on the article's talk page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is list of species where endagered status on enwiki is different than this on official IUCN website (to avoid 2.3 version problems I listed only articles with the same IUCN status on plwiki as on enwiki) Bulwersator ( talk) 03:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course my bot may be wrong, interwiki (to plwiki) may be wrong or IUCN id in plwiki may be wrong Bulwersator ( talk) 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Help: follow interwiki to plwiki and use ref on IUCN status in infoboks - it should include link to IUCN website, based on animal id Bulwersator ( talk) 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirects from latin name to normal:
Generated using bot Bulwersator ( talk) 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
IUCN status is assigned to species. But on enwiki there are multiple higher or lower taxonomic ranks with IUCN status in infobox - for example Tuatara. Is it mistake? Bulwersator ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
So I will remove IUCN info in similar situations: [1] [2]
Probably situation is similar in en:Gorilla and en:Pupfish Bulwersator ( talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Why Dolphin is without {{Taxobox}}? Bulwersator ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I generated suggestion for illustrations.
IMHO adding them to articles is easy way to have better stubs. (tech info: illustrations are from plwiki articles linked with interwiki, where there is infobox with illustration on plwiki and infobox without illustration on enwiki) Bulwersator ( talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is an image in article, named Mustelus mustelus described as Mustelus asterias - is this change correct? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I have come upon the page Semelidae by chance. As you can see it is quite a mess and I propose to correct the formatting shortly. But first, is there a means of automatically detecting pages such as this that need attention? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)