![]() | This page 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. |
Form taxon is tagged {{ disambig}} and has some other residue of a disambiguation page. Would someone here care to clean it up? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall that this used to be the place to get help identifying unknown animals etc that one had taken photos of. Has this changed? Where should I go?
(The immediate question is some kind of falcon I saw in Torres del Paine NP, Chile. Stevage 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I know this is probably somewhat trivial, but is there a userpage box for this wikiproject? I always forget which wikiprojects I get involved with, so I like to use those to remind myself. -- Pstanton ( talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I made ICZN a disambiguation page. It has over 200 incoming links needing disambiguation between the Commission and the Code. I also created Opinion 2027, a stub, concerning the Commission's Opinion to conserve 17 species names of wild animals over their domestic derivatives. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects.
74.242.254.68 ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles
A lot of articles phrase that certain taxa "are (such and such) years old" or "originated in the (such and such) period". Being as that fossil records are not proof that it is the earliest that that particular taxa exists, I believe that they should be rephrased to something like "the earliest known record of (such and such) was (whatever period)" or the like. -- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends upon the taxon. For some taxa there exists additional evidence that can narrow the taxon down to an origina in a specific window of geological time. Evidence, for example, of the atmospheric and environmental conditions of the time. However, for other taxa it may be better to phrase age in the manner you suggest, particularly when using smaller taphonomic windows. Feel free to discuss this individually on article talk pages, or post some examples here. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made a "test proposal" at CfD to see if there is a consensus for replacing the categorization system of classifying biota "by country" with a system that would categorize biota "by ecozone". See here to read or comment. Looking for as much input as possible especially from those expert in the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My efforts to explain taxonomic problems concerning some equines are being rebutted with tendentious reverts and ad hominems such as this edit summary: Write a scientific publication first. [1] I would appreciate some input from other editors. Please see Talk:Tarpan#Split Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus and Talk:Equus ferus ferus#More tarpans. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If I have images of plants that I can't identify, is there a place among this WikiProject where I could post them and users could identify them? Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a bot putting orphan tags on species stubs. The tags are essentially recruitment for the wikiproject orphanage, as that is the tags first link, to a project page, with oodles and oodles of text, rather than to a straight forward explanation and policy information.
The biggest problem with the tag, though, is it is greater than the text in the species stubs, comes before the text, and, with the taxobox, and a single sentence can make it appear as if it is the primary or only text on the page outside of the taxobox.
In addition, with a number of species internally linking to a species stub may only be appropriate from a single other page, such as its genus page, if there is a list of species on the genus page.
If the species is large, however, it may be inappropriate to have a list on the genus page. In this case, the only link will be from a list of species.
And, having only one link from the genus page or having only a link from a list, will still make the article an orphan, and the tag will be a permanent overpowering feature on the stub.
The project orphanage folks swear they're editing these articles, but they're not. The orphanage tag is, as far as I can tell, something to recruit members or to gain activity for a bot.
The bot owners project is uninterested in discussing the underlying problem with this bot.
What should be done? I don't see any purpose in this bot and these tags. The orphanage project editors think that maybe making lists and links of all flowers by color and numbers of petals would be useful to Wikipedia readers, but, Wikipedia is not a flora, it's an encyclopedia, and useless links are not encyclopedic. The tags should go on article talk pages, not in article space if their primary purpose is to recruit for a project. As the tags do not categorize or provide any information to editors, such as how to link--if you click on the related articles link in the tag, you get, exactly what I say is useful to link, the genus, and nothing else for most of these.
-- KP Botany ( talk) 04:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of what the orphanage considers to link, simply to the genus page. But if the only link is to the genus page, then it will still be an orphan, and the tag will still be there, overpowering the article. -- KP Botany ( talk) 04:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect of Wikipedia:Orphan to the Orphanage WikiProject. As KPBotany says, the first link on the template, in bold, is to the former page, and the redirect was essentially making it a link to the WikiProject. There is a longstanding rule that we don't insert WikiProject links into the mainspace. For example such links are not permitted on stub notices. Hesperian 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the big problems with moving on to tagging in the one or two case, is the handling of ssubtopic articles spun out of larger topics written in summary style. In many such cases, the only sensible link is from the main article. For example, thanks to the bot I've been made aware that I neglected to link to List of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos from Houtman Abrolhos; so now that list has one incoming link. But I'm buggered if I can think of another article that ought to link to it. Hesperian 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are links from lists not considered "links", but links from transcluded templates are considered links? Why is a link from a one-line stub a better measure of "connectedness" than is a link from a featured list? I don't understand the underlying rationale, the philosophical framework.
In addition, the orphan template is terribly ugly and intrusive. It's a blight on the page. The obvious response is "get rid of it". So how? Well, why not add some 'see also' links from a few poorly-related articles? Now we have gone from a visible "orphan" (maybe something like Hesp's list of molluscs) to an invisible orphan...one that has 3 or more incoming links, but not of them are relevant. We don't want random links, we want relevant links. Throw a template like that on an article I'm editing, and my reaction would be to do whatever I could to get rid of it. Add a less annoying link, and it can serve as a reminder to link once appropriate content is created. Doesn't that make more sense? Guettarda ( talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The proof. I looked at the proof offered above by the bot's owner and had to spend 10 minutes removing links and orphaning an article Brain types which was improperly linked within other articles. I'm not impressed. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Does the synonym field in the taxobox allow only "unambiguous synonyms" (=Junior synonyms) or can it include ambiguous synonyms (incl. misapplied names)? This is in relation to a discussion on Talk:Black Drongo where Dicrurus adsimilis in its older circumscription included what is now Dicrurus macrocercus. Comments there would be useful. Shyamal ( talk) 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.
I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, ( Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.
Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.
I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.
I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...
Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life
For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.
One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding †:.....That makes good sense. Good idea.
Regarding composites: I agree that the Vaccinium image looks confusing. The one for Plant is an exception because it's the first in the category. I think 4 to 6 images are just right -- not too many and not too few, just like the middle bear's porridge. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Spoken articles are wikipedia articles produced as sound recordings for visually challenged users and audio enthusiasts. I am presently working towards a spoken article on Bird. WP:SPOKEN recording guidelines for spoken articles in principle discourage interpretation of a picture or chart in the article other than to mention that it exists with 'such and such' caption.
Simple phylogeny charts show the evolution or radiation of taxons and are important information. Should a phylogeny chart be read out or not?
|
If it is considered desirable then a phylogeny chart has to be converted to equivalent text. The aves phylogeny will then go something like this -
I am looking forward to discussion and consensus on this issue, which will then be an important guideline for spoken articles pertaining to this project.
AshLin ( talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm bothered by "earlier fork"; it seems that if the lineage forked, the forks would be of the same age.
I'd be more inclined to say "The clade Aves contains the clades Archaeopteryx and Pygostylia. The clade Pygostylia contains the clades Confuciusornithidae and Ornithothoraces. The clade Ornithothoraces contains..." and so on like that. This would have the advantage of being able to be algorithmically derived from any unambiguous tree notation.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think for some situations a cladogram is the best way to express oneself. The prose should speak to the cladogram, but that doesn't mean the cladogram should be redundant to the prose. For example the following extract from the featured article Banksia telmatiaea contains a cladogram that is integrated into the prose, whilst containing additional information that the prose does not. I don't think it would be right to rephrase it simply because the cladogram is not easy to speak.
In 1996, Kevin Thiele and Pauline Ladiges published the results of a cladistic analysis of morphological characters of Banksia. They retained George's subgenera and many of his series, but discarded his sections. B. ser. Abietinae was found to be very nearly monophyletic, and so retained. It further resolved into four subclades, so Thiele and Ladiges split it into four subseries. B. telmatiaea appeared in the third of these:
This clade became the basis of B. subser. Leptophyllae, which Thiele defined as containing those species with "indurated and spinescent common bracts on the infructescence axes, and densely arachnose seedling stems." In accordance with their cladogram, their arrangement placed B. telmatiaea next to B. scabrella.
If one was determined to verbalise a cladogram, I would be inclined to go with a formulaic approach, in keeping with the fixed structure of the gram:
Hesperian 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a number of insects etc in the Atlantic Forest of SE Brazil in late Feb 2009. I'll add images over the next few days, and I would be grateful for any ID help
jimfbleak (
talk)
16:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1.
File:Cicada Brazil 120.jpg crickety thing mimicking bird dropping
2. File:TurquoisebeetleBrazil 120.jpg beetle ( Curculionoidea: ? Curculionidae)
3. File:Brazil 063cropped.jpg butterfly (most likely Marpesia coresia )
4. File:BeetleBrazil 068.jpg beetle (probably Coccinellidae)
5. File:BeetleBrazil 134.jpg beetle ( Chrysomelidae?)
6. File:ButterflyBrazil 148.jpg butterfly (probably Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae)
7. File:FrogBrazil 150.jpg frog ("It's Bufo crucifer [now Chaunus crucifer ], http://santuario-ra-bugio.htmlplanet.com/custom4.html Mokele ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)")
Thanks, I'll see what I can do with these jimfbleak ( talk) 05:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks! A discussion about this category and its subcats evolved on my talk page (see User talk:Rkitko#Category:Plants by year of formal description) where a couple questions arose that need wider input. You can read through that discussion, and I'll try to summarize the questions here:
I'm sure Guettarda and Hesperian will let me know if I've forgotten anything. Anyway, what does everyone think? -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We can do this in a very simple way, by splitting the *****_authority attributes of the taxobox in two, one for name and one for year, and generate the categories automatically in that script. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This article -yellow is a collaboration rticle - was hoping some bio poeple had good sources of yellow in nature to rewrite Yellow#In_biology more like Green#In_biology. Anyone keen? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have asked User:Dysmorodrepanis to stop edits such as these: [ [2]] (comments on my talk page and his/hers). I oppose the littering of articles with arcance code or placing items in the reference section (even hidden in comments) which have not been used as references in creating the actual article. The user has not agreed with me. Many further opinions are invited - the more the merrier. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Was this redirect originally meant for the naturalist John Alexander Smith (see refs in de:John Alexander Smith (Naturforscher)) or for the philosopher John Alexander Smith ( as well? Anyway, the philosopher didn't describe either the Calabar Angwantibo or the Reedfish, but how fix the problem? -- Hämbörger ( talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Manual of Style does not give clear advice pertaining to the format of the scientific name of an animal. I have found two primary sections that should answer this matter but the advice is inconclusive.
Most pages seem not to use bold for the scientific name although a significant fraction do. At the moment, these two examples differ (Blue Whale's scientific name is bolded, but Humpback's is not):
It seems to me that when the species is well-enough known to have a common name, that name should be used for the article and the scientific name should not be bold. However, if the species is obscure or if the animal simply does not have a common name, then the species name should be the name of the article itself and therefore bolded.
Can anybody point out more sources regarding the format or help clear up the matter? Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Thorwald's (evergreen) proposal that articles should always be given the scientific name as their title. This always seems like a good idea, until you realise that it implies moving dog to Canis lupus familiaris. Face it: it ain't gonna happen.
![]() | This page 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. |
Form taxon is tagged {{ disambig}} and has some other residue of a disambiguation page. Would someone here care to clean it up? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall that this used to be the place to get help identifying unknown animals etc that one had taken photos of. Has this changed? Where should I go?
(The immediate question is some kind of falcon I saw in Torres del Paine NP, Chile. Stevage 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I know this is probably somewhat trivial, but is there a userpage box for this wikiproject? I always forget which wikiprojects I get involved with, so I like to use those to remind myself. -- Pstanton ( talk) 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I made ICZN a disambiguation page. It has over 200 incoming links needing disambiguation between the Commission and the Code. I also created Opinion 2027, a stub, concerning the Commission's Opinion to conserve 17 species names of wild animals over their domestic derivatives. -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the taxonomic and phylogenic classification systems shown in Tree of Life, Amphibians and Reptiles, and Palaeontology projects are confusing to folks who are not familiar with classification systems (who are, after all, a primary customer) because the two systems seem a little contradictory. A short, standardized lead-in paragraph describing the criteria of each system anywhere they are introduced would help immeasurably. To keep everyone on the same page, I’ve made this suggestion to all three projects.
74.242.254.68 ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Mike Sarles
A lot of articles phrase that certain taxa "are (such and such) years old" or "originated in the (such and such) period". Being as that fossil records are not proof that it is the earliest that that particular taxa exists, I believe that they should be rephrased to something like "the earliest known record of (such and such) was (whatever period)" or the like. -- FUNKAMATIC ~talk 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It depends upon the taxon. For some taxa there exists additional evidence that can narrow the taxon down to an origina in a specific window of geological time. Evidence, for example, of the atmospheric and environmental conditions of the time. However, for other taxa it may be better to phrase age in the manner you suggest, particularly when using smaller taphonomic windows. Feel free to discuss this individually on article talk pages, or post some examples here. -- KP Botany ( talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made a "test proposal" at CfD to see if there is a consensus for replacing the categorization system of classifying biota "by country" with a system that would categorize biota "by ecozone". See here to read or comment. Looking for as much input as possible especially from those expert in the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
My efforts to explain taxonomic problems concerning some equines are being rebutted with tendentious reverts and ad hominems such as this edit summary: Write a scientific publication first. [1] I would appreciate some input from other editors. Please see Talk:Tarpan#Split Tarpan and Equus ferus ferus and Talk:Equus ferus ferus#More tarpans. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If I have images of plants that I can't identify, is there a place among this WikiProject where I could post them and users could identify them? Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a bot putting orphan tags on species stubs. The tags are essentially recruitment for the wikiproject orphanage, as that is the tags first link, to a project page, with oodles and oodles of text, rather than to a straight forward explanation and policy information.
The biggest problem with the tag, though, is it is greater than the text in the species stubs, comes before the text, and, with the taxobox, and a single sentence can make it appear as if it is the primary or only text on the page outside of the taxobox.
In addition, with a number of species internally linking to a species stub may only be appropriate from a single other page, such as its genus page, if there is a list of species on the genus page.
If the species is large, however, it may be inappropriate to have a list on the genus page. In this case, the only link will be from a list of species.
And, having only one link from the genus page or having only a link from a list, will still make the article an orphan, and the tag will be a permanent overpowering feature on the stub.
The project orphanage folks swear they're editing these articles, but they're not. The orphanage tag is, as far as I can tell, something to recruit members or to gain activity for a bot.
The bot owners project is uninterested in discussing the underlying problem with this bot.
What should be done? I don't see any purpose in this bot and these tags. The orphanage project editors think that maybe making lists and links of all flowers by color and numbers of petals would be useful to Wikipedia readers, but, Wikipedia is not a flora, it's an encyclopedia, and useless links are not encyclopedic. The tags should go on article talk pages, not in article space if their primary purpose is to recruit for a project. As the tags do not categorize or provide any information to editors, such as how to link--if you click on the related articles link in the tag, you get, exactly what I say is useful to link, the genus, and nothing else for most of these.
-- KP Botany ( talk) 04:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of what the orphanage considers to link, simply to the genus page. But if the only link is to the genus page, then it will still be an orphan, and the tag will still be there, overpowering the article. -- KP Botany ( talk) 04:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the redirect of Wikipedia:Orphan to the Orphanage WikiProject. As KPBotany says, the first link on the template, in bold, is to the former page, and the redirect was essentially making it a link to the WikiProject. There is a longstanding rule that we don't insert WikiProject links into the mainspace. For example such links are not permitted on stub notices. Hesperian 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the big problems with moving on to tagging in the one or two case, is the handling of ssubtopic articles spun out of larger topics written in summary style. In many such cases, the only sensible link is from the main article. For example, thanks to the bot I've been made aware that I neglected to link to List of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos from Houtman Abrolhos; so now that list has one incoming link. But I'm buggered if I can think of another article that ought to link to it. Hesperian 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are links from lists not considered "links", but links from transcluded templates are considered links? Why is a link from a one-line stub a better measure of "connectedness" than is a link from a featured list? I don't understand the underlying rationale, the philosophical framework.
In addition, the orphan template is terribly ugly and intrusive. It's a blight on the page. The obvious response is "get rid of it". So how? Well, why not add some 'see also' links from a few poorly-related articles? Now we have gone from a visible "orphan" (maybe something like Hesp's list of molluscs) to an invisible orphan...one that has 3 or more incoming links, but not of them are relevant. We don't want random links, we want relevant links. Throw a template like that on an article I'm editing, and my reaction would be to do whatever I could to get rid of it. Add a less annoying link, and it can serve as a reminder to link once appropriate content is created. Doesn't that make more sense? Guettarda ( talk) 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The proof. I looked at the proof offered above by the bot's owner and had to spend 10 minutes removing links and orphaning an article Brain types which was improperly linked within other articles. I'm not impressed. -- KP Botany ( talk) 08:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Does the synonym field in the taxobox allow only "unambiguous synonyms" (=Junior synonyms) or can it include ambiguous synonyms (incl. misapplied names)? This is in relation to a discussion on Talk:Black Drongo where Dicrurus adsimilis in its older circumscription included what is now Dicrurus macrocercus. Comments there would be useful. Shyamal ( talk) 06:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.
I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, ( Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.
Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.
I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.
I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...
Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life
For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.
One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding †:.....That makes good sense. Good idea.
Regarding composites: I agree that the Vaccinium image looks confusing. The one for Plant is an exception because it's the first in the category. I think 4 to 6 images are just right -- not too many and not too few, just like the middle bear's porridge. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Spoken articles are wikipedia articles produced as sound recordings for visually challenged users and audio enthusiasts. I am presently working towards a spoken article on Bird. WP:SPOKEN recording guidelines for spoken articles in principle discourage interpretation of a picture or chart in the article other than to mention that it exists with 'such and such' caption.
Simple phylogeny charts show the evolution or radiation of taxons and are important information. Should a phylogeny chart be read out or not?
|
If it is considered desirable then a phylogeny chart has to be converted to equivalent text. The aves phylogeny will then go something like this -
I am looking forward to discussion and consensus on this issue, which will then be an important guideline for spoken articles pertaining to this project.
AshLin ( talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm bothered by "earlier fork"; it seems that if the lineage forked, the forks would be of the same age.
I'd be more inclined to say "The clade Aves contains the clades Archaeopteryx and Pygostylia. The clade Pygostylia contains the clades Confuciusornithidae and Ornithothoraces. The clade Ornithothoraces contains..." and so on like that. This would have the advantage of being able to be algorithmically derived from any unambiguous tree notation.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 16:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think for some situations a cladogram is the best way to express oneself. The prose should speak to the cladogram, but that doesn't mean the cladogram should be redundant to the prose. For example the following extract from the featured article Banksia telmatiaea contains a cladogram that is integrated into the prose, whilst containing additional information that the prose does not. I don't think it would be right to rephrase it simply because the cladogram is not easy to speak.
In 1996, Kevin Thiele and Pauline Ladiges published the results of a cladistic analysis of morphological characters of Banksia. They retained George's subgenera and many of his series, but discarded his sections. B. ser. Abietinae was found to be very nearly monophyletic, and so retained. It further resolved into four subclades, so Thiele and Ladiges split it into four subseries. B. telmatiaea appeared in the third of these:
This clade became the basis of B. subser. Leptophyllae, which Thiele defined as containing those species with "indurated and spinescent common bracts on the infructescence axes, and densely arachnose seedling stems." In accordance with their cladogram, their arrangement placed B. telmatiaea next to B. scabrella.
If one was determined to verbalise a cladogram, I would be inclined to go with a formulaic approach, in keeping with the fixed structure of the gram:
Hesperian 01:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a number of insects etc in the Atlantic Forest of SE Brazil in late Feb 2009. I'll add images over the next few days, and I would be grateful for any ID help
jimfbleak (
talk)
16:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
1.
File:Cicada Brazil 120.jpg crickety thing mimicking bird dropping
2. File:TurquoisebeetleBrazil 120.jpg beetle ( Curculionoidea: ? Curculionidae)
3. File:Brazil 063cropped.jpg butterfly (most likely Marpesia coresia )
4. File:BeetleBrazil 068.jpg beetle (probably Coccinellidae)
5. File:BeetleBrazil 134.jpg beetle ( Chrysomelidae?)
6. File:ButterflyBrazil 148.jpg butterfly (probably Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae)
7. File:FrogBrazil 150.jpg frog ("It's Bufo crucifer [now Chaunus crucifer ], http://santuario-ra-bugio.htmlplanet.com/custom4.html Mokele ( talk) 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)")
Thanks, I'll see what I can do with these jimfbleak ( talk) 05:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, folks! A discussion about this category and its subcats evolved on my talk page (see User talk:Rkitko#Category:Plants by year of formal description) where a couple questions arose that need wider input. You can read through that discussion, and I'll try to summarize the questions here:
I'm sure Guettarda and Hesperian will let me know if I've forgotten anything. Anyway, what does everyone think? -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
We can do this in a very simple way, by splitting the *****_authority attributes of the taxobox in two, one for name and one for year, and generate the categories automatically in that script. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This article -yellow is a collaboration rticle - was hoping some bio poeple had good sources of yellow in nature to rewrite Yellow#In_biology more like Green#In_biology. Anyone keen? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have asked User:Dysmorodrepanis to stop edits such as these: [ [2]] (comments on my talk page and his/hers). I oppose the littering of articles with arcance code or placing items in the reference section (even hidden in comments) which have not been used as references in creating the actual article. The user has not agreed with me. Many further opinions are invited - the more the merrier. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Was this redirect originally meant for the naturalist John Alexander Smith (see refs in de:John Alexander Smith (Naturforscher)) or for the philosopher John Alexander Smith ( as well? Anyway, the philosopher didn't describe either the Calabar Angwantibo or the Reedfish, but how fix the problem? -- Hämbörger ( talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The Manual of Style does not give clear advice pertaining to the format of the scientific name of an animal. I have found two primary sections that should answer this matter but the advice is inconclusive.
Most pages seem not to use bold for the scientific name although a significant fraction do. At the moment, these two examples differ (Blue Whale's scientific name is bolded, but Humpback's is not):
It seems to me that when the species is well-enough known to have a common name, that name should be used for the article and the scientific name should not be bold. However, if the species is obscure or if the animal simply does not have a common name, then the species name should be the name of the article itself and therefore bolded.
Can anybody point out more sources regarding the format or help clear up the matter? Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Thorwald's (evergreen) proposal that articles should always be given the scientific name as their title. This always seems like a good idea, until you realise that it implies moving dog to Canis lupus familiaris. Face it: it ain't gonna happen.