![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Anyone know of a website or other tool that, if given a taxon, would provide the meaning in English of the original Greek/Latein/Etc? For example, if I fed it "parthenoxylon" it would return "virgin wood." Something like Botanary but for all domains of life? -- Nessie ( talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to start a discussion on a radical different approach to how to maintain the taxonomic data. The reason is that wikipedia seems to become more or less the most influential database for specie data. Now, we manually maintain thousants and thousants of pages with, in part, the same the information, which, ideally, should be internally consistant. However, it isn't, mainly because ongoing insights in taxonomy, especially at the higher levels, are not consistently changed in all related pages. So, what if we would develop a system in which the taxobox is database driven and automatically generated based on a limited number of parameters. The taxobox would be generated by a separate php script that uses the name of the taxon to recursively find the higher taxa and generate the taxobox. Data would be maintained by a public available page (everybody can edit has to be honoured), which allows to change the relationsships of a taxon with the next level. How to exactly do the database stuff is a rather technical but trivial issue and I would like to focus for the moment on the idea itself, not how exactly it technically needs to be done. What do people think of the idea? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This was brought up at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation but I didn't want to go off topic there. It would be nice to have a standard or at least guideline to article names for taxa. Someone in that discussion objected to Hadrosaurid being the title for the article about Hadrosauridae. However, the same example used Cephalopod rather than Cephalopoda with no objections. Which format is preferred? I know somewhere, possibly in he MOS it says "common names" should be preferred over scientific names in article titles, would this include examples like Animal vs. Animalia, Cephalopod vs. Cephalopoda, Hadrosaurid vs. Hadrosauridae? If not, where should the line be drawn? MMartyniuk ( talk) 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a standard practice for disambiguating the names of monotypic genera? I've been developing Ambondro (genus), which I found at that title, but don't really like; I think I would prefer " Ambondro (mammal)" or the binomial. Ucucha 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The section 1st author ( The Mysterious El Willstro) temporarily concedes the topic, and will open a new section pending further biological coursework on his part. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It would not be easy, but since Domain is now considered a major rank, all Articles on eukaryotic species and taxa should link to the Eukaryote Article via "Domain: Eukarya" in the TaxoBox. It was actually announced a few years ago that Kingdom was no longer the highest major rank, what with Domain being no longer considered a minor rank. Besides, this has already been done for Articles on species and taxa within the other 2 taxa at this highest rank, the Domains Bacteria and Archaea. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451669 is an interesting read. Lots of relevant background, though nothing that actually settles this dispute. Among other interesting points, it notices that domain names cannot be validly published under any nomenclatural code, because each code governs taxonomic names within a given kingdom. Hesperian 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
Hi all, over at the Disambiguation pages with links project, one of the thornier disambigs has been Cedar, with approximately 123 links. Could someone give us some guidance on how to fix these? It's been on our list for months and no one is comfortable enough with the topic to start working on it. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 11:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this ongoing RfC until today. The original question wasn't about whether or not we should use {{ italic title}} at all, but it's sure turned into that. Several folks are !voting for no italics in article titles, including taxa (the original question dealt with literature, which previously could not italicize article titles since there was no consensus on that point at the last RfC). I've only seen a few TOL editors over there voicing their opinion and think it would be good if a few more spoke up. While you're there, opine on the use of the template/formatting for article titles other than taxa if you have a strong opinion one way or the other. Rkitko ( talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that throughout Wikipedia, the articles on organisms (any kind) have basically similar sections in the article. Anatomy, ecology, evolution, taxonomy or classification, etc. However, many of the articles use different names or have it ordered differently with evolution at the bottom or top, anatomy in different places, behavior, etc. I am suggesting a new system to unify and organize all the animal and other organism pages into similar and navigational articles with sections located in the same spots and a similar or identical heading names for basic information about the organism. It really won’t take much (if any) additional information, it would just be a reorganization and policy (or guideline for lack of a better word) for the articles on organisms.
For example the whale article has Taxonomy, Anatomy, Life History/behavior, ecology, relation to humans, and evolution. Fish has diversity, taxonomy, anatomy, diseases, evolution, importance to humans, conservation, culture, and terminology. Nautilus has anatomy, physiology, ecology, evolution, and taxonomy. These are three articles that have similar headings, but are all organized differently. Some of the headings could be titled the same and other parts are specific to the article.
I suggest we have a linear list that should apply to all articles. For example, all the articles should start with the lead, then evolution, taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, behavior, ecology, distribution, etc. This would not be the exact order, but for articles that needed specific sections or omitted a section would just place or remove it from the order while keeping the overall system clean and precise.
Thing such as “fossil record” would be part of the list but omitted in articles that do not have information on it. Headings such as “relation to humans” or “importance to humans” would not be part of the list, but would be added at the end of the systematic list in each individual article.
Does this make sense? Suggestions? Comments? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the core issues of this BRFA is whether or not a species should be represented by a stub comprising only a one-sentence description, a taxobox, and a reference.
What do you think? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
All published taxa are inherently notable, and quality one-sentence stubs are, in my opinion, unobjectionable. From past experience, a bigger issue is whether it is possible to program a bot to mass-create articles without introducing vast numbers of errors. Hesperian 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Stemonitis; if a species stub contains nothing more than its classification and authority, then I prefer to see it in a list instead. I find it frustrating to go to a genus article and see a list of blue links for species, only to find that every single one goes to a stub with no more information than the genus article itself. Having vast quantities of stubs also obscures the presence of higher-quality articles for those who want to browse, and areas that require further work for those who aren't familiar. -- Yzx ( talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. It has been very helpful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article about the genus Sus occupies the page name Pig, which is semi-protected so IPs cannot edit it. As an article about a genus, it is poor quality: full of tangents copied from related articles, and lacking discussion of the genus itself. Would anyone here like to clean it up? 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This Discussion would be better handled at WikiProject Animals or WikiProject Mammals, I would suggest moving it there so editors that are more familiar with the subject can assist you better. Regards Zoo Pro 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is brewing at Template:TaxonIds. One editor insists on making numerical identifiers invisible from this template, while others prefer to keep them visible. I would like to ask as many editors as possible to make their opinions known at Template talk:TaxonIds#Identifiers to help reach a clear consensus. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 06:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember leaving any formal note here regarding Template:Automatic taxobox, an attempt to simplify the process of adding taxoboxes and create consistency in the taxonomy used in Wikipedia. You can read more at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation.
I'm currently moving ahead with the implementation of this template, and have an open bot request in progress; feedback is very welcome and if anyone wants to chip in ideas either at Template talk:Automatic taxobox or on my talk page, you are warmly invited to. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal about the use of {{ Taxonomy disambiguation}} on Template:Taxonomy disambiguation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) talk page, see Template talk:Taxonomy disambiguation. -- 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories for taxa by date of description are now in widespread use across Wikipedia (e.g.
Category:Animals described in 1815,
Category:Plants described in 1910). Normally, the date is fairly obvious: it is the year in the binomial_authority
in the taxobox for animals, and can generally be found from
IPNI for vascular plants. I have just come across a situation which seems to my mind less clear.
Eucalyptus parvula was a
replacement name coined in 1991 to replace "Eucalyptus parvifolia Cambage", a junior homonym, described in 1909, of Eucalyptus parvifolia Newberry (a fossil, which was presumably described in the 1895 The Flora of the Amboy Clays). Thus, although the [valid] name wasn't published until 1991, the species was described in 1909. For the moment, I have left that article with
Category:Plants described in 1991, but I'm not sure whether that's right. (Of course, ultimately, the article should be long enough to take a "Taxonomic history" section which would explain all of this.) This isn't the same situation as taxa which were only informally described, since here
Richard Hind Cambage tried and intended to erect a new species, but was unaware of a prior homonym. I guess it comes down to a question of what we're trying to achieve with the date categories. I am of two minds. What does anyone else think? --
Stemonitis (
talk)
10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have asked a user with a project tagging bot to start tagging wikiproject algae articles. The conversation is here if you would like to comment, make suggestions.
Sorry for spamming this in a few locations, but algae on wikipedia need a lot of help. -- KMLP ( talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Just found the following:
The American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Joint Names Committee (the governing committee in North America that determines the scientific and common names of fishes), has decided that the first letter in each word in the common names of fishes will now be capitalized. [...] This decision has been accepted by the AFS Executive and will be reflected in the upcoming seventh edition of Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AFS Special Publication to be published in 2011.
As it seems, there may be a trend towards capitalization but there definitely is no trend away from it. Which seems logical - breeds and cultivars are (almost) universally capitalized, so why should species not be? But I wouldn't suggest changing the rules yet (I would support it though if the majority of editors supports it); the present equivocal stance is quite appropriate given that most organisms (plants and arthropods) do not yet follow the caps rule widely (as common names are not standardized as much as for birds, mammals, and - increasingly - herpers and fishes). Eventually (say by 2013-2015) we may find it advisable to implement a caps rule, but at present it's better left to the individual editor's discretion, except where caps are generally used (which is largely concurrent with the establishment of standardized common-name lists, an ongoing process that is only completed yet for birds and mammals). Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Taxonomic articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I found this on the home page of the Commons this morning:
The IUCN Red List has released rights for the reuse of their distribution maps of species that have been evaluated (currently around 25,000 maps are available). If anyone is interested, the maps need to be reproduced using the spatial data (I assume there is special software out there to do this) and then placed in the Commons. Additionally, any maps in the Commons can now be placed into the appropriate articles.
commons:Commons:IUCN_red_list - About this project
commons:Category:IUCN distribution maps - Maps are being added to this category. You might consider browsing it and placing the maps included in this category into the appropriate articles.
Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of unitalicized phyla names used in the intro of one of the sections in this list. Could someone look at the list an italicize them if they should be? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 22:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if someone would be kind enough to comment on taxobox photograph selection at Talk:Mimulus guttatus, please? Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Plasmodium article. There are a couple of problems being discussed on the talk page and its is possible that at least part of the article may be OR. All comments are welcome!-- Kev min § 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:African Wild Dog#Requested move for a discussion relevant to this Wikiproject. Help appreciated. Andrewa ( talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
How should this article, Sarcocystis: Host-parasite relations, be properly titled, and what about similar articles? While descriptive, I wonder if someone can come up with better? Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
fulltext of:
Community-level changes in Banksia woodland following plant pathogen invasion in the Southwest Australian Floristic Region Author(s): Bishop CL, Wardell-Johnson GW, Williams MR Source: JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE Volume: 21 Issue: 5 Pages: 888-898 Published: OCT 2010 Times Cited: 0
I can only get this journal till 2004 :( cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
this one - much appreciated if anyone can get it :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Of this, my uni's online link to this journal is glitched..dunno why...much appreciated Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) And also Schlee, M.A. 2000. The status of vultures in Latin America. Pp. 191-206 in International Zoo Yearbook 33:159-175 - same journal. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick note that we're looking for feedback on Template:Automatic taxobox; if there are any suggestions for improvement, the would be welcome now, before we roll out the template on a larger scale. Comments gratefully appreciated at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Request_for_comments. Thank you! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Anyone know of a website or other tool that, if given a taxon, would provide the meaning in English of the original Greek/Latein/Etc? For example, if I fed it "parthenoxylon" it would return "virgin wood." Something like Botanary but for all domains of life? -- Nessie ( talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to start a discussion on a radical different approach to how to maintain the taxonomic data. The reason is that wikipedia seems to become more or less the most influential database for specie data. Now, we manually maintain thousants and thousants of pages with, in part, the same the information, which, ideally, should be internally consistant. However, it isn't, mainly because ongoing insights in taxonomy, especially at the higher levels, are not consistently changed in all related pages. So, what if we would develop a system in which the taxobox is database driven and automatically generated based on a limited number of parameters. The taxobox would be generated by a separate php script that uses the name of the taxon to recursively find the higher taxa and generate the taxobox. Data would be maintained by a public available page (everybody can edit has to be honoured), which allows to change the relationsships of a taxon with the next level. How to exactly do the database stuff is a rather technical but trivial issue and I would like to focus for the moment on the idea itself, not how exactly it technically needs to be done. What do people think of the idea? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This was brought up at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation but I didn't want to go off topic there. It would be nice to have a standard or at least guideline to article names for taxa. Someone in that discussion objected to Hadrosaurid being the title for the article about Hadrosauridae. However, the same example used Cephalopod rather than Cephalopoda with no objections. Which format is preferred? I know somewhere, possibly in he MOS it says "common names" should be preferred over scientific names in article titles, would this include examples like Animal vs. Animalia, Cephalopod vs. Cephalopoda, Hadrosaurid vs. Hadrosauridae? If not, where should the line be drawn? MMartyniuk ( talk) 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a standard practice for disambiguating the names of monotypic genera? I've been developing Ambondro (genus), which I found at that title, but don't really like; I think I would prefer " Ambondro (mammal)" or the binomial. Ucucha 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The section 1st author ( The Mysterious El Willstro) temporarily concedes the topic, and will open a new section pending further biological coursework on his part. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It would not be easy, but since Domain is now considered a major rank, all Articles on eukaryotic species and taxa should link to the Eukaryote Article via "Domain: Eukarya" in the TaxoBox. It was actually announced a few years ago that Kingdom was no longer the highest major rank, what with Domain being no longer considered a minor rank. Besides, this has already been done for Articles on species and taxa within the other 2 taxa at this highest rank, the Domains Bacteria and Archaea. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451669 is an interesting read. Lots of relevant background, though nothing that actually settles this dispute. Among other interesting points, it notices that domain names cannot be validly published under any nomenclatural code, because each code governs taxonomic names within a given kingdom. Hesperian 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
Hi all, over at the Disambiguation pages with links project, one of the thornier disambigs has been Cedar, with approximately 123 links. Could someone give us some guidance on how to fix these? It's been on our list for months and no one is comfortable enough with the topic to start working on it. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 11:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this ongoing RfC until today. The original question wasn't about whether or not we should use {{ italic title}} at all, but it's sure turned into that. Several folks are !voting for no italics in article titles, including taxa (the original question dealt with literature, which previously could not italicize article titles since there was no consensus on that point at the last RfC). I've only seen a few TOL editors over there voicing their opinion and think it would be good if a few more spoke up. While you're there, opine on the use of the template/formatting for article titles other than taxa if you have a strong opinion one way or the other. Rkitko ( talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that throughout Wikipedia, the articles on organisms (any kind) have basically similar sections in the article. Anatomy, ecology, evolution, taxonomy or classification, etc. However, many of the articles use different names or have it ordered differently with evolution at the bottom or top, anatomy in different places, behavior, etc. I am suggesting a new system to unify and organize all the animal and other organism pages into similar and navigational articles with sections located in the same spots and a similar or identical heading names for basic information about the organism. It really won’t take much (if any) additional information, it would just be a reorganization and policy (or guideline for lack of a better word) for the articles on organisms.
For example the whale article has Taxonomy, Anatomy, Life History/behavior, ecology, relation to humans, and evolution. Fish has diversity, taxonomy, anatomy, diseases, evolution, importance to humans, conservation, culture, and terminology. Nautilus has anatomy, physiology, ecology, evolution, and taxonomy. These are three articles that have similar headings, but are all organized differently. Some of the headings could be titled the same and other parts are specific to the article.
I suggest we have a linear list that should apply to all articles. For example, all the articles should start with the lead, then evolution, taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, behavior, ecology, distribution, etc. This would not be the exact order, but for articles that needed specific sections or omitted a section would just place or remove it from the order while keeping the overall system clean and precise.
Thing such as “fossil record” would be part of the list but omitted in articles that do not have information on it. Headings such as “relation to humans” or “importance to humans” would not be part of the list, but would be added at the end of the systematic list in each individual article.
Does this make sense? Suggestions? Comments? A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the core issues of this BRFA is whether or not a species should be represented by a stub comprising only a one-sentence description, a taxobox, and a reference.
What do you think? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
All published taxa are inherently notable, and quality one-sentence stubs are, in my opinion, unobjectionable. From past experience, a bigger issue is whether it is possible to program a bot to mass-create articles without introducing vast numbers of errors. Hesperian 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Stemonitis; if a species stub contains nothing more than its classification and authority, then I prefer to see it in a list instead. I find it frustrating to go to a genus article and see a list of blue links for species, only to find that every single one goes to a stub with no more information than the genus article itself. Having vast quantities of stubs also obscures the presence of higher-quality articles for those who want to browse, and areas that require further work for those who aren't familiar. -- Yzx ( talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. It has been very helpful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article about the genus Sus occupies the page name Pig, which is semi-protected so IPs cannot edit it. As an article about a genus, it is poor quality: full of tangents copied from related articles, and lacking discussion of the genus itself. Would anyone here like to clean it up? 69.3.72.249 ( talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This Discussion would be better handled at WikiProject Animals or WikiProject Mammals, I would suggest moving it there so editors that are more familiar with the subject can assist you better. Regards Zoo Pro 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is brewing at Template:TaxonIds. One editor insists on making numerical identifiers invisible from this template, while others prefer to keep them visible. I would like to ask as many editors as possible to make their opinions known at Template talk:TaxonIds#Identifiers to help reach a clear consensus. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 06:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember leaving any formal note here regarding Template:Automatic taxobox, an attempt to simplify the process of adding taxoboxes and create consistency in the taxonomy used in Wikipedia. You can read more at Template_talk:Taxobox#Automatic_taxonomy_generation.
I'm currently moving ahead with the implementation of this template, and have an open bot request in progress; feedback is very welcome and if anyone wants to chip in ideas either at Template talk:Automatic taxobox or on my talk page, you are warmly invited to. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a proposal about the use of {{ Taxonomy disambiguation}} on Template:Taxonomy disambiguation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) talk page, see Template talk:Taxonomy disambiguation. -- 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories for taxa by date of description are now in widespread use across Wikipedia (e.g.
Category:Animals described in 1815,
Category:Plants described in 1910). Normally, the date is fairly obvious: it is the year in the binomial_authority
in the taxobox for animals, and can generally be found from
IPNI for vascular plants. I have just come across a situation which seems to my mind less clear.
Eucalyptus parvula was a
replacement name coined in 1991 to replace "Eucalyptus parvifolia Cambage", a junior homonym, described in 1909, of Eucalyptus parvifolia Newberry (a fossil, which was presumably described in the 1895 The Flora of the Amboy Clays). Thus, although the [valid] name wasn't published until 1991, the species was described in 1909. For the moment, I have left that article with
Category:Plants described in 1991, but I'm not sure whether that's right. (Of course, ultimately, the article should be long enough to take a "Taxonomic history" section which would explain all of this.) This isn't the same situation as taxa which were only informally described, since here
Richard Hind Cambage tried and intended to erect a new species, but was unaware of a prior homonym. I guess it comes down to a question of what we're trying to achieve with the date categories. I am of two minds. What does anyone else think? --
Stemonitis (
talk)
10:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have asked a user with a project tagging bot to start tagging wikiproject algae articles. The conversation is here if you would like to comment, make suggestions.
Sorry for spamming this in a few locations, but algae on wikipedia need a lot of help. -- KMLP ( talk) 19:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Just found the following:
The American Fisheries Society and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Joint Names Committee (the governing committee in North America that determines the scientific and common names of fishes), has decided that the first letter in each word in the common names of fishes will now be capitalized. [...] This decision has been accepted by the AFS Executive and will be reflected in the upcoming seventh edition of Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, AFS Special Publication to be published in 2011.
As it seems, there may be a trend towards capitalization but there definitely is no trend away from it. Which seems logical - breeds and cultivars are (almost) universally capitalized, so why should species not be? But I wouldn't suggest changing the rules yet (I would support it though if the majority of editors supports it); the present equivocal stance is quite appropriate given that most organisms (plants and arthropods) do not yet follow the caps rule widely (as common names are not standardized as much as for birds, mammals, and - increasingly - herpers and fishes). Eventually (say by 2013-2015) we may find it advisable to implement a caps rule, but at present it's better left to the individual editor's discretion, except where caps are generally used (which is largely concurrent with the establishment of standardized common-name lists, an ongoing process that is only completed yet for birds and mammals). Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Taxonomic articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I found this on the home page of the Commons this morning:
The IUCN Red List has released rights for the reuse of their distribution maps of species that have been evaluated (currently around 25,000 maps are available). If anyone is interested, the maps need to be reproduced using the spatial data (I assume there is special software out there to do this) and then placed in the Commons. Additionally, any maps in the Commons can now be placed into the appropriate articles.
commons:Commons:IUCN_red_list - About this project
commons:Category:IUCN distribution maps - Maps are being added to this category. You might consider browsing it and placing the maps included in this category into the appropriate articles.
Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of unitalicized phyla names used in the intro of one of the sections in this list. Could someone look at the list an italicize them if they should be? --- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 22:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if someone would be kind enough to comment on taxobox photograph selection at Talk:Mimulus guttatus, please? Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Plasmodium article. There are a couple of problems being discussed on the talk page and its is possible that at least part of the article may be OR. All comments are welcome!-- Kev min § 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:African Wild Dog#Requested move for a discussion relevant to this Wikiproject. Help appreciated. Andrewa ( talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
How should this article, Sarcocystis: Host-parasite relations, be properly titled, and what about similar articles? While descriptive, I wonder if someone can come up with better? Thanks. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
fulltext of:
Community-level changes in Banksia woodland following plant pathogen invasion in the Southwest Australian Floristic Region Author(s): Bishop CL, Wardell-Johnson GW, Williams MR Source: JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE Volume: 21 Issue: 5 Pages: 888-898 Published: OCT 2010 Times Cited: 0
I can only get this journal till 2004 :( cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
this one - much appreciated if anyone can get it :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Of this, my uni's online link to this journal is glitched..dunno why...much appreciated Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) And also Schlee, M.A. 2000. The status of vultures in Latin America. Pp. 191-206 in International Zoo Yearbook 33:159-175 - same journal. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just a quick note that we're looking for feedback on Template:Automatic taxobox; if there are any suggestions for improvement, the would be welcome now, before we roll out the template on a larger scale. Comments gratefully appreciated at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox#Request_for_comments. Thank you! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)