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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Can someone chime in on Talk:Encyrtidae plus ( Chalcid wasp, Signiphoridae, Blattodea, and Termitidae) the IP editor 165.225.34.56 is breaking 3rr to force articles into the plural form even though they have been singular for years. The reasoning given is that in the US they are treated as plurals, and thus anything other is bad grammar, despite being informed that this is a multinational encyclopedia and the consensus is that singular is fine. See User talk for the 3rr warning and the earlier ignored request that the edits be stopped. Can someone also place the articles back to the versions prior to user:165.225.34.56's changes, pending discussion.-- Kev min § 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to participate in a discussion I started at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
after 9-10 years is Superphylum still ok as a redirect or can it become a permastub?
I was trying to write Draft:Superphylum but I don't think I have enough expertise (or sources).-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 06:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, I have noticed that there is not a specific location for genetic base pair count. I've taken to putting it where the info helps but as the amount of DNA sequencing increases there will be more users, like me, interested in knowing and contributing to the base pair info. Where best to put this info? I've started here: /info/en/?search=Onion#Description and here: /info/en/?search=Mouse thank you for considering my issue worthwhile for discussion. DennisDaniels ( talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Today, I went looking for Johnston, 1865 with regard to the taxobox in Serpulidae.
This reminded me of an earlier one: Louis, 1897 in the list for Diadematidae at Pedinothuria (which The Banner recently unlinked).
For those of us who are not sufficiently trained in biology, these tags are a bit of a mystery. Is there a central authority where these initial identifications of taxa can be looked up, using just these (name,year) tags? I recognize a few famous names among the tags, Agassiz (which someone figured out was Alexander, not Louis), Linnaeus, Mortenson; and, in general, someone has taken care to point most of the links to their respective scientists' articles, but no other references are left behind to substantiate these identifications. I see via Google searches that this system is widely used, but have not yet stumbled upon the key.
While I'll accept a response of "go away, we'll take care of this", but I would like to help and also to point out that the "Louis, 1897" one had been tagged as needing disambiguation all the way back in November 2011 with the only resolution being to unlink it nearly 5 years later. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (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.
Should we disallow anonymous and new users from editing the taxonomy templates? Tecchnically, this would be done using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, with the "noedit" and "autoconfirmed" tags (see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for a desciprtion). here have been no useful edits to these templates by anons or new users, and vandalism on one of these templates causes damage to several articles, which can be confusing to readers (see, for example, how Tyrannosaurus looks with this taxobox version). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Are birds reptiles? The issue has been raised here. It seems to me that a decision on this matter should be reached by a wider forum, such as this one. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 05:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There are two self-consistent classifications using "Class Reptilia".
1. The traditional one, in which it is now known that the class is paraphyletic, since it excludes birds (Class Aves). Birds are not a subgroup of Class Reptilia in this classification.
2. The modern phylogenetic sense, in which Class Reptilia is monophyletic and includes birds. The precise details of the clades and names differ from source to source; one recent system due to Benton (2014) is at Reptile#Taxonomy, in which birds are a clade within Order Saurischia.
These two are mutually inconsistent, and cannot be combined in a single classification, as is the case at Bird as of now, based on the classification shown as of now at Template:Taxonomy/Aves, which has the rank "Class" for both Aves and Reptilia. Other parts of the taxonomy templates also show muddled and inconsistent hierarchies. One system at least partly based on (2) is shown by Template:Taxonomy/Neornithes. However, Neornithes cannot be a subclass since it lies below a suborder.
One "fix" would appear to be to make Neornithes and Aves clades in the taxonomy templates, and then make Neornithes the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Aves. However, the problem then is that it doesn't provide for the subdivisions within birds. If the order is Saurischia, then the traditional infraclasses, superorders, orders and possibly even families of birds are at far too high a rank. However, what reliable secondary sources provide lower ranks for these? None that I can find.
It seems to me that Aves has to be treated at the rank "Class" until ranks are provided for the divisions below Aves. This means that in the classification of Aves, Reptilia cannot be treated as a class, although it can elsewhere. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding pronunciations for Latin taxon names. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 05:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
see Talk:Agrocybe aegerita-- Samuele Madini ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I've come across the contraction "Icon. Ined." in some older taxonomic works, and it seems to be a reference to illustrations in a series, such as ""icon. ined. Brit. Mus. Nat. His.". Anyone know what it stands for? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
When a family contains only a single genus should the genus name be a redirect to the family article as the article at the family name describes the sole genus anyway? It would effectively indicate that the genus is "upmerged" to the family page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the catmain-stuff, overlooked that because I mostly work with monotypic genera, which rarely have their own category (thankfully...that'd be the very definition of WP:SMALLCAT). It was nice to have an 'easy' misplaced-monotypic-taxon move, anyway. I still have a list of nearly thirty round-robin moves I need to get around to doing for monotypic moth genera listed at the wrong place. (Too many round robin moves in a row make me cranky, though, so I'm doing them in between my other editing. Some of those articles have been misplaced for nearly a decade now, it's not like a few hours (or even days, in the worst case) more matters all that much) AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently categorization scheme like this (example for year 1927):
1) Are those categories officially supported by this Wikiproject (or by any of its subprojects)? 2) Was there any previous discussion about these categories? 3) If so, which articles should be categorized in this way and how? 4) Which articles should not be categorized in this way? 5) Is everybody satisfied with those categories or are there any disadvantages? 6) Will there be any recommendation or guideline for this? If (some of) those categories will be suitable, then we could focus on planning of suitable subcategories and/or we could fulfil those categories semi-automatically or automatically. -- Snek01 ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So many questions. My answers to 3 and 4 are based on my perception of common practice, which hasn't necessarily been well discussed on all points.
There hasn't been any discussion I'm aware of about splitting the categories down to the level of (for example) beetles and moths. I do think it makes some sense to split along the lines of the ToL subprojects, although going strictly by subprojects doesn't always make sense (should there be subprojects/year categories for every insect order? would it be better to have one project for molluscs rather than 3 with a handful of species left orphaned?).
My main objection to these categories is that, at a glance, they seem to indicate the date relevant to the ICZN/ICBN for priority purposes. While description year usually is the same as priority year for animals, there are some exceptions. If a junior homonym is replaced, or an earlier name is supressed, the priority year will be later than the year of first formal description. For plants, it's far worse, as the priority year is based on the combination (i.e., when a previously described species was placed in a particular genus), so most plant species have a different priority year than the description year. The potential difference between priority year and description year makes the year categories difficult to populate automatically. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replies to all! For a complete view, we need to get informations about fossil taxa too.
My lists of missing topics about biology (among others) is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Some activists at Wikidata affirm that there are no such term "obsolete taxon". I welcome everybody to confirm or reject this to: d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Expired_taxa. -- Infovarius ( talk) 12:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Inconsistent taxonomies; many bird and bird-related taxoboxes still show inconsistent ranks (as per #Reptiliae or Aves? above), and this needs fixing. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
A large number of redirects from the names species in the genus Engaeus to the article about that genus (e.g. Engaeus affinis → Engaeus) have been nominated at RfD. Input from editors familiar with the organisation of taxonomic articles and redirects are encouraged to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Engaeus affinis. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Taxonomy templates updated. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed for a question about the default number of parent taxa to be displayed in an automated taxobox for a species. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We have separate articles for species name and Specific name (zoology). Is the distinction mentioned in the article factual? In that case, isn't species name synonymous with binomial name? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to inform everybody here of a proposal regarding abbreviating scientific names. The discuss is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Abbreviations again. Thanks! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 19:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Tree of Life, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_36#Category_year_of_formal_description. Species used to be categorized by year of description only. Some are satisfied with it, some are not, but those categories are acceptable, because they do not overlap with anything else.
Unforturtunately User:Caftaric started much categories such as Category:Sponges described in the 20th century or Category:Cnidarians described in the 19th century and categorized ARTICLES in those categories. That is huge overcategorization! We should cure that (delete such categories).
And we should rule, that articles according the formal description can be categorized by year only. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_18#described_century. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there guidance on linking to Wikispecies for species or other taxa? That is, should we have links in the form
where the second item is coded ''[[Wikispecies:Euploea phaenareta|Euploea phaenareta]]''?
I've recently run across these at:
Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Cannot give a full comment now as I am traveling in Portugal until June but I used these links to provide quick access to the otherwise (and most unfortunately) wasted photos and images on commons (especially the Lycaenidae by Alan Cassidy) and the albeit limited taxonomic info there. External links from a stub would be better but very time consuming.This I think is a useful shortcut providing a photoguide. Best regards Talk to you in June Notafly ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC) PS Better to be taken outside Wikipedia than nowhere and it is a sister project. Not really sure what readers expect. Maybe a note at the end of the lists would be better. I will think more on this. Notafly ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would find this page very useful. It is better than many stubs. Why not be guided by utility? The page you mention also is surely useful. The alternative - alist of red link names- is helpful but not very useful. Notafly ( talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Narky Blert: I saw something new to me at
Apamea digitula with links to authors formatted as "
Mikkola (
WS)" coded as [[Kauri Mikkola|Mikkola]] ([[:species:Kauri Mikkola|WS]])
. Is the consensus against that too?
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There's another kind of link that I am strongly opposed to: see Stanley B. Mulaik. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad this is being discussed, and I was earlier seeking clarity myself before deciding to be bold. I created that soft redirect (for which another editor created the specialized template {{ Wikispecies redirect}}), as a way to potentially bridge non-notable or marginally notable taxonomists (some of whom may never merit a Wikipedia article), and the red-linked taxon authority, as some editors link all authors without apparent consideration of notability. There are certainly many "less-notable" taxonomists than Mulaik, probably many with Wikispecies pages (as the barrier to inclusion there appears to be simply publishing one or more taxon names). Certainly not every grad student or early career scientist who names a wasp merits a Wikipedia article ( WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, etc.), but I'm interested in seeing if there are better ways to link curious readers to Wikispecies content. Should Stanley B. Mulaik be deleted as non-notable or out of scope, fine with me (although he has a news obituary and user-submitted biography, I generally prefer a higher standard than the bare minimum of WP:SCHOLAR). I suppose the current recourse for interested readers seeking info on authorities would be viewing the Wikispecies pages of taxa (if existent), then clicking the authority there (if existent). --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously. Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated. While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Input would be welcome on Talk:Insect regarding the clade Entognatha being displayed in taxoboxes (also about the use of ITIS over other sources.-- Kev min § 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- 2) Are we referring to plural taxa, e.g. Ursinae, in the singular or plural form? I.e., would the phrasing be "Ursinae is a subfamily" or "The Ursinae are a subfamily"? I'm convinced the former (singular) is the standard approach, and we should stick to it, but there seems to be no written WP guideline on that, and while I've been cleaning up after an avid pluralizer for the last few days (e.g. [2]) I'd appreciate to have some current or prior consensus to point to. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Taxonbar#Proposal: Switch Taxonbar template to use Module:Taxonbar, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to use a Lua module as the basis for the template, which will result in some changes to the template's appearance. Thank you.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
Wikimania reportInterviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Link
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Can someone chime in on Talk:Encyrtidae plus ( Chalcid wasp, Signiphoridae, Blattodea, and Termitidae) the IP editor 165.225.34.56 is breaking 3rr to force articles into the plural form even though they have been singular for years. The reasoning given is that in the US they are treated as plurals, and thus anything other is bad grammar, despite being informed that this is a multinational encyclopedia and the consensus is that singular is fine. See User talk for the 3rr warning and the earlier ignored request that the edits be stopped. Can someone also place the articles back to the versions prior to user:165.225.34.56's changes, pending discussion.-- Kev min § 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to participate in a discussion I started at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
after 9-10 years is Superphylum still ok as a redirect or can it become a permastub?
I was trying to write Draft:Superphylum but I don't think I have enough expertise (or sources).-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 06:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, I have noticed that there is not a specific location for genetic base pair count. I've taken to putting it where the info helps but as the amount of DNA sequencing increases there will be more users, like me, interested in knowing and contributing to the base pair info. Where best to put this info? I've started here: /info/en/?search=Onion#Description and here: /info/en/?search=Mouse thank you for considering my issue worthwhile for discussion. DennisDaniels ( talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Today, I went looking for Johnston, 1865 with regard to the taxobox in Serpulidae.
This reminded me of an earlier one: Louis, 1897 in the list for Diadematidae at Pedinothuria (which The Banner recently unlinked).
For those of us who are not sufficiently trained in biology, these tags are a bit of a mystery. Is there a central authority where these initial identifications of taxa can be looked up, using just these (name,year) tags? I recognize a few famous names among the tags, Agassiz (which someone figured out was Alexander, not Louis), Linnaeus, Mortenson; and, in general, someone has taken care to point most of the links to their respective scientists' articles, but no other references are left behind to substantiate these identifications. I see via Google searches that this system is widely used, but have not yet stumbled upon the key.
While I'll accept a response of "go away, we'll take care of this", but I would like to help and also to point out that the "Louis, 1897" one had been tagged as needing disambiguation all the way back in November 2011 with the only resolution being to unlink it nearly 5 years later. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:54, 7 September 2016 (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.
Should we disallow anonymous and new users from editing the taxonomy templates? Tecchnically, this would be done using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, with the "noedit" and "autoconfirmed" tags (see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for a desciprtion). here have been no useful edits to these templates by anons or new users, and vandalism on one of these templates causes damage to several articles, which can be confusing to readers (see, for example, how Tyrannosaurus looks with this taxobox version). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Are birds reptiles? The issue has been raised here. It seems to me that a decision on this matter should be reached by a wider forum, such as this one. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 05:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There are two self-consistent classifications using "Class Reptilia".
1. The traditional one, in which it is now known that the class is paraphyletic, since it excludes birds (Class Aves). Birds are not a subgroup of Class Reptilia in this classification.
2. The modern phylogenetic sense, in which Class Reptilia is monophyletic and includes birds. The precise details of the clades and names differ from source to source; one recent system due to Benton (2014) is at Reptile#Taxonomy, in which birds are a clade within Order Saurischia.
These two are mutually inconsistent, and cannot be combined in a single classification, as is the case at Bird as of now, based on the classification shown as of now at Template:Taxonomy/Aves, which has the rank "Class" for both Aves and Reptilia. Other parts of the taxonomy templates also show muddled and inconsistent hierarchies. One system at least partly based on (2) is shown by Template:Taxonomy/Neornithes. However, Neornithes cannot be a subclass since it lies below a suborder.
One "fix" would appear to be to make Neornithes and Aves clades in the taxonomy templates, and then make Neornithes the parent of Template:Taxonomy/Aves. However, the problem then is that it doesn't provide for the subdivisions within birds. If the order is Saurischia, then the traditional infraclasses, superorders, orders and possibly even families of birds are at far too high a rank. However, what reliable secondary sources provide lower ranks for these? None that I can find.
It seems to me that Aves has to be treated at the rank "Class" until ranks are provided for the divisions below Aves. This means that in the classification of Aves, Reptilia cannot be treated as a class, although it can elsewhere. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style regarding pronunciations for Latin taxon names. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 05:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
see Talk:Agrocybe aegerita-- Samuele Madini ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I've come across the contraction "Icon. Ined." in some older taxonomic works, and it seems to be a reference to illustrations in a series, such as ""icon. ined. Brit. Mus. Nat. His.". Anyone know what it stands for? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
When a family contains only a single genus should the genus name be a redirect to the family article as the article at the family name describes the sole genus anyway? It would effectively indicate that the genus is "upmerged" to the family page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for the catmain-stuff, overlooked that because I mostly work with monotypic genera, which rarely have their own category (thankfully...that'd be the very definition of WP:SMALLCAT). It was nice to have an 'easy' misplaced-monotypic-taxon move, anyway. I still have a list of nearly thirty round-robin moves I need to get around to doing for monotypic moth genera listed at the wrong place. (Too many round robin moves in a row make me cranky, though, so I'm doing them in between my other editing. Some of those articles have been misplaced for nearly a decade now, it's not like a few hours (or even days, in the worst case) more matters all that much) AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently categorization scheme like this (example for year 1927):
1) Are those categories officially supported by this Wikiproject (or by any of its subprojects)? 2) Was there any previous discussion about these categories? 3) If so, which articles should be categorized in this way and how? 4) Which articles should not be categorized in this way? 5) Is everybody satisfied with those categories or are there any disadvantages? 6) Will there be any recommendation or guideline for this? If (some of) those categories will be suitable, then we could focus on planning of suitable subcategories and/or we could fulfil those categories semi-automatically or automatically. -- Snek01 ( talk) 14:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So many questions. My answers to 3 and 4 are based on my perception of common practice, which hasn't necessarily been well discussed on all points.
There hasn't been any discussion I'm aware of about splitting the categories down to the level of (for example) beetles and moths. I do think it makes some sense to split along the lines of the ToL subprojects, although going strictly by subprojects doesn't always make sense (should there be subprojects/year categories for every insect order? would it be better to have one project for molluscs rather than 3 with a handful of species left orphaned?).
My main objection to these categories is that, at a glance, they seem to indicate the date relevant to the ICZN/ICBN for priority purposes. While description year usually is the same as priority year for animals, there are some exceptions. If a junior homonym is replaced, or an earlier name is supressed, the priority year will be later than the year of first formal description. For plants, it's far worse, as the priority year is based on the combination (i.e., when a previously described species was placed in a particular genus), so most plant species have a different priority year than the description year. The potential difference between priority year and description year makes the year categories difficult to populate automatically. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replies to all! For a complete view, we need to get informations about fossil taxa too.
My lists of missing topics about biology (among others) is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Some activists at Wikidata affirm that there are no such term "obsolete taxon". I welcome everybody to confirm or reject this to: d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Expired_taxa. -- Infovarius ( talk) 12:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Inconsistent taxonomies; many bird and bird-related taxoboxes still show inconsistent ranks (as per #Reptiliae or Aves? above), and this needs fixing. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
A large number of redirects from the names species in the genus Engaeus to the article about that genus (e.g. Engaeus affinis → Engaeus) have been nominated at RfD. Input from editors familiar with the organisation of taxonomic articles and redirects are encouraged to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Engaeus affinis. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Taxonomy templates updated. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed for a question about the default number of parent taxa to be displayed in an automated taxobox for a species. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We have separate articles for species name and Specific name (zoology). Is the distinction mentioned in the article factual? In that case, isn't species name synonymous with binomial name? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to inform everybody here of a proposal regarding abbreviating scientific names. The discuss is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Abbreviations again. Thanks! RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 19:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Tree of Life, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There was a discussion about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_36#Category_year_of_formal_description. Species used to be categorized by year of description only. Some are satisfied with it, some are not, but those categories are acceptable, because they do not overlap with anything else.
Unforturtunately User:Caftaric started much categories such as Category:Sponges described in the 20th century or Category:Cnidarians described in the 19th century and categorized ARTICLES in those categories. That is huge overcategorization! We should cure that (delete such categories).
And we should rule, that articles according the formal description can be categorized by year only. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_18#described_century. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there guidance on linking to Wikispecies for species or other taxa? That is, should we have links in the form
where the second item is coded ''[[Wikispecies:Euploea phaenareta|Euploea phaenareta]]''?
I've recently run across these at:
Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Cannot give a full comment now as I am traveling in Portugal until June but I used these links to provide quick access to the otherwise (and most unfortunately) wasted photos and images on commons (especially the Lycaenidae by Alan Cassidy) and the albeit limited taxonomic info there. External links from a stub would be better but very time consuming.This I think is a useful shortcut providing a photoguide. Best regards Talk to you in June Notafly ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC) PS Better to be taken outside Wikipedia than nowhere and it is a sister project. Not really sure what readers expect. Maybe a note at the end of the lists would be better. I will think more on this. Notafly ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would find this page very useful. It is better than many stubs. Why not be guided by utility? The page you mention also is surely useful. The alternative - alist of red link names- is helpful but not very useful. Notafly ( talk) 20:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Narky Blert: I saw something new to me at
Apamea digitula with links to authors formatted as "
Mikkola (
WS)" coded as [[Kauri Mikkola|Mikkola]] ([[:species:Kauri Mikkola|WS]])
. Is the consensus against that too?
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There's another kind of link that I am strongly opposed to: see Stanley B. Mulaik. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad this is being discussed, and I was earlier seeking clarity myself before deciding to be bold. I created that soft redirect (for which another editor created the specialized template {{ Wikispecies redirect}}), as a way to potentially bridge non-notable or marginally notable taxonomists (some of whom may never merit a Wikipedia article), and the red-linked taxon authority, as some editors link all authors without apparent consideration of notability. There are certainly many "less-notable" taxonomists than Mulaik, probably many with Wikispecies pages (as the barrier to inclusion there appears to be simply publishing one or more taxon names). Certainly not every grad student or early career scientist who names a wasp merits a Wikipedia article ( WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, etc.), but I'm interested in seeing if there are better ways to link curious readers to Wikispecies content. Should Stanley B. Mulaik be deleted as non-notable or out of scope, fine with me (although he has a news obituary and user-submitted biography, I generally prefer a higher standard than the bare minimum of WP:SCHOLAR). I suppose the current recourse for interested readers seeking info on authorities would be viewing the Wikispecies pages of taxa (if existent), then clicking the authority there (if existent). --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously. Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated. While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Input would be welcome on Talk:Insect regarding the clade Entognatha being displayed in taxoboxes (also about the use of ITIS over other sources.-- Kev min § 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- 2) Are we referring to plural taxa, e.g. Ursinae, in the singular or plural form? I.e., would the phrasing be "Ursinae is a subfamily" or "The Ursinae are a subfamily"? I'm convinced the former (singular) is the standard approach, and we should stick to it, but there seems to be no written WP guideline on that, and while I've been cleaning up after an avid pluralizer for the last few days (e.g. [2]) I'd appreciate to have some current or prior consensus to point to. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Taxonbar#Proposal: Switch Taxonbar template to use Module:Taxonbar, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to use a Lua module as the basis for the template, which will result in some changes to the template's appearance. Thank you.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
Wikimania reportInterviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages. Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example. "Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3. Link
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)