Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Problem editor

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.--Kevmin § 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This has come up before in various places, and while I don't remember previous outcomes, I'm from the US, and would prefer singular. The underlying issue is grammatical, not a particular regional English variety thing. Plantdrew (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It was discussed extensively at WP:PLANTS, and the outcome is summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Singular and plural with the names of taxa. Certainly for plants it's easy to find examples of both usages.
I looked quickly through the spider sources I have on my computer and easily found examples of both uses:
  • singular – "Orbiculariae is one of the largest entelegyne lineages" (Coddington 2005); "Phyxelididae Lehtinen was raised to family level and Zorocratidae Dahl was revalidated" (Griswold et al. 2005); "Pisauridae is represented in this analysis by four terminals" (Polotow et al. 2015); "Theraphosidae is the richest mygalomorph family" (Bertani et al. 2012)
  • plural – "Linyphiidae spin sheets" (Coddington 2005); "The Entelegynae comprise the largest group of spiders" (Griswold et al. 2005); "Lycosoidea are placed in the RTA Clade" (Polotow et al. 2015); "the Lycosinae have traditionally been divided into two groups" (Murphy et al. 2006).
It's perfectly clear that there is no consistency. Sometimes the taxon is being thought of as a unit, when the singular tends to be used ("Phyxelididae is ..." = "the family Phyxelididae is ..."), and sometimes the members of the taxon are being considered, when the plural tends to be used ("Linyphiidae spin sheets" = "linyphiids spin sheets" = "linyphiid spiders spin sheets"), but this is not a consistent pattern.
(Genus names are also an issue. They are singular in Latin, so the plural would be wrong if you insist on the Latin number, but you often find examples like "Drosophila are a common prey".)
I conclude that the text at WP:PLANTS is a suitable model for all organisms. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we have the same rule across the board? Because you could also say for example "The felidae are the cat family of carnivorans."
I haven't found any discussion of the issue with animals, but then I have mostly edited plant articles. To me either "The Felidae are ..." or "Felidae is ..." are acceptable. The first has the sense "felids are ...", the second the sense "the family Felidae is ..."
The real point seems to be that whatever grammatical purists argue, actually both plural and singular are well attested in the scientific literature, and so we should accept either here, and most definitely not edit-war over it. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The question is how do we convey that to the IP and not have the IP changing stable articles with the assertion that singular is by default bad grammar and wrong?--Kevmin § 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, we can point to the discussion here in an edit summary; otherwise there's not much we can do, other than revert with "against consensus" in the edit summary. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

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)

Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales

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)

Superphylum: redirect or stub

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)

On a quick google it seems to be more prevalent in prokaryotic taxonomy that animal taxonomy. Examples also found for plants (Bryata/Tracheta) and protists (Discoba). There may not be sufficient consensus on the numbers and boundaries of superphyla to offer much more than a definition and example usages. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
But it could be a "functional stub" in the end, right?--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason why not. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ok Lavateraguy thank you. If noone has specific doubt, I move it to ns0 in the following days.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why there's a need for articles on prefixed minor-taxonomic ranks (e.g. superphylum, subgenus, infracohort etc.). Redirects take care of the prefixed ranks. The articles on the major ranks (phylum, genus, etc.) basically duplicate each other and provide no additional information beyond what is in the taxonomic rank article. There are certainly some cases where are particular taxon is notable with a circumscription at a minor rank, but that situation doesn't necessarily merit an article for the taxonomic rank. Plantdrew (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the description as an unofficial (rather than optional) rank is correct, but clarifying this point requires understanding three different nomenclatural codes (ICZN, ICN and the Bacterial Code). Lavateraguy (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
But unofficial (or informal) seems reasonable for acronymed superphyla such as the bacterial PVC superphylum or the archaeal TACK and DPANN superphyla. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As a user, I saw a reason to have a stub: I wasn't at all satisfied with the redirect. In any case, I can move my draft to simple English wikipedia and people will read it there (including the example), as they probably already do (and I say so because I did as well to go on simplewiki from the search...)--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

where to put base pair count?

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: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Onion#Description and here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mouse thank you for considering my issue worthwhile for discussion. DennisDaniels (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It should go in List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes for sure, and perhaps List of model organisms as well. I'm not sure it generally belongs in most articles on organisms with a known base pair count (of which there are an ever-growing number), unless the genome is notably large or small.
It doesn't belong anywhere in mouse, which is about the entire genus Mus. It might be appropriate in house mouse and even more so in laboratory mouse (it's pretty annoying that the NIH press release about the sequencing doesn't give the species). Nevermind, missed I missed that mouse has a section on laboratory mice.
For plants, it could perhaps appear next to chromosome counts in a description section. A fair number of plant articles do have chromosome counts (which have been important in understanding plant speciation). I'd rather see chromosome count added to plant articles first, followed by BP counts, rather than BPs being added without chromosome number.
Ideally, notable model organisms would have a section on their use in research, and genome information would go there. In practice, such sections are rare. The house mouse article mentions research, the genome being sequenced and laboratory mice in the lead, but there's nothing in the body of that article on these subjects. House mouse ought to have a summary of some the material in laboratory mouse. Plantdrew (talk) 19:49, 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)

In the case of plants, yes, there is a single authoritative list, namely the International Plant Names Index. In the case of animals, sadly there isn't. Individual groups have sources which are pretty standardized (e.g. the World Spider Catalog for spiders), but practice varies widely among sources as to how fully the authors' names are given.
Authorities in taxoboxes should always be referenced, but sadly very often aren't. (We're better at this in WP:PLANTS, I think, but even there it's still far from universal.)
A problem with expanding authors is WP:OR; I've sometimes found incorrectly added links based on research done by an editor. When it's not clear, the form in the source should be used and left unlinked. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


BioRxiv support in citations

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

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)

Semi-protect all taxonomy templates?

With a unanymous agreement to implement, I did it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 4 October 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)

I agree. It is very difficult to figure out in which rank the vandal edit has occurred, and it affects every taxon below the rank... Such vandalism can stand for days before it is noticed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree strongly. I check Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup most days; most errors are due to vandalism. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yet more vandalism at Template:Taxonomy/Serpentes – see here. Roll on protection Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Large number of pages in Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup this morning due to vandalism at Template:Taxonomy/Theraphosidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, makes perfect sense. The templates can be tricky even for users with good intentions. Micromesistius (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. No constructive edits will be lost in this area. William Avery (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The content in taxoboxes is unlikely to change quickly unlike article content. Seems sensible to protect these. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Reptiliae or Aves?

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)

"Are birds reptiles?" is a different question from what classification system should be used. English words in common use, like "reptile" or "bird", have different meanings depending on the context. Sometimes they are used to refer to currently recognized taxa, sometimes they are used more generally. So the answer is "no", if you mean the usual English usage, but "yes", if you are referring to clades.
Compare "Are birds bony fish?" to which there are also diametrically opposed answers. The obvious answer is "no"; in normal English usage a bird and a fish are very different kinds of animal. The less obvious answer is "yes", if by "bony fish" you mean the clade Sarcopterygii, since all tetrapods belong to this clade.
The real question is what taxon at the rank of Class should be used for birds, and this is difficult to answer based on reliable sources, since modern systems tend to be clade-based and not interested in traditional Linnaean ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that to a lay person (or someone with dated taxonomical knowledge such as myself), having an animal listed in two classes simply looks wrong. It looks like a mistake has been made and perhaps reflects badly on the project. DrChrissy (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that in a single taxonomic hierarchy there should never be two taxa at the rank of Class. So long as relevant articles discuss alternative taxonomies, I'm not sure it matters which taxon is labelled "Class". Personally I favour a conservative approach until there's a strong consensus for change in secondary sources, but that's just my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If that's the way most experts are doing it nowadays, we should follow their consensus. We don't have to like it. I don't. The way I see it, just because birds are a branch off the reptile tree doesn't mean they are reptiles. To me, anyway, this is a gross abuse of the meaning of the term "reptile". But who am I to object? We are mere Wikipedians, not experts, even if you are one in real life, our content comes from the sources, not from us. Within reason, of course. There are times when we make judgement calls when the experts don't agree or the sources don't say something that article needs to say. But by and large we try to just pass information along unless the case is exceptional. Chrisrus (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Chrisrus: you have the same right as every other English speaker to discuss the uses of the ordinary language word "reptile". It's only the scientific classification that depends on experts. I commend this expert view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but also, the word on that article is "Reptilia", not "reptile". Maybe reptilia doesn't mean "reptile". Chrisrus (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A restatement of the problem

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)

Remove Reptilia. As long as we want a reasonable taxonomy tree, we must accept that once we have a taxon on a certain level, we treat any parent taxon on an equal or lower level to exclude it. And if we include Reptilia, then we would also need to include Theropoda, which is a suborder. And, of course why yes Reptilia and not Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish), which is also a class and would be paraphyletic if it excluded tetropods (which birds are)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Remove Reptilia from the taxobox on all bird articles.
First, as noted above, why do we have two orders? We are under no obligation to have two taxa at the same level, and doing so doesn't seem to be common practice among experts or on other articles.
Second, the way the bird taxobox is presented is confusing to readers. Listing birds under reptilia wasn't meant to say that birds are reptiles, just where they come from, but that's not clear. I.e.: just because a branch stems from a limb doesn't mean that, for example, frogs are fish. It might be clear if we drew them a picture, but the ranking in a taxobox is understood by many readers that we're saying birds are reptiles, which is just wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Leave Reptilia out. My gut feeling would be to revise the familiar taxon, keep and use it in a monophyletic sense, but looking it up at NCBI for example [1] we see it is accepted to have a paraphyletic definition. It should be clarified in the Reptilia lead that this is NOT a modern taxonomic class, since it is not monophyletic. In short, 'reptiles' is relegated to a descriptive common use only, like 'ducks' or 'monkeys'. We have a lot of clades we can include: Tetrapoda, Amniota, Sauropsida, Sauria, Archelosauria, Archosauria, Dinosauria, Saurischia, Theropoda, Coelurosauria. There's no need to resort to one that lacks a clear consensus meaning. Wnt (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Allow only one "class" in infoboxes until sources actually say there are two classes for birds. I've never read that anywhere. Every reliable source I've read distinguishes birds as "Class: Aves". There is a recent edit request I'm handling that shows that having two classes for birds in the species boxes is very confounding for our readers. That situation should not continue. Where is the discussion that led to the consensus that put two classes for birds in template {{Taxonomy/Aves}}??? "Class: Reptilia" should be removed without further ado.  Paine  u/c 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It appears as if one editor, rather than a community consensus, decided to alter the species boxes, as seen in the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Aves#Class vs. Clade. I have altered them back the only way I know how, which is by changing the parent of the Aves class to Sauropsida. At present, that seems to be more in agreement with reliable sources, although cladistically it still may be controversial. In any event, this discussion needs a wider audience and participation before any further change is made.  Paine  u/c 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I just handled it better - allow users who follow the immeduate parent using the taxobox to go through the reptile part of the tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciations for Latin taxon names

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)

Agrocybe aegerita

see Talk:Agrocybe aegerita--Samuele Madini (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Icon. Ined. meaning

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)

I would expect it to stand for icones ineditae, as per here. I think it usually means "unpublished illustrations", i.e. a collection of otherwise unpublished illustrations, rather than ones previously included in a book, although ineditus in Latin has a range of meanings. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, makes perfect sense in the context I discovered it in... How did you find the meaning so quickly? FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Partly a benefit (albeit a very long time afterwards!) of having learnt Latin at school, but also I often edit plant articles and so come across a lot of botanical Latin, which was required in taxon descriptions until the most recent revision of the botanical nomenclature code. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Cool... I stumbled upon it when writing about some illustrations by Georg Forster; one source discussing these was from 1953, before Forster's illustrations had been published, and therefore referred to them as Icon. Ined.... FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

About families with only one genus

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)

It is usually done the other way around. Genera are usually never redirected, unless they are monotypic themselves (then they redirect to the species). FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dodger67: see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Both agree that the genus should be the level used in such cases (unless disambiguation is needed). Other choices could have been made, but sticking to these guidelines ensures consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case I'm going to need some help, please see Macrodinychidae a family of ant-eating mites. Categories might also need tweaking. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Moved. That was an easy one, no redirects in the way (it's almost all redlinks so far), no round-robin swaps needed. Categorization looks ok to me at first glance, but am checking. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dodger67: - Article moved, lead tweaked for article's new location. Infobox tweaked as well. Original title kept as redirect, since that should be done anyway, and tagged appropriately. Category tweaked, stub-tag still fine. I think that's all. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I reviewed and accepted the Macrodinychus multispinosus article at AFC, which is how I ended up here with the question. I have changed the {{catmain}} link in Category:Macrodinychidae to Macrodinychus. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 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)

Category year of formal description

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)

Some of those categories have existed since 2008. Not sure how specific they need to be, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The "Plants described in ...." categories are certainly supported by WP:PLANTS; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 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.

  1. WikiProject Plants advises using the year categories. They're also very widely deployed for WikiProject Arthropods articles (non-insect, non-spider arthropods). I don't think ToL itself or any subprojects besides Plants have an "official" stance.
  2. There's been some ToL discussions about these previously (e.g. here and here and a earlier discussion of a different approach here), and there are some additional threads at WikiProject Plants.
  3. Any article covering a species. If the article is at a common name title, the categories may be at the common name, the binomial redirect or both.
  4. Genera. Monotypic genera are fairly consistent in having the year category on the binomial redirect, not the genus (except for when the genus has a common name for a title)
  5. Personally, I don't bother adding them. I wouldn't advocate getting rid of them though.
  6. I'd like to see some guidelines. Automatically filling could pose some problems (see below).

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)

(Is a reply to Snek01, I know that the indentation is ambivalent whether I'm responding to Snek01 or Plantdrew): As far as moths go, there doesn't appear to have been much if any project-wide discussion, no, but that goes for the great majority of the moth/butterfly/Lepidoptera categorization structure. (And for pretty near anything else. De facto, WikiProject:Lepidoptera's MO has long been to just go boldly and do it and if unsure just ask one of the other Lepidoptera editors, and only if really unsure (or if it's something you feel really needs to be brought to the attention of the project) dump it on the WikiProject talk page. Not like much could get done otherwise, what with a hundred thousand pages and between 5 and 25 editors active on them most months...)
In effect, on the moth side of things, there is support in so far as that someone felt it useful enough to specifically extend, there has been one user in 2014 who inexplicable redirected a few of those back to the animal category (and not just on the moths side of things), another user felt them useful enough to restore, no one has complained about it since, and since it exists anyway, a couple of us, myself included, have taken to using/populating the categories properly because partway implemented categorization is not very useful. (As far as the absence of butterfly-specific categories on that side of things goes, I suspect that it's a matter of 'there's enough mass-scale Lepidoptera work to go around for a few years anyway and no one around cares enough about butterfly year-of-description categories to make it a priority among those thousands of things that need doing')
There is some sense in splitting off moths and beetles from the generic insect-level categories simply due to the sheer amount of species those include. (Though it probably would have been slightly more sensible to split off the entire Lepidoptera order, but meh...like I said above, priorities, and at least there's a whole lot less butterflies than moths) Similarly there could be some use in splitting off a few of the other large orders, but I do not think splitting it down so completely that the insect-level categories become container-cats, either de facto or actually defined as such, would be particularly useful. (That's probably for the folks who work on articles regarding those to decide, though)
As for use, Plantdrew has it right except that on monotypic moth genera, there are more than a few where the category is on the actual, genus-level, article. (They should be on the redirect, but...again, priorities. As long as there's still hundreds of articles floating around proclaiming moth species and genera to be part of the no-longer-existing Arctiidae, hundreds if not thousands of genera not even in the Moth/Butterfly genera categories, plenty of monotypic genera at the wrong article location, various synonyms floating around pretending to be valid species and genera, and many other such issues, I can't really be bothered about whether a monotypic moth genus is located in the year-of-description category by its genus or species name).
Automatic/Semi-automatic population of those categories does not seem to be a good idea to me, per the problems Plantdrew described above. Guidelines clarifying the exact way to use these categories probably would be a good thing, especially in regards to the "first formal description" vs. "ICZN/ICBN" issue. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replies to all! For a complete view, we need to get informations about fossil taxa too.

  • 7) When was a species of a fossil plant described in 1927; when its genus was also described in 1927; if the name of the article has generic name only. Should it be in the Category:Fossil taxa described in 1927‎ and also in Category:Plants described in 1927‎?
  • 8) When a species of fossil plant was described in 1930; the name of the article is binomial (has the generic and specific name). Should it be in one category or in both? (Real example can be Homo floresiensis, that is categorized in Category:Fossil taxa described in 2004‎, but not in the Category:Animals described in 2004‎.)
  • 9) Take a look at Neuquensaurus Powell, 1992 article. It is categorized in the Category:Fossil taxa described in 1992. Its two species are N. australis (Lydekker, 1893) and N. robustus (Huene, 1929) are naturally(?) not categorized. Does it fit to categorization scheme above? Is it possible to simplify this categorization scheme? What does these categories serves for? Do we just need a category with some examples of what was described this or that year or can we make it better? --Snek01 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In regards to the fossils category tree, as a fossil taxon editor, i treat it as a separate tree from the animals and plants trees. Thus H. floresiensis would in my mind be in "Fossil taxa described in 2004" and in "Mammals described in 2004".--Kevmin § 14:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
For 7, I think the category should go on a redirect from the binomial. For 8, it would go on the species which is at the binomial title. For 9, maybe there should be a set of categories for genus description years. "Fossil taxa described in 1992" and "Animals described in 1992" could reasonably include genera and species. But if genera are included, these shouldn't be subcategories of "Species described in 1992". I'm not sure what the best solution is. The highest level categories specify species, and genera are rarely included in the lower level categories that don't specify rank at all; "taxa" for the fossil categories suggests that genera and species could be included. Plantdrew (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My lists of missing topics about biology (among others) is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete taxa

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)

I've replied there; I agree with those who reject the term "obsolete" in this context. Note that in this wiki, by consensus there, WP:PLANTS uses "historically recognized", not "obsolete". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There are edge cases. The higher level taxa from various artificial systems (e.g. Linnaeus's sexual system for plants) are obsolete. Among names from attempts at natural systems Columniferae is obsolete, though it does have some historical continuity with Malvaceae s.s./Malvoideae. (Columniferae tended to include assorted Theaceae s.l, and at least one author included Geraniaceae.) On the other hand whether or not a name is recognised in a particular system depends on which clades are named and what ranks they are given, and names not currently recognised by, e.g, APG might be taken up by other taxonomists. In between there are names, such as Insectivora, which are effectively dead because the group they denoted was massively poly/paraphyletic. "Historically recognised" serves nicely as a non-judgemental description, and I concur with its use. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Something like a "nomen nudum" or "nomen vanum" is "invalid", no? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a difference between a taxon and its name. The category title refers to obsolete taxa, regardless of name. Doubtless some groupings/taxa are obsolete, in that no-one will ever use them again in a taxonomy, but that's a hard judgement to make. Fashions and opinions in taxonomy change; even now not every specialist agrees only to use monophyletic taxa. "Obsolete" makes a value judgement that I think we should avoid. By contrast, the status of a name can be objectively determined by the application of a nomenclature code. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent bird taxonomies

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)

Now fixed (by me in the absence of any input). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Species redirects nominated at RfD

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)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

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

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

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.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated

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)

Default number of parent taxa displayed in an automated species taxobox

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)

Species name and specific name

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)

Specific name is a disambiguation page, and since there are at least three articles linked on that page (including one about databases), it's entirely appropriate to leave it as such. And actually, the species name is just the second part of the binomial name — according to a large number of book references I've checked, anyway! (See here for examples...) MeegsC (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong link, the first link was supposed to go to species name. It says "Unlike the closely related term "specific name", it has the same meaning in the different nomenclature codes, and refers to the two-part name that is used for a species in binomial nomenclature." To me, it sounds like it is redundant, in relation to binomial name. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This is, in my view anyway, part of a much wider problem. Our articles on biological nomenclature have been split up into small topics which often don't make sense by themselves or which repeat material covered elsewhere. Look at Category:Zoological nomenclature and its parent Category:Biological nomenclature. That said, it's exceedingly difficult to write accurately and with sources about biological nomenclature. The two main codes have subtle but significant differences, and neither often correspond to the way that biologists who aren't taxonomic specialists actually use terminology. So there good reasons why there appear to be few if any editors willing to tackle this area.
Is the distinction factual? Yes.
  • In the ICZN, "species name" = "binomen" = "binominal name". There's no such thing as a "binomial name" in the ICZN, although zoologists do use this term to mean "binominal name". The second part of a species name is a "specific name". See the ICZN Glossary).
  • In the ICN, "binary combination" = "binomial = "species name". The second part of a species name is a "specific epithet". See the ICN Glossary.
But I do agree that Species name should not be an article; as per WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia articles are about topics, not terms. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems many of these issues could be merged and explained at a more centralised article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Returning to the starting point of this discussion, "Species name" effectively made only one distinctive point compared to Binomial nomenclature, namely that "species name" is the only term common to the ICZN and ICN. I've added this point to Binomial nomenclature, plus a table summarizing terminology in the two codes – see Binomial nomenclature#Codes. So now I think it's ok to make Species name a redirect, which I've done. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The table seems a better solution than having tiny stubs that don't even link to each other. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. One purpose was to help me to remember when I switch between editing plant and spider articles! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding taxonomy

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! RileyBugzYell 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:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

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)

Formal description categories should be by year only

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)

Yeah, these aren't appropriate. I'd noticed some of these categories being created, but thought they were going to be container categories (e.g., "Sponges described in the 20th century" would hold "Sponges described in 1901", etc.). Breaking the year categories for animals down into subgroups isn't really worth the effort in my opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Putting species in century categories is not helpful. Plantdrew (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And it would be useful to eradicate categories of "Protostomes", such as Category:Protostomes described in 2014, ... Anything else than Protostomes is much user friendly. Either more broad Animals described in ... or much detailed, when necessary. But not Protostomes. Intelligibility for general public is also important. --Snek01 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that is pointless overcategorisation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree in not liking it, but is it against any of the principles behind categorization in Wikipedia?
It's a more general issue. "Animals described in year" categorizes an article on two characteristics: (1) animal (as opposed to plant, fungus, etc.); (2) year. Whenever two characteristics are used in this way, then to produce reasonably sized categories it's possible to split up by (1) while grouping by (2). Like others, I'm not in favour of this particular categorization, but the general approach of splitting on the first characteristic and grouping on the second is quite common in the English Wikipedia. Consider the categories for "Flora by WGSRPD area" and "Endemic flora by WGSRPD area". It might be expected that the latter would be subcategories of the former, but this would often produce endemic flora categories that are too small, so you have articles like Ferocactus peninsulae being in the smaller area Category:Flora of Baja California Sur but in the larger area Category:Endemic flora of Mexico. The same is the case for categories like "Trees of WGSRPD area", "Cacti of WGSRPD area", etc. – a species can be put into two categories: "Flora by smaller area" and "Trees/Cacti/whatever by larger area". If you don't group by the second characteristic when you split by the first, the categories often become too small. Are these cases really different from Category:Cnidarians described in the 19th century? Or are we all just guilty of WP:I don't like it? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't like it, but I don't have a policy based objection. However, It's an ongoing pattern with Caftaric; creating a bunch of not necessarily well thought out categories, doing a cursory job at populating them, and then jumping over to another part of the category tree. Today they are populating Category:Gastropods described in the 19th century. There may not be enough sponges with articles to break them down by year, but there certainly enough gastropods for individual year categories. Putting the gastropods in the century categories just creates more work for future editors (going forward either the century category will be removed outright, leaving just the animal/year category, or gastropod/century and animal/year will be replaced with a gastropod/year category). Category:Tetrapods described in 1969 is another one of Caftaric's; if we're going to break down vertebrates, why not just go all out and create categories for amphibians and reptiles, instead of parking them in the tetrapod category as an interim measure? And Caftaric is the only one who creates any categories for tetrapods (previously they did stuff like "Tetrapods of Israel"). Tetrapod intersectional categories are utterly pointless; fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal categories can sit just fine in a vertebrates category (or even just animals).
I know I'm guilty of advocating finer categories without doing the work to ensure that everything belongs in the finer category gets diffused there, so maybe I shouldn't point any fingers. But the tetrapod categories are sheer madness. Plantdrew (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: again I agree, but we need to come up with some general proposal for how it should be done – a proposal that is understandable by non-biologists and that can be put to an RfC and/or used to propose the deletion of categories. Without this, we're just moaning, it seems to me (writing as one who is regularly and probably rightly accused in real life of being a moaning old man). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If you are just looking for the guideline, then it is WP:OVERLAPCAT: "Mostly overlapping categories". Plantdrew's rationale is also valid. If you are looking for guideline proposal: "Articles according the formal description can be categorized by year only. For possible splitting such categories consult appropriate Wikiproject". --Snek01 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Snek01: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Mostly overlapping categories seems rather weakly worded to me, but if you want to make a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, I'll happily support you. Be clear, though, that what is objected to here isn't splitting as such; I would support having a separate set of categories for "arthropods described in year", for example. It's the combination of splitting on type of animal and combining on years that is the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 17 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)

In short, no. Links to Wikispecies are external links, and as per WP:EL should not normally be placed in the body of the article. Such links are also a kind of "Easter Egg" since the reader would not expect to be taken outside Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:24, 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)

Nothing prevents there being a list under External links. But policy seems (rightly in my view) to be against external links in the body of an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If there are images on commons or species, then the better option is simply to place them into the article here rather then placing an easter-egg.--Kevmin § 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. Also, Notafly, please see WP:REDLINK: red links should not be removed for the sake of it; they are an important signal to editors that an article is needed. In every possible way that I can see, linking to Wikispecies in the text of an article is against agreed guidelines and policies. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Based on the comments above and the fact that red links can be turned blue, but links to Wikispecies will not go to the new Wikipedia articles as they are created, I think it makes sense to remove links to Wikispecies from our articles and lists. Out of consideration for Notafly, I won't remove the links that it appears he's added until he's back from his trip, but I think that's the way we'll be going. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Back. I will change my position and alter all the Wikispecies links to stubs as time permits.Sorry to have caused this problem and thanks to all Notafly (talk) 19:55, 2 June 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)

I think that is still against WP:EL guidelines, as an embedded external link (see section below regarding taxon authorities). It also looks terrible, would never be done in print, and seems especially glaring in infoboxes and taxoboxes, which should be as concise, straight-forward, and simple as possible. While certain templates such as {{Interlanguage link}} enable (presumably notable) redlinks to point to articles in other language Wikipedias–and even has the coding for external links to Wikidata and Reasonator–editorial discretion, consideration of style, and community consensus can and should argue against the format described. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@SchreiberBike: I've just experimented, and discovered that {{ill}} accepts "species" as a parameter. I've used it in Apamea digitula. It justifies my adding those particular given names to repair bluelinks to DAB pages, and points interested readers and editors in the right direction.
Reading the rest of this discussion, it strikes me that that {{ill}} trick might have wider application, e.g. ''{{ill|Genericus speciesi|species|vertical-align=sup}}'', which displays as Genericus speciesi [species]. If the Wiki article is written, that display should collapse to a bluelink. As with all {{ill}} links, it's important to check that the target exists, or the frustrated reader may (as in my example) click on the link to find only a dead end. (I need hardly add that I think that links like ''[[:species:Genericus speciesi|Genericus speciesi]]'' are very wrong.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:28, 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)

Agree. That one is inexcusable! MeegsC (talk) 08:02, 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)

Yes, put the Wikispecies link to the taxon as an external link, then readers can find the author, if they are interested. But if readers are interested, then it suggests that the author is sufficiently notable to require an article. For groups I work with (plants, spiders) I personally take the view that anyone who is the author of more than one or two taxa is notable. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That soft redirect to Stanley B. Mulaik is to me, quite simply, horrid. The bluelink suggests that a Wiki article about the binomial authority exists when none does. If he or she is notable, they deserve an article. I've nommed it for WP:RFD.
Can I also add a plea for editors to properly identify binomial authorities, rather than to simply bluelink e.g. Jones or Smith, and then to walk away smiling and whistling? Within the last year, User:DPL bot has flagged up to me two people who have had genera named in their honour but who were linked to DAB pages where there was no article about them (both do now). I suspect that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar bad links in Wiki - but if they are to {{surname}} pages rather than to {{disambiguation}} pages, no bot will ever pick them up, and no-one is ever likely to notice unless they click on the bad link - and few editors have the skills to correct bad mistakes like that. Narky Blert (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I've also nommed Template:Wikispecies redirect in WP:TFD. Narky Blert (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I second the plea to avoid generic surnames. It's also a problem at Wikispecies, where a handful of eager early editors linked a ton of "naked" surnames as redirects to authors relevant to taxa they were interested in, which now require cleanup and disambiguation to the other authorities with the same name. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
Editorial

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.

Links
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
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)

Discussion at Talk:Insect

Input would be welcome on Talk:Insect regarding the clade Entognatha being displayed in taxoboxes (also about the use of ITIS over other sources.--Kevmin § 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Formatting issue 2 - plural taxa

- 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)

We've discussed this issue extensively at WP:PLANTS; I think the same applies to animals. In Latin, "Ursinae" is plural. So some prefer to use the plural in English. But we're not writing in Latin, so shouldn't be bound by its rules, so some prefer to use the singular in English. Examples of both can be found in reliable sources, some of which use both forms, varying by context. So we concluded that either can be used here and neither should be changed without good reason and consensus. See WP:PLANTS/TAXONNUMBER. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That's helpful, thanks. I'll convey the gist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Taxonbar"

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

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

Wikimania report

Interviewed 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.

Internet-In-A-Box

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.

  • Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.
Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_36&oldid=1145688657"