Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 5

Archives for WT:TOL
1	2002-07 – 2003-12	Article names
2	2003-11 – 2004-02	Taxoboxes
3	2004-02	Taxoboxes
4	2004-02 – 2004-08	Bold taxa; taxonomy
5	2004-03 – 2004-04	Taxonomy; photos; range maps
6	2005-04 – 2004-06	Capitalization; authorities; mammals
7	2004-06 – 2004-08	Creationism; parens; common names
8	2004-05 – 2004-08	Templates; †extinct; common names
9	2004-05 – 2004-08	Categories; taxoboxes
10	2004-08 – 2004-12	Categories; authorities; domains; Wikispecies; ranks; G. species; capitalization; Common Names
11	2004-11 – 2005-05	Capitalization; common names; categories; L.; authorities; algae; cultivars
12	2005-03 – 2005-05	Ranks; common names
13	2005-05 – 2005-06	Hybrids; taxobox format; cultivars
14	2005-06 – 2005-07	Categories; food plants; identification; Capitalization
15	2005-07 – 2005-09	Synonyms; types; authorities; status; identification
16	2005-09 – 2005-12	Paleontological ranges; Rosopsida; Taxobox redesign; identification
17	2005-12 – 2006-04	Taxobox redesign; identification; APG; common names; capitalization
18	2006-04 – 2006-10	Categorization; include in references; snakes; range maps; seasonality graph; common names; bioregions; brya;
19	2006-10 – 2007-03	various
20	2007-03 – 2007-06	various
21	2007-06 (Next 64 Kb)	various
22	(Next 64 Kb)	various
23	(Next 64 Kb)	various
24	(Next 64 Kb)	various

Taxonomic Inconsistencies

I've been looking through the mammal pages and noticed a number of inconsistencies. For instance, the Red Panda is listed as both a member of Procyonidae and Ursidae. The hamsters are listed as both a separate family (Cricetidae) at Rodentia, and as a subfamily of Muridae (Cricetinae). How are such issues to be dealt with? Is there any standard reference on which wikipedia's taxonomic schemes are based? john 19:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, John. Taxonomy is nearly as fluid as it is static; almost as soon as a taxonomy is published, something in the classification is refuted in another work. While this project (ToL) is a great start and an excellent place to ensure consistent policies, there really isn't much standardizing what taxonomies are used. The only exceptions are the "leaf" descendants of this project (Birds, Primates, and Cetaceans). In those projects, we attempt to set policies on taxonomic references, as well as rabble rousing... err... brainstorming new policies for ToL. *grins* If you are particularly moved, I would be very supportive of you starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivora or Insectivora. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, my own taxonomic knowledge is rather limited, or at least dated, largely coming from books I read in my childhood in the late 1980s (Facts on File's Encyclopedia of Mammals from 1986, mostly) so I'm probably not the best person to work on such things. I am always astonished to discover how much the taxonomic scheme has changed in the past 20 years from the scheme elaborated in that book. BTW, there is a wikiproject on Mammals in general, but it is so far rather barebones. It seems to me that the thing to do would be to find the most recent general reference work and follow it, noting where appropriate controversies and suggested alternative arrangements. Trying to assemble all of the most recent articles into a general scheme strikes me as striking at the edges of the "no primary research" rule. Obviously, this would not be primary research, but the process of ourselves constructing a somewhat idiosyncratic general model of the classification of mammals, for instance, strikes me as unwise, given the extent to which this stuff is disputed. It could certainly be accused of being POV. Sticking to a single standard reference work for, say, mammals, would make the most sense. john 00:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Binomial name v. Binomial nomenclature|Binomial name v. Binomial nomenclature

Ok, I can't remember wher the conversation was, but I was arguing against the disambiguation and for 'Binomial nomenclature' at one point, but my discussion partner convinced me that 'Binomial name' was a better. However, I don't believe I ever brought that discussion back to here. The argument that swayed me was that 'binomial nomenclature' refers not just to the name, but to the whole system of naming, while the entry in the taxobox is just the name. Thoughts? I see that mav prefers the disambiguation... - UtherSRG 03:15, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Frankly I don't like any of them. "two name name" is redundant, and "two name system of naming" isn't much better when all we are talking about is the full species name. "Binomial" gets used as a noun and according to Merriam-Webster online is officially a noun meaning:

1 : a mathematical expression consisting of two terms connected by a plus sign or minus sign
2 : a biological species name consisting of two terms

So why not use "binomial". But if its a choice only among those given, I would take "binomial name", without disambig. In this case I think redirecting is good enough. WormRunner | Talk 04:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like the implicity of just plain binomial too. Good idea, WR. Also, I admit to a pet dislike of <binomial nonclementure|binomial name> in the taxoboxes. The less clutter the better. Tannin 05:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have suggested some time ago to stop using the binominal bit at all in favour for the taxon that is applicable to what is discussed. It would be "species" followed by "Genus species". The idea that it is redundant is true. GerardM 05:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the most general term would be systematic name - because in a few cases we might want to use a trinomial (e.g. Canis lupus familiaris). I'm also conscious of the more general reader - plain "binomial" might be confusing or offputting. Among those suggested, "binomial name" is probably the least bad; the reasons stated against the alternatives are cogent, and the only objection that's been raised against it is that it is a tautology. But it's only a literal tautology if the reader knows Latin; and really it is not a tautology at all, because it is a compressed form of "name within the binomial system" - i.e. the two "name" particles within the phrase have different implicit references, one to the organism and the other to the system. seglea 19:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could go for "Systematic name" -- WormRunner | Talk 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object - systematic name is way too general. Best to link to Binomial name or Trinomial name as appropriate. --mav 07:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes systematic name is an inappropiate target, first thing you see there is chemistry. We are probably worrying too much over last detail of the taxoboxes right now. The next software release will support parameterized templates. We will be able to set up a template for a species taxobox, and then tweak that to our hearts content. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikibook Tree of Life

In case anyone's interesting, I've decided to expand my Wikibooks:Dichotomous Key to be interlinked with a comprehensive Wikibooks:Field Guide for all life forms. It's kind of the Wikibook Tree of Life. Tuf-Kat 10:10, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sharing Taxonomic information in a mulitlingual_environment

is a article on the Village pump about how we may enable better cooperation between the different wikipedias. The subject's talk space is preferably on the meta wikipedia as this is a discussion for all wikipedia's.

To my delight, it has resulted in the implementation of part of the idea on the de: wikipedia. To my disappointment, I have not seen any response from the en: wikipedia. The discussion is ongoing and the input from en:wikipedia is important. So please have a look, have a thought and let us cooperate.

Thanks, GerardM 11:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess it just was drowned by all the other topics in the pump, which is way overcrowded nowadays. But if I understand your intention correctly the main thing you want is to be able to translate taxoboxes more easily. That one will solve itself quite easily once the Mediawiki software have parameters for the msg's - then we'd have just one taxobox for the species level, one for genus level. Then it's just left to have the parameter easy to translate, e.g. by always using the latin names in them. andy 13:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current status and translatable taxoboxes

The taxoboxes can be easily translated already. See Ruffe for an example of a taxobox that was translated from nl: to en: using existing message syntax. The German wikipedia has set the usage of the messages as their standard. They intend to change their taxoboxes using a robot and it will be possible to translate their taxoboxes to any other wikipedia that adheres to the mechanism.

The intention is to get cooperation going between the different wikipedia's. Standard exist in many wikipedias and when we can agree to the same standards a lot of donkeywork will become unnecessary. This means that we have to talk not on a local level but on a multi-wikipedia level. It means that we come to a standard for all wikipedia's not just on translatable taxoboxes.

My intention is to translate a lot of stuff to for instance the Farsi wikipedia. This means that it is important to talk and look at each others standards. GerardM 17:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question

If there was a bot that would change all occurrences of "regnum:" into "Kingdom: or ({{msg:regnum}}" would that be OK ? GerardM 20:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why would you want to do that? --mav 23:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is this discussion on translating taxoboxes and taxolists to other languages and, changing taxoboxes would tanslate all taxoboxes in one go when the appropriate messages exist on the receiving end. PS I can do this when en:wikipedia is on the receiving end. ruffe..

The reason for this question is to take this possibility serious. And discuss this matter on meta. GerardM 11:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

taxobox images

I editted the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Images_and_maps section, adding starting guidelines for image sizes: 200px for the main image. I think at the very least, that's as small as it should be made. Significantly larger and the taxobox encroaches on the article text. 250px is probably fine if needed. Also, it's not needed to upload both a 750px and a 250px image now that we have the auto-resizing: [[image:myimage.750px.jpg|200px|My Image]] - UtherSRG 14:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taxomsgs

GerardM has gone ahead and modified the taxobox for Ruffe to use his new TaxoMsgs. While I like the concept, I dislike the implementation. Perhaps I'm being EN-wiki-centric, but I'd much prefer the msg names to be in English. I tried making {{msg:kingdom}} as a redirect, but unfortunately msgs don't like redirects. - UtherSRG 05:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GerardM has reverted Uther's edit, and I have just dereverted it. There's a bit of history on this - read Talk:Ruffe for information. seglea 06:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you sort of did, because I had partially accepted his changes (accepted the {{msgs}} but corrected his mistakes. Just about all the taxoarticles I've editted today I've done with the {{msgs}}. [1] I think it's handy. If we ever decide (again!) to change how that portion of the taxobox is going to look, all we have to do is change the message text instead of editting each taxobox. I still would prefer the message names to be in English, though, or for MediaWiki to correctly utilize redirected messages. - UtherSRG 20:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason for using the latin is, that it is the lingua franca of taxonomy. For a very long time a taxonomic description was not valid unless it was written in Latin. So when you know your taxonomy, you know at least these few words. By copying an msg:taxobox to Swedish or french or dutch or german it will provide you with the locally accepted text. When a new taxonomic revision is accepted, the messages will enable a bot to updat all occurences of a taxon in ALL wikipedias. This means that wikipedia will be able to follow accepted science and easily have all wikipedia up to the latest standard. An other benefit is that sceleton articles can be produced for many species genuses etc using the latin name and when people want to localise, they can rename the article. This in turn allows bots to update the backlinks.

NB the discussion on all of this is still best held at meta:wikipedia. GerardM 22:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That may be true in non-English speaking countries, but all the biology courses I've taken I've never seen 'regnum', 'classis' or 'ordo'. None of the books or field guides I have use them. English speakers interested in taxonomy use 'kingdom', 'class' and 'order'. - UtherSRG

The "Tokyo code" for botanical nomenclature Article 3 names both English and the Latin names for the taxa. Orignially in taxonomy all descriptions needed to be in Latin to be valid. GerardM 15:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense... and it also explains that I'm as right as you are. In a primarily English-language country like mine (US), where elementary school kids are taught about the Animal Kingdom and the Plant Kingdom, it makes sense to keep that going into middle- and high-school and then into college, refining the information presented but still keeping with KPCOFGS in English. It's acceptable and understandable. In other countries where English is not the primary language, they can choose to use English or Latin, which ever is locally preferred. So again I say - I prefer the tags to be in English. This is EN Wiki and English is one of the acceptable languages for the names of the taxonomic ranks. However, it's not as strong a preference as my preference for All Caps common names; I've already started using the regnum messages in the articles I'm editting. - UtherSRG 17:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It might be best to wait for the 1.3 version of MediaWiki to be released before making these changes to the taxoboxes, as Template parameters will be enabled then. See the example on the TestWikipedia. Angela. 01:48, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Would it? I'm not sure that 1.3's changes have any bearing on this. We're talking about using {{msg:regnum}} v. {{msg:kingdom}}. 1.3 would just change that to {{regnum}} v. {{kingdom}}. Take a look at the taxobox on Ruffe. We're not talking about the value of "Animal" or "Chordata". We're talking about the name of the tag that creates the text "Kingdom" in the table.- UtherSRG 12:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Currently, most taxoboxes don't include either {{msg:regnum}} or {{msg:kingdom}}, so what I mean is wait until the taxoboxes can have these as parameters, rather than adding them as separate messsages, and then having to change them all to match the format used by parameters in 1.3. It just saves having to do everything twice. For example, {{msg:regnum}} and the rest of them should be changed to {{Taxobox|regnum=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}} etc. You only need one "Taxobox" message, rather than separate ones for regnum, phylum etc. Angela. 16:56, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Still, will the 1.3 changes allow regnum and kingdom to be interchangeable, so that {{Taxobox|regnum=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}} would work equally well as {{Taxobox|kingdom=Animalia|Phylum=Chordata}}? - UtherSRG 19:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Template:Infobox page would need to include either kingdom or regnum. You couldn't have both in the same message, though you could have an alternative infobox at a different page title that used the alternative version. Angela. 20:23, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a qualified yes to me. *grins* - UtherSRG 21:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One big thing with messages is that it makes life easy for a bot. When a "<nomsg>Genus</nomsg> Oldname" is to be replace with "<nomsg>Genus</nomsg> Newname", it will be possible to replace all occurrences in all wikipedias when new taxonomic science mandates the change. This is correct as science is science (taxonomy) wherever you live. When taxoboxes are uniform in all languages which they are not at present, it will be possible to do things with changes (and even inclusions) of higher taxons.

When the use of messages is used from now on as a standard, the presentation in all wikipedia's will remain the same. But all the side benefits are there for everyone to use. My point is, when we start using the messages from now on, we will benefit. 1.3 is simply running a bot one time to change to a new format. But PLEASE let us decide on one standard and not use English only because _this_ is the English language, we are _all_ contributing to wikipedia and there are more than 500.000 articles. GerardM 19:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes Gerard, I understand your point. However, by sheer American numbers and by our own historical arrogance, more folks interested in taxonomy know "Kingdom" than know "Regnum"; and I'd guess that those that do know "Regnum" also know "Kingdom". Then add on the "unwashed masses" who will be editting without much understanding of the science... they've just found a critter that needs to be added and found the data on it online or whereever - again the sheer numbers of English speakers using Wikipedia plus those who prefer "Kingdom" to "Regnum" significantly out number those who don't speak English and who prefer "Regnum" to "Kingdom". - UtherSRG 20:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image query

This section was originally on User talk:UtherSRG.

What's the thinking behind re-reformatting images like Nicobar Pigeon and Green Imperial Pigeon? The newest version is, IMHO, unnecessarily small, lacks the thumb icon, so it's not obvious that there is a larger image, even though it can be accessed by clicking on the image, and has lost the caption; if the caption is giving more than just a name, shouldn't it be on view, and not just floating? I'm not convinced that this is a step forward. Jim

Size is relative. *grins* I prefer the smaller size, but that's a matter of taste. I seriously dislike the ugly gray border and mag-icon of the thumb nail. I'd rather that space be used for the actual image instead. For Nicobar, "Adult" didn't seem to add anything significant. I left the caption for the Green Imperial. - UtherSRG 18:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, from Adrian. I took the two photos so I've an interest in the appearance of the two pages.

First, I can see no objection to the grey background to the text. I think it looks smart and is part of the new standard syntax. I don?t see why the grey should not be used in taxoboxes if it?s cropping up everywhere else.

Secondly, I like the mag glass because the reader instantly knows a big pic is available. A reader might miss out on the large pic if clicking on the pic did not occur to them. I can?t see how a tiny icon is offensive!

Thirdly, why are the pics reduced to 200 pixels wide when 250px has always been used in the past for taxoboxes, apparently without any problems for low res screens.

So, my suggestion is that the pics are reverted to grey text area with mag glass, at 250px wide (but I'm not brave enough to do it!).

In this particular case I don?t think text is needed, the type of bird is stated directly above the pic and the Adult statement seems pointless.

Adrian Pingstone 20:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, size is relative. I use very high res, so it makes little difference to me... but with the grey there isn't much difference in the size. The grey is just wasted space in the taxobox. - UtherSRG 20:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah... I remember my other reason.... the width of the text in the taxoboxes is often closer to 200px or less. - UtherSRG 21:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the Tree of life talk page, and the decision to reduce the standard picture size down from 250px doesn't seem to be in there, although you suggest that 200-250 px is acceptable. On the project page, the recommendation seems to be yours. I can live without the mag glass, but my view is that the images should go back to the previous 250, and, if we are not using the mag, to revert to the media: format to make it clear that there is a larger image.

However, I don't want to start an edit war just yet, so I want to consult Bigiron and Tannin as the other main pic contributors. Jim

---

I have a very clear and firm view on this matter, gentlemen. Unfortunately, I don't agree with any of you!

Image quality is paramount. Anything that produces a fuzzed-up, greyed-out image is not to be considered. In short, there is only one acceptable way to do a taxobox illustration, and that is to use a thumbnail image that has been appropriately cropped and resized by a human being.

This is the only way to get decent picture quality - and when you only have 200 or 250 pixels to work with, picture quality is everything.

Now to minor matters. The best size, in my view, is usually around 225 or 230 pixels. But this should never be made into an absolute number. It depends on the size and resolution of the source image (not all images can be shrunk to an arbitary number without noticable quality degredation), on the nature of the image (different angles of different creatures under different lighting conditions all produce different imperatives from the point of view of sizing - for example, a large creature with a small feature of particular interest such as the head may be best sized up towards the top of the 200 - 250px range, or a tall, narrow shot of an upright bird may be best kept down towards 200px to avoid either cutting its tail off or having the taxobox scroll off the screen), and on the text in the taxobox (some boxes are wide even before the image is added because the creature has a very long name, so it makes sense here to use a wider than average image size).

I don't like the grey border, but that is just a matter of personal taste. I particularly dislike the way that the new image code breaks page layouts on my preffered browser (Opera 6.06). Again though, that is a matter for the developers to decide. It seems that they have exercised their right to implement code that breaks some browsers. That's OK. In turn, some users (such as me) exercise our right to avoid using the new, broken code in favour of the old code that, although it does not offer the nice feature of clicking directly on the image to see a larger version, at least does not break browsers and actually produces the only thing that really matters - image quality. Tannin 08:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Compare:

File:NP225.jpg

Speaks for itself, doesn't it.

PS: has anybody noticed that I no longer provide full-size images to the 'pedia? This is no accident. By only providing thumbnails, I ensure that they don't get buggerised about and turned into grey fuz the way that the left and centre images above are.) Tannin 08:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

File:IP225.jpg

Examine the right-most thumbnail above. Once again, you can only get decent image quality by combining the two most important bits of photographic equipment ever invented - the human eye and a human brain. Tannin

A couple of points, Tony .....(Uther, sorry to hijack your Talk Page but best to keep the discussion in one place)

Yes, of course 250px taxobox width is not set in concrete, I just simplified what I wrote to avoid wittering on for ever but I do see it as a "most-likely" value.

We are in complete disagreement on how important the thumb quality is. I regard the big pic as being the important one because if someone wants to download the pic for a project or homework (or just see a big image) then surely they'll open the big one. I regard the thumb as a "taster" of what the big one will look like. It's a shame you're not giving your audience a chance to see a decently big pic but it's clear you have very strong feelings on this question.

Thanks for the work you did on uploading the examples. I didn't know that the machine-generated thumbs were indifferent until I saw your hand-generated ones. Nevertheless, that doesn't change my mind that the machine quality is good enough. In any case what's the choice - mass reversion of the thousands of pics in the new code? Too late!

I didn't know that the new code breaks Opera (I have IE6), in which case it should never have been issued. The problem now is that the code is everywhere. Someone, for example, has systematically changed about 600 of my pics to the new code. Luckily I like the grey, I like the mag glass, and the thumbnail quality is OK for me.

Best Wishes, Adrian

Adrian Pingstone 10:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah -- poor Uther. Sorry about your talk page, mate. :)

I don't mind my talk being hi-jacked, although I'll probably move the text to a ToL talk page later today so that folks who have it on their watchlist can be notified, and for later archival. - UtherSRG 12:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restrict my main attention to the bird and mammal pictures, Adrian. I do do through those from time to time and systematically revert the fuzzy thumbnails. (Not many lately, I'm tied up in other projects just now.) I appreciate your point of view, nevertheless I maintain my own view that first impressions count for a great deal and that, in consequence, sharp thumbnails are the #1 priority. Tannin

PS. Adrian wrote: I didn't know that the machine-generated thumbs were indifferent until I saw your hand-generated ones. That, my friend, is because you just blew your disposable income for the year on a new camera, when what you really needed was a nice new 22 inch monitor. :) Tannin

It seems I'm between Tony and Adrian on this. Image quality is important to me, but I think that quality is best found in the large image. I prefer using the large image auto-resized to eliminate a line in the taxobox for the additional link needed for a seperate image. I dislike the gray border and mag-icon; they take up space in the taxobox (I don't mind them outside the box). So I suppose my main concern then is minimizing the taxobox footprint while maintaining a reasonable level of quality information (text and image) in the box. finer quality data is outside of the box - the text of the main article, and the larger image. - UtherSRG 12:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My opinion on this is closest to Tannin's. I prefer 250px wide images and I don't like the automatically-resized images. However, if someone is going to use them, there should be some kind of clear indication that this is not the original image size. In general, if there are some new rules to be imposed on the use of images in taxoboxes, then I think that the discussion belongs with the respective projects and shouldn't be some unilateral decision. That seems to run contrary to the Wikipedia concept. Big Iron 10:30 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

range maps

Lupo has recently added some range maps to articles, which I then moved into the taxobox. He didn't like it there, and said there wasn't concensus here. I note that a few weeks ago I updated the Project page to indicate that range maps go into the taxobox. Do we need this discussed again? - UtherSRG 16:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed that we should put them in the taxobox - and I support doing so if the discussion is reopened

Well, I looked over the archives and found some who thought that they should go in, and some statements that they might just as well remain with the text. I think it depends. Especially in smaller articles, maps unduly blow up the taxobox, to the point where the taxobox becomes too large for the article and is perceived (at least by me) as visual clutter distracting from the article. Putting maps into the box also incurs the risk of the map getting separated from a possible accompagnying (sp?) paragraph. I usually also describe the range textually (helps e.g. blind people with a Braille reader), and I don't want a sighted reader to have to scroll or change his focus of attention to see the map that goes with the text. I have nothing agaist other people putting range maps into taxoboxes, but I object to moving maps from the text into the taxobox indiscriminately without considering the general layout of an article or the effects such a move may have on the ease of reading. Lupo 10:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

updates, archive

We're at 44k for the talk. I think it's time to evaluate the discussions here, see what conclussions have been reached, update the Project page, and archive some of the discussions. Since I seem to be the center of controversy these days, I'll leave it to someone more neutral to deal with, unless there's concensus that I can go ahead and do it. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)