Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

{{VN}}[edit]

Hello guys,
Couldn't we agree on using one line per completionin {{VN}}. For example:
{{VN
|en=Birds
|fr=Oiseaux
}}
but not:
{{VN |en=Birds |fr=Oiseaux }}
Advantage of 1 line per langage:

  • more readable when there are many langages
  • easy to merge (I often merge species article's VN and species category's VN)
  • easy to sorte alphabically (I rarely find VN correctly sorted)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My personal experience: {{VN |en=Birds |fr=Oiseaux }} - completions of new names are possible with many time only.
(Hello Liné1, the alphabical sorting is thank Rocket000 automatical correct) Orchi (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, very strongly. It makes editing pages very tedious when you have to scroll halfway to Australia to get past the wretched things. Adding a file to a gallery becomes tricky particularly for those not familiar with the edit page structure, as they can't find the <gallery></gallery> tags invisible waaaay off the bottom of the edit box. - MPF (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm following this discussion with interest. Currently, I follow MPF, but I don't have a strong preference. Most pages on which I work have three or fewer VNs, so I'm not much affected either way. I thank Rocket000 for sorting automatically, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Asking people to keep them in alphabetical order is asking too much it seems, so it's good to have the template do the work. Although, I still like when the code is sorted too. It makes it easier to find a language when editing. As for the format.. I have no strong feelings either way and will happily adjust my editing if any consensus develops here. I use to do it like MPF, but without the spaces. I have no trouble reading that, but I know others do, so I started doing one per line unless there's a lot (like 20+ languages). Rocket000 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Some reasons why multi-lines are better
  • One line VN breaks the diff tools
    • There is no way to know what diff someone has made to the VN if he did more than 2 modifications
  • One line VN breaks the human comparison
    • I compare VN and interwiki (which are multi-line)
  • One line VN makes merging a hell
    • I have to merge the VN
    • The difficulty is arround selecting one langage with the keybord
      • in a multiline VN:
        • to place at begin: some Arrow UP/Down
        • to select: SHIFT+Arrow UP and the langage is selected (ready to be moved, suppressed...)
      • in a oneline VN:
        • to place at begin: a lot of Arrow RIGHT/LEFT
        • to select: CONTROL+SHIFT+Arrow RIGHT then depending on the browser you need more Arrow RIGHT and you leave spaces
  • interwiki are by vote multi-line. Why would VN be different from interwiki (see comparison section)
  • There are currently much much more multi-line VN
    • => All one line VN I saw have been migrated from multi-line (is it reasonable ?)
    • I never saw a one line Taxonavigation
    • all mammals and fishes have multi-line VN
The only reason why one-line is better:
  • You win 0,5 seconds of scrolling when editing an article (no advantages with categories ?)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jackdaws[edit]

IOC (scroll down to note 28) has split the two jackdaws Corvus dauuricus and Corvus monedula from Corvus to a separate genus Coloeus. Should we follow suit? en:wiki project:birds follows IOC, but hasn't implemented this change (yet), neither has e.g. the official British list (British Ornithologists Union), so the new names are as yet very unfamiliar. Generally, I reckon we should also follow IOC here, but I'd not object to retaining these in Corvus, at least for the time being, if others also wish to do so. - MPF (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Our goal here is to help users find media. For some time, even people looking under the new name will check the old, so my suggestion is to wait for one of the major projects, e.g., en or de, to embrace this change before proceeding. That said, I see no reason not to display the new names with the synonyms tag immediately. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Taxonomically that's a tad iffy I'd say: The current state of things seems to suggest that the currently valid name would be Corvus dauuricus and that Coloeus dauuricus would be an invalid synonym. If you are prepared to follow IOC and accept their view as currently valid, you should probably make the switch. I think it would be a far better idea to do so and to have redirects for the old "Corvus" galleries and cats to the new "Coloeus" versions. Also, in my opinion it wouldn't hurt to maybe have the Coloeus species categories tagged both as subcats of Category:Coloeus as well as Category:Corvus for a transition period or so (with comments in the source to leave the double cats be for a while). I know this is against general guidelines for categories, but hey - that's why they're called guidelines not rule of law. Something like that ensures continued accessibility through the old names without misinforming users about the current state of taxonomic "knowledge". Pudding4brains (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; good idea on waiting for en: or de: to decide, I'll keep an eye on them from time to time, and until then leave them at their well-known names. I've already added the new names as synonyms, but not made any redirects yet. The new names are not invalid, just not (yet ??) widely used; I haven't seen the research that made the change (done in this book, which I don't have), but I'd guess it was likely done with a good reason (the lead author is a highly respected ornithologist) - maybe retaining them in Corvus makes Corvus paraphyletic on genetic evidence. MPF (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The new names are not invalid, just not (yet ??) widely used;
No, it would rather be the old names that have been "invalidated" by the new research (and replaced with the new valid name Coloeus). The 'problem' (if you will) that I'm pointing out is that by listing the new ('valid') names as a synonym (like now), one would be led to believe that the Coloeus names are unaccepted/old/deprecated synonyms and that the current state of research would have Corvus to be the most recently accepted valid name, while the exact reverse is true - that is if you intend to follow the publications mentioned. So if (?!) your point of view is that Coloeus is to be accepted as the current genus name for the two species, then it looks rather silly/wrong. If however you think that Corvus will be continued for those two species, it would be correct to list the Coloeus as synonyms, but it would probably be helpful to add author and date to them to make it clear that those are unaccepted junior synonyms, and/or a "sensu Soandso, 2009" if applicable. I haven't got the faintest however what authors/dates to list for that of course. As the point that Walter made was basically about accessibility through the old names I argued that this accessibility would not have to suffer when converting to the new names, so it seems a non-reason for sticking with the old names if you are convinced the new names are the accepted state of the art. Just my 2ct Pudding4brains (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing's invalid if they're subjective synonyms. Unless they have the same type species, both are perfectly valid, right? Rocket000 (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Confusion in terminology here, I fear! Both Corvus monedula and Coloeus monedula are nomenclaturally valid names; they are properly formed according to the rules of zoological nomenclature and can lawfully be used. Which name is taxonomically correct is a different matter; that depends on genetics, not naming rules, and is what Pudding4brains's points are actually about (I think!!?). It appears the jury is still out on this; Lynx HBW (vol. 14, including Corvidae, published 2009, well after Rasmussen's book) points out that the two jackdaws are only fairly distantly related to other Corvus, but it is unclear whether they are sufficiently distinct to require separation at generic rank, rather than subgeneric. For that to be proven, it would have to be shown that some other genus of Corvidae (e.g. Nucifraga) is closer to Corvus than the jackdaws are, and that hasn't been demonstrated. HBW retains the jackdaws in Corvus but mentions the possibility that they may be separated if further evidence shows it is needed. - MPF (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, we're using the common meaning of "valid". Nevermind. :) Rocket000 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(In)Valid taxonomic status as per this definition by ITIS for example, and being used much along the same lines on Fauna Europaea and many other taxonomic sites. As such, yes, "common meaning" - what specialized meaning/definition of the term would you have envisioned in the current context? (always good to understand what lies at the base of misunderstanding) Pudding4brains (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking "valid" according to the Code.[1] Subjective synonyms are still available names. All it takes is one taxonomist to use it, and that makes it valid (assuming it meets all the other requirements). Most taxonomy sites differentiate between "valid" and "currently accepted". Rocket000 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess the way the term "valid" is used in the code also suggests that there is only ever one valid name at a time for a taxon (see glossary), but as long as our confusion here is cleared up that's all for smalltalk for lawyers ;o) Pudding4brains (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In a nutshell, the genus to use for jackdaws depends on a complete revision of Corvus. They are still fairly close to Corvus corax (type species of Corvus). FWIW, the author of Coloeus is Kaup, 1829, and the results of this (which may be the only recent study) are equivocal about recognizing Coloeus. Note than the sequence used in 4b is apparently strongly convergent and cannot be relied upon to provide a correct phylogenetic signal, and 4a is a bit of a dirty trick to tweak phylogenetic signal from equivocal data at the risk of creating bogus signal. Note that in 5, including more Corvus sensu lato draws jackdaws closer to ravens and away from nutcrackers; this is in my experience usually a sign of a genuine phylogenetic signal (in genus-level studies such as this).
It may be better than not to recognize Coloeus - just on a "better safe than sorry" basis - but this is quite a matter of taste at the moment. I'd prefer to keep jackdaws a basal lineage/subgenus within Corvus for the time being, given their large number of synapomorphies with typical crows/ravens. But we'd certainly have to get a study where e.g. the carrion crow complex, house crows etc are included. The key is to sample as many Palaearctic Corvus sensu lato as possible, and also Garrulus, Nucifraga and Pica. Until that's done, it is equivocal.
(We could even add the content - species list etc - as <!-- comment --> below the catredirect at Category:Coloeus already; then, enabling the genus is really a matter of seconds.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Placement of {{VN}}[edit]

I've been holding off bringing this up, hoping one side would silently back down, but it doesn't look like that's happening. Half our TOL categories/galleries have {{VN}} above the taxonavigation and the other half have it below. Liné1 and MPF put it below. Me and Orchi put it on top. I didn't check on what others do, but it appears split to me. I started putting it on top because CarolSpears did it that way (who I originally made the template for and designed it with that placement in mind). I used to not have a preference, but after doing it one way for months, it grew on me. The logic is there. VN are names so why not put them by the main name, the page title? {{taxonavigation}} followed directly by a subtaxa template ({{species}}, {{genera}}, etc.) makes the most sense since they both consist of classification/navigational links. One goes up the tree, one goes down. {{Synonyms}} is half names/half classification so it goes in between VN & taxonavigation, right? I've done probably about 5000 categories this way and it's going to take an overruling consensus to make me change my ways. I assume others have equally strong feelings for the other way... or maybe not. Let's hear some good reasons for putting {{taxonavigation}} first. To me {{VN}} it just looks wrong stuck in the middle of all the taxonomy stuff. Right now, I just try to keep certain areas consistent (e.g. insects = VN goes on top, birds = VN goes below), but I would love if we can get everything consistent. Too much to ask for? Rocket000 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that the page name is the scientific name, and that, which is part of the taxonav, should go at the top, then alternative scientific names (synonyms), then finally, names in other languages, those being the least important. - MPF (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The sequence you prefer is perfect for wikispecies. The normal user of commons knows "European Robin", "Rouge-gorge européen" or "Rotkehlchen". This information is very important in commons. Also it is, I think so, a way of fairness to the friends of Wikipedia in Japan, China, Russia, Arabic states etc., to offer the not latin letters in the beginning of side view and not between informations to taxonomy. This area seems to become more and more extensive. Therefore I think for commons it is a good way to put the mainname of the local WPs top followed by the growing group of taxonomy infos with synonyms, links to institutes and wikispecies. Orchi (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The main reason for having {{Taxonavigation}} first is that you can compare a father taxon and a child taxon {{Taxonavigation}} (on 2 different navigator tabs) only if their {{Taxonavigation}} is at the same height. I don't care if the height is at 10cm from the top. But the only way to do so is having them at the top.
Don't you ever compare Taxonavigation ?
As for the real use of {{VN}}: have you ever come to commons searching for "Rouge-gorge familier" ? No! Real users go to fr.wikipedia, search for "Rouge-gorge familier" then click to commons link. Now contributors (me) work with scientific names because vernacular names sucks, they are confusing. Liné1 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As a representative of a "user" who knows the VN for my country but not usually the latin name, I go search at Commons first for images, and there I think it is most convenient that the vernacular names are at the top as I can immediately see that I have come to the right place. I also think that for most users being directed to Commons from Wikipedias, they will feel reassured that they have come to the right place if they recognised a well known (for them) VN at the top of the page. Another use case for me is that when VNs are at the top, I often notice very fast that the VN name for my locale is not there, and I then add it and perhaps also dig for an iw link to my local wiki, if a matching page exists there. I think quite a few "ordinary" users feel a little bit alienated by all the taxo stuff, different taxo systems and what not, and placing the VNs at the top makes you feel a bit more at home. Not really a huge big deal for me as nomatter the location of the VN the name will pop up in a search. I don't know if there are difference to the imporance given to finding a vn depending on its placement on a page in search engines, but if it gets less impact the further down the page, I think that would be another argument for keeping it at the top. So, I agree with Rockets reasoning in this. --Slaunger (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If you look for the vernacular name, it seems very easy to spot the "Vernacular Names" banner of VN, whatever its place is (When the Taxonavigation has no banner!).
Then the VN position has really NO impact in the search engine.
That left no argument for VN at top and 1 argument for Taxonavigation at top (comparison).
By the way, when you search for your own language in the VN, it is more difficult as it has the same size as all the others (I told Rocket000, that he sould make the user language bigger).
Hey, we could first agree on the order for the rest (not VN nor Taxonavigation). I have less arguments or wiches for their position. First proposition:
  1. VN or Taxonavigation or VN
  2. SN
  3. Taxa/Genera/Species
  4. classification note
  5. references (Fishbase, IUCN, MSW, IOC...)
Liné1 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I find it quite easy to find my language in the VN template. Concerning VN at the top or not, I would state I that way that I have a personal preference for it being at the top as I find it the most natural starting point for most non-taxoliterate users/viewers. However, it is not of tantamount importance for me at all, just a preference, and I agree the VN is quite easy to spot whereever it is placed. My objective by posting is merely to show that there are non-hardcore TOL users who find it most natural to have VN at the top. --Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
VNs (and synonyms to some extent) can be thought of as alternate names for a page just like translation tables on non-taxonomy pages, this is why it feels natural for them to be closest to the top. My preferred order is starting at the top: VN, synonyms, taxonavigation, subtaxa list, classification notes, references & external links. However if taxonavigation goes first, it's taxonavigation, VN, synonyms, etc. That is vernacular names and synonyms are always together in that order. Rocket000 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I think there's a bit of being taken in by mission creep here - we must remember that the prime purpose of Commons is a store of pictures, not anything else; Commons isn't wikipedia, and it isn't wikispecies. One could reasonably argue that the pictures should be at the top, and everything else at the end, though it's true that that's not really practical. What is practical is that non-picture stuff should be kept to the minimum necessary for understanding; here isn't the place for a full detailed taxonomic hierarchy with every parent taxon name (that should be on wikispecies) nor a listing of every VN ever recorded, or the taxon's listing in every online reference database (those are for the various language wikipedias). What I'd propose is that above all, the page name (scientific taxon name) is the most important; this should be followed by a brief taxonavigation to put it in its classification context (family, order, class, kingdom; only more if a huge genus or family makes it helpful; generally not subclasses, suborders, tribes, subgenera, etc.); then only the most widely found synonyms (just those one or two which there is a realistic high probability on a taxon being searched for, not the 150-odd archaic synonyms that some taxa have accumulated but haven't been used in 90 years), then the vernacular names (which are the least important part), and at most a single reference to prove the taxon exists. None of this should take up more than 3 or 4 lines, and then the really important bit, the pictures. Then at the end (as already), categories and interwikis. - MPF (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, all I add to galleries is the name and author. Nothing else but images and captions. Categories are the place to add stuff about the taxon (classification, VN, synonyms, etc.) not the images. They are about the group as a whole. Unfortunately, many people love redundancy and copy and paste this info to the gallery as well. I disagree that VNs are the least important. This isn't Wikispecies. It's the most important. That's what the common person cares about. Synonyms are mainly there for searching. Taxonomy is mainly there for navigation. {{VN}} is really the only one there for information itself. Rocket000 (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the only reason I include references is so others know what classification we're using here. They can google the name if they think it's made up or something. Rocket000 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Empty articles are a good idea. This is a good and less painful solution. I was trying to maintain the symetry but it takes too much time, perhaps I will have to move info from article to category (some VN and interwiki are bigger on the article side). As for the Taxonavigation it is not a taxobox (order,family,genus) but a tool for navigation, reason why we need the whole parent set. But really, Taxonavigation doesn't take that much place. Liné1 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better to be descriptive than proscriptive. Is there a way of determining the relative frequency of placement of the VN template in biota galleries and categories? Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

The guidelines here desperately need a rewrite. They are really out-of-date. I'm planning to do this but I need some help first. I haven't followed every discussion here so I'm not sure of all the things we came to a consensus on or whatnot (the long fossil debate for example). I need you guys to add any guidelines/rules/common practices regarding the TOL that you can think of to this page. I added a few so you get what I'm going for. I would like to collect a list of every little rule that has consensus, even if it's plainly obvious. If you're not sure if there is a consensus regarding something, feel free to add it anyway. We'll deal with that later. Thanks everyone! Rocket000 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with rarity (again)[edit]

Hi guys, I have recently come across two native South African species which are critically endangered in South Africa, but are not rare world-wide. The one, Trianoptiles solitaria is listed as critically endangered in South Africa but is actually a problem plant in Australia. The other Moraea aristea is also critically endangered, growing only on a small hill in the property of the Observatory in Cape Town; and yet is cultivated as a garden plant elsewhere in the world (not common, but not rare). How do we classify these? I would appreciate your thoughts. Andrew massyn (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IUCN status depends only on the taxon's overall status as a wild taxon; local sub-populations don't count, and cultivated/captive populations (and invasive populations derived from them) don't count. - MPF (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That clarifies perfectly. Rgds Andrew massyn (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

APGIII genera[edit]

Hello,
were can I find the genera of the APGIII families ?
In Kew Garden web site ? They say here that they follow APGIII (but on this page for APGIII they provide a link which does not correspond to APGIII but to APWebsite (which does not follow APGIII).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Any idea, guys ? Liné1 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have downloaded the paper and it does not actually for the most part address genera, only the midlevel taxonomy of orders and families. your best bet is to see if you can get a copy of the paper and note where specific genera are talked about. Other then that, I would assume genera to be in the last family that a specific study placed them in.--Kevmin (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How to use GRIN[edit]

Hello guys,
Does any of you know how to search a tribes and subtribes in GRIN?
I discovered on the tribe species:Oryzeae an interesting link to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?1300 (which has the same result as http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/family.pl?1300).
But I failed to use any search page to find the article on Oryzeae;-(
I have tried multiple GRIN search page like this search page
Thanks in advance for any answer.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cronquist in Commons[edit]

MPF is suppressing the {{ITIS}} links and ITIS subtaxon list I provided in many botanic family categories (1, 2...)
He says that ITIS is outdated.
This is true as ITIS mainly follows Cronquist System 1981.
That is the reason for which I added {{ITIS}} and {{Genera|source=ITIS}} after the {{Taxonavigation|classification=Cronquist}} not after APGIII.

We have multiple solutions, for which I would prefer a vote:

  1. Keep Cronquist Taxonavigation in all ranks
    In that case we need a source for Cronquist list of genera (Cronquist System being the source for orders and families)
    1. If you have one good source for Cronquist we can use it
    2. Or we have to keep ITIS
  2. Keep Cronquist Taxonavigation only in orders and families
    I just corrected them, but having so many classification (APWebsite, APGIII & Cronquist) is a lot of work, I corrected all the families but won't have the courage to do the same on all genus and species cat.
  3. Keep Cronquist Taxonavigation only in pure Cronquist categories
  4. Suppress Cronquist Taxonavigation everywhere + Suppress pure Cronquist categories

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that MPF thinks that ITIS is not a good source for Cronquist which might be true.
But I don't understand why he transforms source=ITIS (which is a fact + easy to verify + doesnt mean that ITIS perfectly matches Cronquist) in source=Cronquist meaning we veryfied that it is pure cronquist)(modifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.)
Liné1 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That ITIS follows Cronquist does not mean it is a valid reference to Cronquist's treatment; it isn't. ITIS only includes taxa native to, or commonly cultivated in, North America, so it is only a very incomplete listing, omitting numerous taxa from the rest of the world. To reference a Cronquist family's included genera from an ITIS list is therefore very misleading, since it gives the false impression that Cronquist only accepts the genera listed by ITIS, which of course is not true. If the Cronquist Taxonavigation is to be retained, it should be referenced directly from Cronquist's own work, not an incomplete secondary source. - MPF (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, but we still need a valid live source for Cronquist genera list. Textbook, really is not a good source for colaborativ wiki as you can't verify want another contributor has said.
For example, when you transformed source=ITIS in source=Cronquist, I don't know if you really checked in your textbook that ITIS info was a correct Cronquist info.
Liné1 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
MPF agreed by mail that we could perhaps suppress Cronquist classification (But yes, perhaps removing Cronquist taxonavigation altogether might be a good idea as it is so out-of-date now).
Which of my 4 choices would you prefer ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, none of us has the Cronquist textbook ;-)
Hmmm . . . I just did a search for Cronquist's Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants, and neither google books nor amazon com allow any viewing of the pages. If someone has easy access to a copy of Cronquist and is willing to enter the data, then choice #1; if not, then choice #4 - MPF (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
How strange, I see "Limited access", but I have a full access with that link. Liné1 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I also have to pay $332.50 for total access ;-) Liné1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Ouch!! When I looked I didn't even get the option of buying online access. Amazon have 2nd-hand paper copies for $150 - MPF (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we don't have Cronquist textbook, we can't afford one ;-), ITIS is not truthworthy for botanic => shouldn't we vote for Cronquist removal ? Liné1 (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, vote for removal since no-one has turned up with a copy - MPF (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I have a copy in a box somewhere (unless it was one of the books I donated to Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden), but I vote for removal. I got the book new for a deep discount, and came to find that the most useful part was the family nomenclature (this was back in the days before IPNI), and the least useful part was the family descriptions, which in many cases were not even diagnostic. Art was an interesting character, but his general tendency to appeal to authority rather than evidence made much of his work untestable. I predict that in a century, his floristics and new species will be his most important scientific contribution (of course, that's true of most of us), and his classification will be in the history section along with Engler & Prantl, Bentham, and Bessey.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

OK, could you now vote for the Cronquist suppression possiblities:

  1. Keep Cronquist Taxonavigation only in orders and families
    does not seem a good idea as we don't have sources for the genera list. Liné1 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. Keep Cronquist Taxonavigation only in pure Cronquist categories
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Liné1 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Suppress Cronquist Taxonavigation everywhere + Suppress pure Cronquist categories
    Symbol support vote.svg Support MPF (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  1. Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Since our purpose is to provide media to our sister projects, it seems to me that compatibility with the major projects, e.g., en, de, fr, etc., should be paramount. Do any use Cronquist? If so, I think it may be useful to retain it, in some form. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    Good question
    • en.wikipedia follows APGII (have they begun APGIII migration?)
    • fr.wikipedia is at the same state as commons: I just finished Order&Family migration to APGIII, still provides Cronquist classification, but don't have access to a correct Cronquist source => very approximative Cronquist => I will ask them the same question ;-)
    Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. I am all for suppressing ITIS completely. It does not fulfil the standards for a reliable source. Its lists are not only outdated more often than not, but in many cases do not have global coverage. It really does more harm than good. Some years ago I used it on en:, but I quickly stopped this because it had so many errors. It is really the worst professional taxonomic index there is (EoL is almost as often wrong, but at least it's reasonably complete). As for Cronquist taxonav, well, why not, if ppl want it. Cronquist system is not like Sibley/Ahlquist (which was never widely adopted); though I am all for APG because I never learned much above-family plant systematics before APG I, there are many people who learned Cronquist. Having both Cronquist + APG taxonav makes the transition easier for them. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    You mean that many people have learned classical classification. Cronquist (1981) is only one of them. There is also Engler, Thorne, Dahlgren, Takhtajan ...
    The main argument for suppressing Cronquist is the lack of source accessible by us.
    Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    Agree wholeheartedly with Dysmorodrepanis on itis! - MPF (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Could you all vote, please ? Some people are already suppressing Cronquist Taxonavigation. Should I do the same ? Liné1 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree with avoiding ITIS, it's led me astray too many times, but Cronquist is useful to connect to older names in floras and herbaria. It's readily available at UNLV library, that's how I typed in the original list; if I were to type in genera, where would I put them? Seems more like a wikispecies kind of data entry. Stan Shebs (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. Cronquist (Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants) is available at two libraries of the University of Washington. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, guys, we are interested by online Cronquist classification, not by textbook at the other side of the world ;-). Except if you are willing to go through all the Cronquist Categories (Family & Genera) to provide the {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Genera}} (like I am doing for APWebsite & APGIII).
The question is not about Cronquist interest either, it is about the fact that we cannot provide correct information about Cronquist classification as we don't have access to its classification.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a source required to be online in order to be valid? It doesn't seem like a good precedent to set; do we start whacking APG taxonavs when the website goes down over the weekend?  :-) Stan Shebs (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
WorldCat finds a number of copies in France.[2] But, I suspect you are out of luck in Coin de Mire. On the question above, I don't have a strong opinion, but I think many may find Cronquist classification helpful. In my region, the only printed flora (Flora of the Pacific Northwest), now badly out of date, uses Cronquist (Stan Shebs makes the same argument above). Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for an online source because it is a huge work that we should share. Except if you of you is willing to hire/rent the Cronquist textbook (332$ by the way) and do all that work by yourself.
By the way, textbook is really a strange idea for a collaborative work like wikipedia. You do have to trust the other contributors. I prefer to be able to check other's work and have my contributions checked by others.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, it doesn't cost anything to check it out of the library. That's how I filled in en:Cronquist system in the first place; I didn't type in genera at the time, because it seemed like the family articles ought to be created first. While it's nice to have online sources, I don't think we should limit ourselves that way. After all, one of my motivations in plant photography here is to provide what are in some cases the first images of a species online *anywhere*. Give me a syntax and agreed-upon place to record the data, I can go get the book and start typing tonight! Stan Shebs (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not just finding a copy; it is also finding an editor who does have access to a copy, and is willing to do a huge number of tedious edits to add the data . . . so far, we don't appear to have that combination ;-) MPF (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking figuratively, I really am willing to do the tedious edits! The trick is to decide where it should go in; I am not willing to do a bunch of data entry that will be deleted the next day by some Cronquist-hating editor. Stan Shebs (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Subgenera taxonavigation[edit]

I think the taxonavigation template needs to be expanded to allow subgenera.

The reason is that I found Fauna Europaea to follow the most extreme splitter approach I have seen in recent times as regards beetles - basically, they elevate almost all subgenera to full genus rank, no matter that many of these are consequently monotypic. This seems to be based on the whim of Alonso-Zarazaga (the Fauna Europaea reviewer) alone; in none of the cases I have seen, another author's reference (or any reference) is given. I daresay few if any taxonomists would follow such an extreme proliferation of monotypical taxa today, and in the cases where Wikispecies (which considers the taxa in question subgenera) does have current references, they invariably use subgenera also. While some of the subgenera will eventually be validated as good genera I presume, until a thorough review is not available I'd rather go with majority opinion and reliable sources rather than what in some cases is a minority view and in others (as per a quick-and-dirty Google Scholar lookup) borders on fringe science.

The consequence, however, is that we have a lot of subgenus categories, because beetle taxonomy has largely been following Fauna Europaea. But the taxonavigation template does not have a subgenus parameter. Could this be added please? Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Subgenera should already work in {{Taxonavigation}}.
What is wrong with them ? Do you have an example ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Anisorus vs Species:Stenocorus. Note it uses the genus authority (wrong in this case, should be Geoffroy, 1762), indicating it simply skips the "|subgenus=" line. Also, it is not the fault of Alonso-Zarazaga; some other beetle people seem to be are also splitting left and right and it may be a problem higher-up. I have not seen it with micromoths regularly nor anywhere else, and the moth people on FE tend to give a reference for their taxonomic decision. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that the problem is on {{Coleoptera}} not on {{Taxonavigation}} ! Liné1 (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Plant Navigation Templates[edit]

Any time I see a genera or species using a tempate of Category:Plant Navigation Templates I begin to cry:

  • it has been done with wrong classification source (uniprot for example)
  • As most our family categories have been created following APWebsite classification (at which date? when APWebsite changes so often) => you cannot apply the same APWebsite+APGII+Cronquist+Strasburger taxonavigation to all members of an APWebsite family
  • it has been made without any knowledge of classifications (You have to believe me, I don't want to charge the contributor)
  • as it was created by one contributor, now that this contributor has left... the mess will remain forever ?!?

Rocket000, you know that I love the work you do in wikicommons (I enjoy every day {{Taxonavigation}} with classification, {{Genera}} with source, {{SN}}...) but you helped the construction of this nightmare!
What can we do about this ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would add that while generally the species templates are at the family level, sometimes they are at the tribe level, e.g., {{Astereae species}}. I don't know the reason for this and it makes it harder to automate the addition of the templates. I've been adding Plant Navigation Templates to species galleries and categories, but not because I have a strong opinion about it, but because I've written a script that does most of the work. Orchi has suggested taxonavigation be limited to family/genus/species on gallery/category species pages. That would be fine with me, and would reduce the clutter at the top of these pages. As far as finding media goes, i.e., our purpose, I think synonym lists can be helpful. Thank you Rocket000 for creating that template. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am worrying too much. Botanic is not that important. There is not so many botanic taxon. And nobody cares. As for {{Taxonavigation}}, we could only keep the current Taxon name and rename the template {{Taxon}}! Liné1 (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this now... I'm sorry for the fact that I had a hand in the creation of these templates. I enjoy helping people create templates, so if someone (Carol in this case) comes to me and asks for help, I generally will help on a technical level regardless of whether or not I think the eventual use of the templates is a good idea, especially in an area I'm unfamiliar with. At the time, I was not active in the taxonomy side of Commons at all. Carol introduced me to it. I got into it because of the templates I was working on for her (so, in a way, you have her to thank for all my TOL contributions including those templates you do like ;). I didn't really know if what she was doing at the time was a good idea or not... I just thought she was making an awful lot of templates (which in itself makes them hard to use). My only suggestion at this time is to gradually replace them with traditional {{taxonavigation}} setup if they are too hard to work with. Who knows, maybe someday I'll get an urge to work on botany categories and revamp/replace this whole template system. Rocket000 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my friend, you know that I was only teasing you.
But the sad truth remains: botanic is in poor health:
  1. I had to migrate families and orders to APGIII all by myself without help
  2. because of Category:Plant Navigation Templates the genera and species are is an awful state and cannot be migrated easily to APGIII
  3. because there are resistance to suppress Cronquist, we have to correct 3 classifications in thoses taxon: Cronquist (without access to the classification) + APWebsite + APGIII
Just a technical question: when I see a category using a Category:Plant Navigation Templates (like Category:Vateria), is there a way to substitute the template ({{Dipterocarpoidae}} in this case) call by its evaluated content ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You can if you make some minor modifications to the templates, like so. Rocket000 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What did you do on Category:Vateria to do this substitution? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Just used {{subst:Dipterocarpoidae|...}}. Rocket000 (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Humans and their anatomy[edit]

I'd like to bring to your attention a string of recently created categories, mainly related to Anatomy, which have the doubtlessly laudable aim of separating humans from animals. As far as I can see these are mainly the work of a single contributor, Lx 121. I have several concerns, including:

  • Such a far-reaching recategorisation would be better discussed and agreed upon first, either here or at CfD, then a bot could do most of the work. I've seen a number of well-meaning personal projects such as this abandoned before completion which leaves us with yet another mess to clear up.
  • The names given to some of these categories are not always helpful. In particular, the unneccessary use of the comma, e.g. Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, which contains sub-cats such as Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, by component and Category:Human anatomy, 10 year old, male. Who on earth is going to remember that, even if they spend a fair amount of time on these categories? (Which I don't, as a rule).
  • The (potential) extent of these sub-cats if/when applied to related categories, such as Art, will increase the burden on editors and severely tax their patience.

I'm sure that the intention is good but am concerned - as a mere amateur who occasionally strays into these areas, mainly because I have an interest in art - that the task of finding suitable categories will become impossibly difficult with the result that many people simply won't bother. This project seemed like the ideal place to bring this up and, hopefully, elicit a response. [There are far too many categories for me to consider finding and listing at CfD without wasting an entire evening.] Anatiomaros (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please bring this to User talk:Lx 121. Judging from his/her talk page, s/he does a lot of this sort of work and is used to comment and criticism. Also, it is evident that a number of editors and administrators watch his/her talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I had considered doing so but was put off by the fact that past notices and requests, some of them regarding similar categories (now deleted) dating from 2009 onwards, including the quite surreal *Category:Shaved female genitalia, by species and *Category:Shaved male genitalia, by species (!) had been ignored. So I was not too hopeful of getting a response. I will leave a copy of the above at his/her talk page but I still think it would be helpful for this project to get involved in sorting this out. I have enough work to do elsewhere, e.g. as a sysop on my "home" wikipedia, and can't always spare as much time as I'd like for Commons. Please consider a way at arriving at a solution for this situation, which is clearly ongoing, perhaps by investigating some of these categories yourselves and helping to have them deleted and, more importantly, trying to ensure that similar categories are not created in the future. Regards, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The damage is more widespread than I'd realised. Take a look at the new sub-categories for Category:Male human genitalia (not a pretty sight, perhaps, but...). This is truly ludicrous. Please help do something about this as it's too much for a single editor. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion now opened at CfD. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:IUCN red list[edit]

Hi. I thought that some people here might be interested in this partnership between IUCN and Wikimedia, particularly Commons. Cheers, GoEThe (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We already have {{IUCN}} (7000 usages !) and Category:Species by IUCN Red List category. What more do you want ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you visit the project page? It's about distribution maps! 25,000 of them. GoEThe (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
NICE! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa and autocategorization #2[edit]

Hmmm... how about this:

Expand the templates so that a "mono" parameter can be used at any rank. The result would be that for display and linking purposes, a taxon which has this parameter is not displayed as link, but simply black and bold. The page would be autocategorized in the next higher taxon.

Only thing that would be missing is the authority of the monotypic taxon, but this might simply be the value of the "mono" parameter. So perhaps Xanthopsar flavus for example would get something like:

Superfamilia|Passeroidea|
Familia|Icteridae|
Genus|Xanthopsar|mono=Ridgway, 1901|
Species|Xanthopsar flavus|
authority=(Gmelin, 1788)}}

which would result in

Superfamilia: Passeroidea • Familia: Icteridae • Genus: Xanthopsar Ridgway, 1901 • Species: Xanthopsar flavus (Gmelin, 1788)

and be auto-categorized in Category:Icteridae, while Category:Xanthopsar becomes a redirect to the species category.

For "List of XYZ genera" and similar purposes, the genus category would be used normally. It would correctly appear in genus lists, but redirect the user to the species category.

(It would require a re-write of those templates that accept a single word in the species field; the entire binomen would need to be used to prevent mix-ups with the parameter.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin_names_from_Starr_batch_upload[edit]

At Commons:Bots/Work_requests#User:BotMultichillT_cleanup_(Latin_names_from_Starr_batch_upload), there is a proposal to solve the filename problem created by a bot upload. It would remove plant names from images that don't generally feature plants (described as showing "habitat"). I would be glad to have more specialist input on the question and ways to solve it.  Docu  at 08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Default category name: "animals"/"plants" or "fauna"/"flora"?[edit]

As in Category:Animals of Indonesia or Category:Flora of Brazil.

I have the impression that "animals" and "flora" are the curreently most-used categories, which is inconsistent. In any case, a lot of categories will have to be renamed, but it must be done - we need a consistent scheme, given that loads of content are pooling in from Flickr, PLoS etc.

For English names, it may be argued that we also use "birds", "mammals" etc. as default.

For Latin names, it may be argued that they are internationally more compatible (but the "of" somewhat defeats the argument). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought about this. Problem is that "fauna" and "flora" are actually not scientifically accurate; they are the obsolete 18th-century two-regnum subdivision (technically three - the third regnum would be "minerals"...). In essence, using "fauna" and "flora" would never place fungi and protists in the correct categories.
Therefore,
PROPOSAL: Globally deprecate "fauna" and "flora" categories, replacing them with the appropriate "animal" and "plant" (and "fungi" and "protists") categories. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Angaria depressa or Category:Modulus tectum?[edit]

We have received a request for "File:Angaria depressa.shell001.jpg" to be renamed "Modulus tectum". Can a knowledgeable editor please comment on the matter at "File talk:Angaria depressa.shell001.jpg"? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a few info on this in Category_talk:Angaria_depressa. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)