Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josh Grosse (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 14 July 2004 (→categorization redux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MW 1.3 taxobox templates

Well folks, the time has come to build taxobox templates. Is there a clue somewhere to teach us all the bells and whistles of MW 1.3 templates? - UtherSRG 21:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have started playing a little bit. See Template:Taxobox and User:Pcb21/Taxobox_test for a flavour of what we might do. This is not "production-ready" by any means. It is clear that they are major issues at the moment. Specifically
  1. I am not sure if it is possible to use '|' as part of a parameter - that makes including things like [[Image:Image_name.jpg|Image_description]] very difficult
  2. Images do not appear to interact well with templates more generally.
Will interested parties please meddle with the template page and the test page (which can be moved out of user name space if you like) to see what improvements can be made. But please don't include this in articles just yet - I think we will be changing template parameter names quite a lot in the first few days and it will be a bitch if we have 1,000 pages to update along with it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Crud.... I don't like 1.3 much then... and even worse when you want to sometimes have a field in a taxobox, and sometimes not. For instance, sometimes we'll want the suborder field as you have it. But if there is not suborder for the given family/genus/species/etc, you get an ugly line with {{{suborder}}}, or a blank, depending on if you provide a blank or don't list the field at all. Not good! I'v'e modified the taxobox template a little, adding an authority field.- UtherSRG 00:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some further thoughts about the 1.3 templates. We need to be more flexible in setting them up, and they'll work better for us. Check out User:UtherSRG/Taxobox_test and Template:Taxobox 8fields status noimage authority norange. We'll need templates for 2-? fields, some with/without status, range, image, authority. - UtherSRG 02:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that with each optional field the number of templates necessary increases twofold. I guess we can make authoriy mandatory (leaving it empty gives just a mildly ugly empty line, and the authoriy is usually rather easy to find). To a lesser degree the same applies to the status. Yet noimage and nomap we definitely need, while I prefer to have the map in the article instead of in the taxobox which would make that field obsolete - but that's a different discussion. However I don't like the 8field-version - IMHO it's easier to use a template where one has to write "kingdom=animalia" instead of "level1=kingdom|level1_value=animalia". IMHO taxoboxes which include the sublevels like subclass or infrafamily are not the most standard one, so those can get a different template. And don't forget we need taxoboxes for the higher levels as well, not only for the species. Too bad the templates don't have a full programming language built in :-) andy 12:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I can dig not having a "noauthority" bit although "noauthority" and "nostatus" make sense for the non-species level boxes. Take a look through the various pages. Many have "sub-" and "super-" level rank information. Do we want to remove that information for the sake of simplifying the template, or do we want a set of flexible templates that can handle whatever it is we think is needed for a particular article? I think we are much better off with the flexibility. At least the template is easier to read than the Wikitable format! *grins* And I'll second that request for a template programming language! *grins* - UtherSRG 13:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
BTW - I agree that my "unnamed fields" version is clunky. Let's look at this from the user perspective. There are two kinds of users - those knowledgable in why things are the way they are (because like you and me they are here in the discussions or following along) and those that don't understand but edit pages anyway. We will know that if we're adding a taxobox to a new article, that we'll need to match # of fields and template name. We'd also know (with the less flexible, precanned field names) that we'd need to match template name to article taxon level. Either way we know we need to match something. The unwashed masses? They'll copy a template from something, slap it in place, call it golden, and one of us will come by and clean it up - just as we do now anyway. - UtherSRG 13:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thing is though that if templates remain the preserve of advanced users, is it really worth bothering with them at all, particularly if we have to maintain a lot of templates. All we gain is the removal of ugly-looking table code from the edit screen.
I think it might be possible to minimize fields though. By omitting horizontal lines where possible (ie. using br instead of tr), the pages won't look too ugly if the authority, status and range fields are optional. If omitted, all we get is a little whitespace. Is this possible, especially given the '|' restriction? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Outdenting for fun and profit....) I'm not saying that templates will be the balliwick of the advanced - at least no more than taxoboxes and taxotables are now - and to a certain degree they are. the more clueful editors figure it out. The less clueful ones slap in something they think is right, but needs to be fixed, or they don't bother. Same as now, same as it always will be. *grins* - UtherSRG 14:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we could put the 'br' tag into the passed in value for status and authority, that would save the whitespace. Um... nowait... "authority" and "status" booleans would only be used for species level boxes, which would have at least 7 fields (KPCOFGS) and would always have a Binomial name section. So perhaps 7-12 fields for species level boxes, plus booleans for "authority", "range", "status", and "image". Non-species boxes would never have "authority", "status" or range, but would have a bottom section listing the next level down (class list for a phylum box, genus list for a family box, etc). Say 2-9 fields, plus a boolean for "image". 96 species level boxes and 16 non-species level boxes. (And I'm sure someone will chime in with a "What about the subspecies?"....) Once we get things settled, I'd be more than happy to do the grunt work to make the 112 templates... It'll mostly be copy-and-paste work. - UtherSRG 14:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ahem - the authority can also be present in the higher level taxons, it may only be less common to list it. But it principle it makes no difference if a taxonomist introduces a species or a genus or a family. andy 11:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh certainly. However, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive4 we discussed putting it in the Binomial name section. It doesn't (or shouldn't) exist in the Genera section, or in the Families section, etc, where there is a list of items. When a taxobox contains an authority, it should only contain one, and it should be a species-level taxobox. Authority info can be added elsewhere in the articles about different taxa, although I find its addition tends to be "not-pretty". - UtherSRG 11:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Urgh... I've editted my test template and taxobox again to get the Status working with our nice colorful Status msgs. Um... can someone take a look and see if it can be fixed? It would be very nice to get this to work.... then we can do similar for the taxon rank names, to make the non-EN folks happy and contented. - UtherSRG 14:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Optional elements in taxobox templates

I happened on this site [[1]] in the Danish Wikipedia. There were some elements included in the taxobox that I had not seen before in the English Wikipedia, like height, flowering season, gardening instructions. What about including them as OPTIONAL elements in the botany taxobox template ? Opinions, anyone ? JoJan 16:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Besides the fact that that isn't data we've decided to add to our taxoboxes (optional or not), the new 1.3 templates don't allow anything to be optional. *grumble* *grumble* *grumble*.... - UtherSRG 16:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MW 1.3 categories

Also new in 1.3 are categories. I was going to suggest we add categories at the order and class level (and perhaps family/genus for large classes) so that we have auto-generated lists of articles.

Unfortunately categories are useless with respect to ToL articles at the moment. Add a category to an article causes the taxobox to be forced into the centre of the page (with lots of whitespace to its right) rather than left right-aligned as it should be.

It would be good to discuss what categories people would find most useful, however I don't think we can use them yet. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the category layout bug in MonoBook has been circumvented by having categories display at the bottom of the page. So, we can go ahead and start to categorize species, if we wish.
I would urge participants to consider common names for categories, for reader-friendliness. For me, I know the taxonomic names of a few families and orders (like Mustelidae), but I would like to browse the Tree of Life with common names, like Category:Weasels. In fact, one could argue that the only reason to use the MW categorization system for the tree of life is to make a common name scaffolding around the strict scientific hierarchy already expressed in the taxoboxes. There doesn't seem to be much point to just replicating the taxonomy in categories like Category:Cupressaceae, is there? People can always browse up and down easily through the taxoboxes.
I realize that there are sticky points in using the common names. There already is a Category:Trees, which does not map easily into taxonomy. Not sure how to resolve this, but I would still urge common categories names. --- hike395 14:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'm still not certain I want to have categories used for ToL articles. However, if they are, I'd prefer they very closely mimic the taxonomy hierarchy. The point of categories isn't only for navigating up and down the category hierarchy, It's for creating lists and dump off all the children of a certain category. A dump of all the articles in the Category:Mammalia should give every mammal species article, but should also include all the intermediary taxon articles (cetaceans, primates, carnivores, etc).
So that gets us into whether using common names for categories is preferred over scientific. Article names are preferred to be common, when one exists. I'd prefer categories to be just the opposite - always using the scientific name because it will always exist (although it might not be unique and will need to be disambiguated). One of my reasons for this is the ambiguousness surrounding common names. Look at lemur or agouti. Both refer to multiple branches in the ToL. Category:Lemurs and Category:Agoutis would have to include articles that do or don't fall into the category, depending on which definition of those common names you have in your head.
I've removed tree ToL articles from Category:Trees and left in the individual trees. Category:Trees is, as you noted, not appropriate for ToL articles that happen to be be about a kind of tree. - UtherSRG 15:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I definately think the Tree of Life, in the categories, should be the scientific names. It'd be excessively silly to splice the two - there is no common name for "Chordata" - yet we'd have a category somewhere below it called "Wolf". Prior to categories, Wiki had no appropriate mechanism by which to display a comprehensive tree of life - there was an indirect tree-of-life via taxoboxes. We should definately use scientific names. We can always create categories in layman's names such as Category:Weasel - for those who are casually browsing. We have the chance to create the largest and most comprehensive Tree of Life on the internet by use of the categories - why ruin the chance with common names? --Oldak Quill 17:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with OldakQuill Fuelbottle | Talk 04:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to wait until some of the more longer-term ToL contributors weigh in on this issue. However, I will stop deleting the existing categories. There are, however, complications that have not even been brought up yet. What about (to the extreme) Gingko, and other species which are leaves of the ToL but have short, stubby branches? Which category do they go in? - UtherSRG 14:51, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
PS to Oldak - The common term for Chordata is chordates. Your point is well taken, though. - UtherSRG 15:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There are many extinct members that can be added to the Ginkgo category. Fuelbottle | Talk 18:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's besides the point. I want you to look at the generalities, not the specifics. How should stubby leaves be handled? Should they be put into multiple categories? The uppermost category with branches? Some other configuration? As to Ginkgo, if it has any known relatives, the article and taxobox should be modified to indicate such branchings. As it is, it stands as the sole Species in its entire Division.
These issues need to be discussed. The work you've done may be good, or may need to be removed and redone. The categories you've created are a temptation to other editors to go ahead and add articles to them, which means potentially more ork to be undone or redone. - UtherSRG 21:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Weighing in as requested . . . I find it hard to think what's best. I don't see a lot of value in taxonomic categorisation, as it merely duplicates what's already in the taxobox. Or am I misunderstanding their operation?
Otherwise, I can see there might be a case for non-taxonomic categories, like Category:Trees (though I don't greatly like the idea), and/or geographical breakdowns that aren't reflected in the taxoboxes (e.g. Category:Animals of Europe); in such a case, I think the categories should be pretty wide, continent, and kingdom or division rather than order (i.e. Category:Plants of Europe and Category:Animals of Europe rather than, say, Category:Roses of Europe and Category:Rodents of Europe (or for that matter, small areas like e.g. Category:Animals of Bulgaria). Obviously a lot of species, and many more genera, would fit in several categories, e.g. juniper would fit in Category:Plants of Europe, Category:Plants of Asia, Category:Plants of Africa and Category:Plants of North America: tedious to do! - MPF 22:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That is one way to do categories. It can run in parallel to the taxonomic categorization. Categories allow scripts to extract articles downward from an arbitrary category (root), through the sub-categories (branches), to all of the articles (leaves). So there is some value in the taxonomic categorization, such as running a script to extract all mamamals or carnivores or etc. - UtherSRG 22:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it could be categorized in ecozones and ecoregions. Fuelbottle | Talk 07:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am yet to be persuaded that there is any particular value in having categories on ToL pages at all. We already have two mature and extensive categorisation and navigation schemes - the taxoboxes and the semi-formalised speecies lists in the text itself. Why would we want to buggerise about inventing categories when there are so many articles that don't even exist at all yet? I'm not actually hostile to categories, I just think that we have real work to do. If and when someone comes up with a compelling reason for categorising the ToL entries (and with a clear and practical proposal for the organisation of the categorisaton scheme, one that doesn't merely reinvent the wheels we already have) then that might be the time to reconsider the idea. That's the nice thing about the wiki software: it has so many features that we can pick and choose which ones are most suited to particular circumstances. We don't have to use everything all the time. Tannin 01:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that categories should replace the lists in the text as in many articles they are way too large(see for example Asteraceae), so the article can focus on the Genus or Family or whatever it's about instead. For example in the Asteraceae article, the list could be moved to a category while a few of the most common genera could be put in the taxobox and then the last entry there could be a link to "All genera" which would link to the category. Fuelbottle | Talk 01:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I can see value in categories that "slice" differently from the taxobox. For instance, how does one find all the ToL articles about trees? or freshwater fish? or even for taxobox entries like beetle? When I went looking for all the beetle articles recently, I had to laboriously thumb through a lot of irrelevant entries in the "links here". I recently acquired a reference on fishes of Nevada (80+ species believe it or not), and I've been debating whether to make a list or a category. A category for the species of a genus seems less useful, since we already expect to have a list (whether long or short, in article or separate) in the genus article.
(I think the above was from user:Stan_Shebs
also weighing in as requested... I haven't had a chance to dig through everything the categories routines can do, but I think it's unlikely that they will do the ToL as well as our existing taxoboxes and lists do (unless we could somehow make them get their information out of the taxobox - maybe by changing the Latin taxon templates somehow?). There are just an awful lot of life forms, and there is nothing that will get them all on one page in a compact form; so a full tree has to be something that can be navigated, to display relevant bite-sized bits of it. Taxoboxes are very sound bites to display, which is why I like them the way they are. Above all we don't want two independent (and therefore inevitably inconsistent) ToLs being read into/out of Wikipedia. On the other hand, categories might have potential to do things that at the moment we can only do laboriously and by hand - like picking up all the disparate things that have a particular common name (trees is a good example). Even better if there would be a way of automatically generating "mammals of Bulgaria"; as a mainly text-based system, Wikipedia is currently weak on that sort of thing. seglea 04:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Scientific names are not the clear solution that several contributors appear to think, with taxonomy in such a state of flux. Are birds of prey in Accipitriformes or Ciconiiformes? The former is standard, but Sibley et al propose the latter. I'm always in favour of searching the obvious English word rather than a term that may not be familiar to a layman. I'm a computing ingnoramus, so I can't comment on the technical side. I note that Black-necked Swan is in the Chile category, which i wouldn't have thought was obvious. jimfbleak 05:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Standards can be used, when the standard changes it's easy to update Fuelbottle | Talk 07:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ahem. Which standard? The well-recognised international standard that places many birds of prey in Accipitriformes? Or the well-recognised international standard that places them in Falconiformes? Or do you mean the very broadly accepted standard classification scheme that places them all in Ciconiiformes? Even in bird taxonomy (which is simple, unified, and stable by comparison with that of several other branches of the art) we can only talk about "the standard" if we restrict ourselves to one particular locale. (In Australia, for example, the standard is HANZB, but that doesn't apply in France or the UK, and in the US (as I understand it) there are two standards, both official, and neither of them agreeing with the other.) Tannin 13:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here is a summary of what I think. There should be made categories, and the lists over species and genera etc in articles should be moved to categories. One reason for this is, as some users point out in many cases there aren't any standards decided, updating categories can be made in one place instead of in lots of lists in articles as new decisions gets made, which standards to use in wikipedia can be voted over. This is also a problem with taxoboxes, I think the best solution would be if the taxoboxes could use a script to be updated from the categories to ensure consistensy. I think it also would be nice to have all species categorized in some kind of geographical way, as this would make it easy to find which species can be found in different areas. Fuelbottle | Talk 15:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is, let there be categories up to genus, and then add all species articles to the genera categories. If such a scheme were to be used, should suborders, subclasses etc. be used? Fuelbottle | Talk 11:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's see if I can summarize where we're at. There is disagreement on both if and how categories should be used for ToL pages. Some propose using them to strictly adhere to scientific classification. Some propose using them strictly for common name groupings. Some propose the same, but at a broader, higher level. Some of these proposals are given grudgingly: "If we have to use them, then let's do it this way...." Although we are far from a concensus, the most supported position is to not use categories at all. Since they shouldn't beused until a reasonable agreement can be reached, I will continue to remove the categories from ToL pages and delete the categories. - UtherSRG 11:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I removed "Category:Scientific_classification is a tree whose branches end in species" from Wikipedia:Categorization and "For scientific categories, see Category:Plantae." from Category:Botany, similar things might be found more places though. Fuelbottle | Talk 14:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that is wise, Uther. If we are going to use categories at all, then we should do so in a cooperative way: proposing category schemes here on the talk pages, and throwing ideas around until we achieve a rough consensus. Then we can all pitch in and knock the required changes out in just a few days. This is what we did with the taxobox formatting issue, and the eventual result was one that we are all pretty happy with, and which works very well indeed.

I have to object to the deletion of existing categories by various users - the existance of categories do not adversely affect any user... As such, I do not see why we can have both common-name schemes and scientific classification schemes working side by side? It would please everyone (apart from those who do not want catgories). I would likely work on the scientific scheme - but botanists are likely to have common schemes, as are bird watchers etc. We could also have cladistics - if a user wished to create this. What I am saying is that categories do not and cannot adversely affect anyone - there is absolutely no reason why we can't have mutliple schemes... If someone could justify to me either: a) not having categories OR b) only having one scheme | I will happily concede. If no one can justify either, I will begin creating the scientific scheme. --Oldak Quill 18:19, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Concensus editting means just the opposite. Until we can reach a reasonable agreement on what scheme(s) to use, please do not go adding whatever scheme suits your own individual fancy. I will continue to remove (atthe very least) the taxonomic schemes until the concensus is for some scheme to be put into place. - UtherSRG 18:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion: May I suggest a less hysterical pace of deletion? I am not against the deletion of trivial, empty categories, but they are not the only ones disappearing in this kangaroo court. How about deletion notices on the categories and a waiting period? silsor 14:56, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Most of my speedy deletes today and recently have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Quick summary: there is no concensus on if and how to use categories for taxonomic articles, so we're removing categories from ToL articles and deleting the categories so that they are not misused. - UtherSRG 15:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is really ridiculous. The articles I categorized under "Fungi" go under "Fungi" because they are "Fungi", in the same way I might categorize "Table" under "Furniture". You used the rollback feature on all my edits of this morning as if I were some kind of vandal. silsor 21:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Rollback is a whole lot faster than editting each article. I'm not accusing you or anyone of being a vandal. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for the full discussion of why I'm deleting those categories. - UtherSRG 22:13, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By "we" above (in regards to deleting) you seem to mean "I". What happened to your statement yesterday that you would stop erasing others' work? silsor 22:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Also, may I point out that fixing a categorization scheme which you see as "wrong" at some later date requires exactly the same amount of work as waiting until a scheme is made policy, then categorizing the articles? In fact you will have to do less work, since relevant articles will already be grouped together in categories that make sense. This is of course a moot point since there is no more appropriate name for a "fungi" category than Category:Fungi. silsor 22:50, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
Do go back and read all of what I wrote on the ToL talk. I'm not going to reply further here. If you want, join the discussion there. No sense being fragmented. - UtherSRG 22:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have read your opinion. Please stop erasing my work. Thanks. silsor 23:14, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is not actually the same as a mandate to go around deleting content. In fact it would be a good idea to do some experimentation to see how it "feels", and you can't do that without, well, actually creating some categories and putting some articles into them. If the conclusion based on looking at these for a while is that they're undesirable, then at least the category system ensures they'll be easy to find and remove. :-) Several of the comments above are along the lines of "taxobox is all one needs", but it only lists scientific taxa, and competely misses the dozens of other useful ways to organize these articles. Trees are a great example, because tree-ness cuts right across the plant taxa, and is likely of much more interest to the general reader than the lists of obscure species in obscure genera. Stan 05:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Experiments can be a good thing. But the word itself implies a certain degree of orderliness and some methodology. That wasn't what was out there that I removed. Some of the questions I raised earlier (above) may be answerable with some experimentation, or it may just take some discussion. Even your example about trees is open for debate - is it worthwhile to place all the tree species in Category:Trees, or should that be reserved for specific individual articles about trees. If we are going to use categories, we need to be working together as a group, rather than each of us choosing and implementing our own categorization schemes. (And yes, it was relatively easy to find and remove what was out there... except for when people didn't want to come here and discuss but went ahead and continued to create as I was deleting.....) - UtherSRG 11:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why can't both categorisation systems work side by side?--Oldak Quill 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
They can. In fact I've left some categories out there. Category:Trees exists and contains unique tree articles. Category:Model organisms contains those articles about organisms used in genomic research. Really, the only one I removed is the one I personally give the most support for - taxonomic categorization. However, I think we have a lot to discuss (and perhaps experiment) before we start implementing it on the scale that had been reached. - UtherSRG 11:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


From meta: What about a special similar and independent type of categories only for the Tree of Life project that let make a real Tree? It can't be complicated (only make it independent to the other categories and use an other color) and can be very useful I think.

Categorization schemes

So... let's start listing some categorization models and lay them out on the table for discussion. Here's some schemes that I've seen in our discussion, and some perhaps with a twist:

  • Purely taxonomic in parallel with the taxoboxes - each taxon article would be contained in the category of its containing taxon, and each category would be a subcategory of the taxonomic category above it. This would allow a script to extract all of the article nodes taxonomically descended from an arbitrary root category. (For example, all the mammalian articles, including all the order, family and genus articles.) Other implementations?
If such a scheme should be should it be implemented, should it be as domain > kingdom > phylum > class > order > family > genus or should intermediate ranks like suborder be included? Maybe a mix of both? Fuelbottle | Talk 17:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Something combining the above two? Probably inevitable in the second case anyway as there aren't common name groupings for all things, especially the microbiota.
I guess that using a names like Category:Genus Falco rather than Category:Falco might be a good idea as it might make it easier to see what kind of category it is. Fuelbottle | Talk 17:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even in listing these possibilities, I see the possibility of improving what we have already. The article Falcon is pointed to from the disambiguation page Falco, even though some of the birds in that genus aren't called falcons (there are kestrels, hobbies, and the merlin). And then there's the family Falconidae which includes Falco and many birds in Falconidaeare also falcons. If the articles were arranged more taxonomically, then the categories could help detail the descendant articles. Or vice versa. - UtherSRG 11:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I seem to be the only person advocating common names for ToL categories. Since I am in the distinct minority, I'm happy to yield to whatever system people think is best. -- hike395 04:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

categorization redux

I think I've moved firmly into the "pro-category" camp. And, surprisingly perhaps, I find I prefer the possibilities that a "mixed" or "parallel" system of categorization provides a la my last bullet in the section above. If there's anyone at all still interested, can we discuss to what level of refinement we should take the categorizing to?

  • For the taxonomic branch:
    • KPCOFGS/KDCOFGS categories only? (Category:Order Primates would contain Primates and all the articles down to the family level, as well as containing the categories for the families, then each family category contains all the articles from the family down to the genus level, including all of the genus categories, etc.
    • All rankings? Each taxonomic ranking gets its own category, regardless of how intermediate the ranking is. (sub-, infra-, etc.)
  • For the common branch:
    • I suspect the various sub-Projects will make decisions here about how to divide up the common branch categorization
    • Free play on the rest?

Yours in organization - UtherSRG 23:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need categories for every KPCOFGS that comes along, only those that people naturally think in terms of - to a fair extent, those that coincide with the common branch. For instance, primates would be a good category, but Malacostraca wouldn't. Unstable taxa definitely shouldn't be categories. I think standards here are of limited value, and we should just excercise our judgement on what levels to use. Would that be enough, or am I missing the point?

By the way, please don't use a naming system that prefixes taxa with ranks, which aren't always as stable as the composition! Josh 01:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with Josh, I think the best we are likely to able to do is to devolve decisions to subprojects, who can pick the best taxa that work for them. However we might be able to offer general guidance on how big categories should be. Less than 10 articles too small, more than 100 too big? Pcb21| Pete 01:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then I suggest we start offering that guidance. Category:Birds and Category:Animals keep getting created and are a mess! Mixtures of common and taxonomic info in the same category. No concept of a larger picture that they are working towards.
My concept for using a rank with a taxa allows that category to be identified as a taxonomic category. I felt this was needed for cases where the taxa name itself would not be sufficient for ths identification, or for where the common and taxonomic naming system may intersect. On second thought, the plural would be used for the common names, and so thre shouldn't be the intersection. Ok then. How about Category:Foo (taxa) for when the category needs to be disambiguated? - UtherSRG 05:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I must be asleep. Category:Primates would be a prime (no pun intended) example of my above concern. Should it contain common name articles and categories, taxonomic ones, or both? - UtherSRG 05:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I say both, without distinction. We already have the taxoboxes to give an overview of the current taxonomy, so I don't think it's important that the categories reflect that. They can be used for more general things.

In particular, I'm thinking of taxa that have fallen out of favor, now used as descriptive groups or being listed for historical interest. These can be interesting, and categories would be a good place for them. But they wouldn't fit in very well if you insisted on separating formal and informal groups. Josh 06:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we already have the taxoboxes. These are a great way to consolidate a bunch of information about the article into a (hopefully) tight little package. It's also a navigational aid. Categories do not work the same as taxoboxes. They serve a different purpose: to consolidate groups of articles into a tight little package. How those articles are grouped, and how the categories are interrelated (the categorization scheme), causes the presented package to take on different meanings. Also, categories are an aid to dumping/offloading (not just navigating) a group of related articles: because categories can have subcategories, a SQL routine or a script can be used to extract all of the articles in a given category tree. This can not at all be done with a taxobox. The taxobox is a purely human-pedia interface. Categories are that too, plus they are also a machine-pedia interface, if implemented with a certain degree of care.
To this end, I want us to be very aware and concerned with the implementation of categories in ToL articles. Dismissing them offhand because we have taxoboxes seems to me to be a narrowminded approach to what we can achieve.
As for discarded taxa - I disagree. They certainly have a place in my schema. Perhaps I'm not drawing a clear enough picture of what I'm envisioning. They would be a leaf in the middle of a branch on the taxonomic tree. For instance, it would be neat to write up an article on the various changes that the classification New World monkeys has undergone in the past few years. Such an article, and any of the discarded taxa, would get categorized under Category:Primates (taxa).
A better example might be Reptilia. Taxonomically, it was lower in rank than a phylum (it makes up a part of the phylum Chordata) and was a class. It would get categorized under Category:Chordata (taxa). However, unlike other classes (say, Amphibia) which would be categorized under their own category (Category:Amphibia (taxa), a subcategory of Category:Chordata (taxa)), there would be no Category:Reptilia (taxa). Anything that would have been included in such a category would get covered by some other taxonomic category.
For categorizing by common groupings, Category:Reptiles would certainly be legitimate. It would likely contain separate subcategories for snakes, lizards, turtles, dinosaurs, etc. Category:Primates might include subcategories each for monkeys and apes, but might include all the rest of the primates directly.
A user wishing to extract a list of all the articles in the 'pedia on reptiles could run a script using Category:Reptiles as the root. A user wishing to extract all of the primates could use either Category:Primates or Category:Primates (taxa), since both would branch down to cover all the primate species. The two lists may be organized differently because the trees are organized differently.
A point was made about the fluidity of taxonomy. This has little to no bearing on how categories are used. If categories are used following any given taxonomy, the connections between categories would have to change - just like the taxoboxes would have to be changed, as well as the classificationlists in articles, etc. In fact, taxoboxes and classification lists would still make up the majority of the changes when a taxonomy changes.
I hope that I've cleared things up. I'm very excited and eager, and I want you all to be this excited. *grins* Chalk it up to a personality trait of "visionary"... - UtherSRG

It's not a simple matter of fluidity. It's not that I mind changing systems, but the idea that there's always one, and only one, currently accepted taxonomy is pure fiction. Reptilia is a case in point. It's not acceptable to clades-only taxonomists, but there's no generally accepted alternative for us to use. Treating Diapsida or Archosauria as a class conflicts with treating Aves as a class, the preeminent standard in ornithology. Besides, some people still argue for paraphyletic taxa. So nobody knows where to place reptiles, and the taxoboxes currently reflect this confusion.

The taxoboxes only give one system, but that's because they aren't flexible enough to reasonably present alternatives - it's a limitation we tolerate because they're still useful, not something desirable. Limiting the categories the same way just because taxoboxes aren't machine-readable seems a waste. If the computer ends up reading multiple systems, isn't that often preferrable? It's easier to get excited about a more flexible organization system then the prospect of more argument, confusion and over-simplification.

Josh 01:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What does eo- mean?

I have Google News email each day with a digest containing all news stories about whales. Today it informed of a discovery of a new (extinct) species - Eobalaenoptera harrisoni - I will add a spot of information about this work at the appropriate place. However I am a little unsure about where that place is - there is a genus Balaenoptera and families Neobalaenidae and Balaenopteridae (the latter contains Balaenoptera genus). Can anyone tell me what the prefix eo- means in this context? Is it possible for me to say where this animal, which died out millions of year ago, fits into the modern taxonomy. (At minimum it was a baleen whale, but that only takes us down to suborder level). Pcb21| Pete 22:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Took me a bit of Googling to get the right combo: [2] Good answer at The Student Nurse Forum: eo- is 'dawn, early (eobacterium)'. - UtherSRG 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A follow up: Eos is the Titan Goddess of dawn in Greek mythology. When in doubt, ask the Greeks or Romans. *grins* - UtherSRG 02:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All animals, no matter when they died out fit into the "modern" taxonomy.--Oldak Quill 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry I am able to more clear now, armed with Uther's helpful responses. Should I treat Eobaleaenoptera as the same genus as Balaenoptera (with eo merely meaning old or extinct) as the popular press appears to do "The whale is like today's Blue Whale". Or is it more strict - different word, different genus. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
New word, new genus. I'd place it close to Balaenoptera for now with a note that it was recently discovered and named (as I'm sure you would do anyway) so that its placement can be considered in flux. - UtherSRG 11:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It may only be placeable to the suborder. If it has been extinct for a long time, the modern families may only have evolved their separation subsequent to its extinction. If so, then it would normally be ascribed to a fossil family within the suborder. Presumably the fossil family, if applicable, hasn't been named yet? - MPF 17:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good point. - UtherSRG 18:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quite possible. It died out 14 million years ago (cetaceans are about 50 million years old). Unfortunately I can't be sure because there are only press release sources (see e.g. http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--newwhale0614jun14,0,1047694.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia) - the science is in latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, to which I do not have access. Pcb21| Pete 20:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Check your other cetacean info... they may say when the various speciations happened, which would give you a possible placement for the newbie. - UtherSRG 20:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good point, I have a book that might well help. Secondly I just re-checked - I do have access to that journal but that issue is not online yet - not surprising given the press release has just gone out... should be available in a week or so. Pcb21| Pete 20:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fruits of labour now available at Eobalaenoptera harrisoni. Pcb21| Pete 09:54, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Creationism in Tree of Life articles

As I have no shame, I self-nominated Humpback Whale as a featured article candidate. The nomination was proceeding unremarkably, lots of reasonable objections and little article improvements. Just recently though there has been an interesting objection. I quote:

  • Object. The "Taxonomy and evolution" section needs tweaking for creation-vs-evolution NPOV; I guess it only needs a few careful changes of things like "it is known" to "evolutionary biologists believe" and the like.

Now I've never previously thought much about "npoving for creationism" in articles about specific species. Mentioning it general articles such as evolution or natural selection sure, but I really don't know about species-specific articles. If we do it for Humpback Whale, then we should do it for all ToL articles. This would be way out-of-line with scientific practice and could cause to get caught to get caught up all in sorts of knots (virtually everything we say might have to be prefixed by "According to scientists"). I am have to tempted to flatly object to the objection, but am interested in what others think. Pcb21| Pete 16:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with Pcb21. Our articles should remain scientific. Creationism is mainly an American "thing", discarded by the rest of the world. But I grant Creationism its own page, where they can explain their beliefs. Anyway "the neutrality of this article is disputed" figures prominently on top of their article. JoJan 17:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree, too, on general principle. However, I do think the "it is known" sentance could be rephrased to maintain scientificism without yeilding greatly to Creationist propaganda. "Fossil evidence shows that..." etc. - UtherSRG 17:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Don't touch creationism with a bargepole - it has no credibility at all outside the US, which in itself eliminates the need for any concessions to irrationality. jimfbleak 19:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that when NPOV was agreed to, it was precisely on the condition that we wouldn't have to worry about this, or at least that was my understanding. Creationism doesn't warrant mention on biological group pages, because it has exactly the same thing to say about each one. We shouldn't have to pad our talk to deal with it any more than we should for solipsism. Josh

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assements above. Saying that we accept those from scientists simply because we agree with scientists has a terrible POV. First of all, there is not one generally accepted notion of science, as there are many philosophies of it. Granted that in certain areas (say, the U.S.) certain forms are predominate, but that is a non-issue in this case. To oversimplify, we have naturalism/evolution on one hand, and creationism on another. *BOTH* are supported by evidence and the things commonly associated with "science". Now each argument has its strengths and weaknesses, and as this is an encyclopedia, I have no desire to try and argue for either. But both have underlying philosophical viewpoints. The statement above that creationism has no credibility at all outside the US is blatently false (as a literal statement), and an opinion at best which should be used to decide on this issue. There are many well respected scientists who express sincere concerns about the accuracy of evolution. -- Ram-Man 21:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure one or two could be found, but there are virtually no serious modern biological scientists - the relevant category - who do not accept and use Darwinian evolutionary theory as a matter of course. As Josh says, it's appropriate, in general articles about biology, evolution, etc - the Tree of Life itself - to give space to the full range of extant views. It's not appropriate in an article way out on the distant branches of the tree to bother with an opinion that is held only by a tiny minority of those with relevant knowledge, and that has no special connection with the species under discussion. (On the other hand, if creationism had made a cause celebre of a particular species or of facts about a particular species, that would deserve a mention in the article on that species.) Similarly, in an article about, let's say, the history of a particular Christian denomination, you shouldn't have to debate the arguments for or against Christianity itself - whereas in main articles about Christianity, or the concept of religion, you'd expect to find that kind of discussion. It's all about the appropriate level for parading a particular range of POVs. Having said that, UtherSRG is clearly right - for reasons that have nothing to do with giving houseroom to creationism - that we should try to state propositions in terms that indicate the supporting evidence, rather than as bald "facts"; the beauty of science is that our confident assertions are always liable to be overturned by new evidence. seglea 21:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello folks, I raised the "creationism" NPOV objection mentioned above (now resolved with very little alteration). Executive summary of the objection: It's a wording thing, not a "let's give creationists a disproportionate platform" thing. The problem is that writing in a style which affirms evolution to be correct (e.g. "it is known that X evolved like this") is POV; the number of creationists in the world is sufficiently large that we cannot write quite like this and maintain NPOV. Whether or not creationism has credibility with scientists and researchers of Humpback Whales is irrelevant, as far as writing style goes. However, the choice of facts that we include should roughly reflect mainstream opinion. It's perfectly fine to (only) put things like "fossil evidence indicates" and so forth. (Indeed, it's better to say things like that regardless of NPOV). NOTE: I certainly don't think we need make explicit mention of creationism (or anything else) every time the discussion of the provenance of animal Foo comes up. I don't think we should fall into the inanity of "Evolutionary biologists think that Foo evolved from Bar, while fundamentalist Christians believe that they were created on the Fifth Day." (By the way, I don't think creationism is only a US thing; maybe it's rejected by Europeans and educated people in other parts of the world, but given that a large proportion of the planet hold Christian (and, more generally, theistic) beliefs of one sort or another, it's safe to assume there's going to be many creationists worldwide. — Matt 22:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh

The idea of scientific creationism is a mainly American thing. The problem with the wording you suggest is it strongly demotes models, since it isn't done for any other subjects. You don't see historians always saying yes, there is evidence for this - even for theories as or more controversial! What would you point to to show people evolved from other primates? Comparative anatomy, genetic studies, fossils, all of the above? Should we have to list the entire range of biology every time a relationship is certain? This is not worth it, to solve a problem that almost doesn't exist. After all, for all this worrying, has there been any real indication that pro-creationists aren't content with simply summarizing their position on relevant pages and ignoring evolution on the others? Josh

When you talk about creationists "ignoring evolution on the other pages", you seem to be suggesting that NPOV might be selectively applied across the Wikipedia, and that in some domains we should assume a certain foundational bias. I strongly disagree with this. Just as it would be inappropriate to assert as undisputed fact in a Book of Genesis article that the world was created in seven days, it would equally be inappropriate to assert that evolution is an undisputed fact in a biology article. I appreciate that it can sometimes take creativity to write in a neutral fashion without filling it up with awkward "in mainstream science"- and "evolutionary biologists believe"-style cruft. (I agree about scientific creationism being a mainly US thing.) — Matt 00:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying NPOV should be selectively applied, I am disagreeing about what it entails. Stanard chronology prevails within historical articles and big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles, the same should apply here, not because it is the correct point of view but because it is the best way of organizing information. Padding is fine, I agree it can be done well with some creativity, but it shouldn't ever be considered mandatory. As stated, when NPOV came in it was with the promise that this wouldn't be a problem. Josh
It's mandatory that things should be expressed from the NPOV; "padding" may be a way of doing that, there may be other ways. So yes, I agree that padding is not mandatory. But I don't think we should abandon NPOV just to achieve a neat wording. You say "Big bang cosmology prevails within astronomical articles". I don't know what you mean by "prevails", so I'll guess (please correct me if I'm wrong!) If you mean that, for example, an author of a biology article can write that the theory of evolution is correct, then I disagree; evolution shouldn't "prevail" in the sense of Wikipedia adopting a foundational bias for some articles. On the other hand, If all you mean by "prevails" is that the content should include only appropriate information on the subject (as pointed out by User:Maveric149 below), then I agree. — Matt 04:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I mean prevails in the sense that it needs discussion on pages like evolution and creationism but that most taxon pages should be able to completely ignore the issue. The way it works now, the way other things work. For instance, Cambrian simply assumes the world is millions of years old. Nobody has objected, nobody has objected here either. This is how NPOV was supposed to work: being fair to controversy, but not forcing everyone to constantly concern themselves with it. At least, this was how it was billed, and why we accepted it. Josh

If saying things like "molecular studies indicate" or "John Doe theorized in his 15 October 1985 Science article" fixes the problem, then I have nothing against that. That does, in fact, add more information to the article while at the same time giving the willfully anti-science Biblical absolutists no valid reason to complain.

But in general, blanket objections like creationism should not noticeably affect non-general articles (such as an article about a single species). NPOV deals with differing POVs about a single topic. So if creationists in general have a certain specific viewpoint about how a certain specific animal came into being, then we should include that information in the article. If they don't, then we needn't do anything more than be specific where it is appropriate (but not so much that it becomes distracting) - such as what was done at Humpback Whale. --mav 00:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can "believe" whatever they want. The correct terminology for the article being questioned is: "it is known" if the stated "facts" are based upon scientific evidence. The problem with the objection is that it comes from a person unaware of how evidence works, and therefore constitutes inappropriate POV. Without rules and understanding of how evidence is applied, modern society would not exist. Liberal societies allow for all manner of beliefs, so the objecting person essentially enjoys a free-ride on the benefits of modern society without ever really understanding the efforts made by others to provide those benefits. Such ignorance is bliss - Marshman 18:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*cough* — what evidence do you have that I am "unaware of how evidence works"? ;-) (I objected to the "Humpback Whale" wording earlier...) — Matt 14:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of New Zealand birds

This seems to contravene several principles of ToL articles

  • it is alaphabetical, not taxonomic
  • listing is a mixture of Maori and English, this is English wikipedia, so listing should give English name with Maori alternative (or without -see history of list of Korean birds)
  • many links are incorrect

Any views - I'm reluctant to run amok on this page myself since I don't know the region. jimfbleak 17:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've a couple suggestions. In order:

  • Leave it for a little bit. You've listed it on ToLCleanup. Give that a chance to catch someone's eye.
  • Find the authors of some of the birds on the list and see if they can take a whack at it.
  • Run amok. :)

- UtherSRG 01:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm .... my 2c worth.

  • Order: yes, taxonomic is probably best, though I'm not too fussed about it.
  • Maori names. I don't think we should force the people of a region to use English names where there is a substantial tradition of using local names. I think the standard names need to be listed as alternatives, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the use of local (in this case Maori) names as well. The actual linked-to articles, of course, must use the proper names, and common sense dictates that we create appropriate redirects from Maori (and other) names. Also, we should remember that many of the proper names are Maori names: kiwi, Kea, Kapapoo, and so on. English has already taken on a substantial number of Maori words, and wil take more on as time goes by. Our overall aim should be to create an article that is usable by all: New Zealanders first, but all other English speakers as well.
  • Wrong links? Err .. I can't find them. I went through List of NZB maybe 6 or 12 months back and sorted out the links, but it's grown a bit since then. Still, a half dozen random clicks didn't thrw up any obvious errors. Can you list the problem ones, Uther? (Or just go ahead and fix them.)

Tannin 02:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not me. I was just giving my input to Jim's query. - UtherSRG

Yeah, I realised that just after I pressed "Save page". For "Uther", read "Jim". Tannin
  • Takapu (Gannet) Sula serrator - I'll go back to this and fix
  • Taranui (Caspian Tern) - I've fixed this
  • Tarapiroe (Black-fronted Tern)

Richard's Pipit although linked correctly, is not shown by the name by which it is known everywhere except presumably NZ. I'm not going to make a big thing of this, it's not even my hemisphere, but I thought I should flag it up. I did think of replacing it with the ITIS listing, but the editing is too difficult for a European. Jim

OK Jim. I started sorting the list. I've left it in worse state than it was when I started, but I think I've made enough of a start that if we chip away at it, we can finish the job before too long. BTW, in working on it, I started to see more examles of the things that you were taking about above. I fixed a few of them, lots more to go. Cheers, Tannin 11:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tannin - looking at this makes me wonder, is your photo at Richard's Pipit (Anthus richardi, recently split from A. novaeseelandiae) this, or an Australasian Pipit (A. novaeseelandiae sensu stricto)? - MPF 16:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Damn it, MPF, I was flat out deciding it was a pipit, never mind the finer points. :) Those brownish grassland birds - there are about half a dozen of them - are hard! It would be A. novaeseelandiae, no doubt, as it was taken ony a few miles from Ballarat. Until now, I wasn't aware there was a difference. My field guides say "Australian(Richard's) Pipit" and I never thought to wonder why. Tannin 07:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tannin - thanks; I fear it may not be quite so simple, as although A. richardi breeds in Asia, it winters in Australia. So if your pic was taken between October-March, the possibility of A. richardi remains. Could you check HANZAB please, to see if richardi gets as far south as Ballarat? - if yes, we'll have to get someone familiar with both species to identify it on plumage :-) I had a go myself comparing it with pics on the net, and couldn't decide . . . - MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Animal homosexuality, intersexuality, and transexuality

I just picked up a copy of "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl (ISBN 1-86197-182-6). It's totally fascinating! I plan to add tidbits from it to the various articles we already have. There are some significant sections on primates (hence my particular interest) but also on other mammals (including cetaceans, Pete) and tons of info on birds. - UtherSRG 02:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That does sound very interesting. Dolphins have been recorded with all sorts of "human" behaviour... sex for fun, murder, gay behaviour. Looking forward to your additions. Pcb21| Pete 09:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll probably start reading this book today. The first half is less interesting from the Wikipedia standpoint, but I want to see where he's coming from. The second half is organized by species, documenting which behaviors are typically seen, etc. It'll probably take me most ofthe week to get through the first half. I've scanned through the species pages and they are fascinating... he's got one bit for river dolphins, describing how they perform penile-blowhole intercourse. - UtherSRG 14:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Distinguishing fossil and extinct species

Don't know if this has been discussed before or not . . . I'd like to suggest means for distinguishing non-extant taxa in taxon lists. There's two groups; those which became extinct naturally in prehistoric times (e.g. dinosaurs), and those that became extinct through human intervention. Can I suggest that the former be cited as 'fossil', and the latter as 'extinct' - or can anyone else suggest better naming? I'd also like to suggest adding a dagger † before taxa in lists to indicate they are not extant; I've done one example so far as an indication, at Cetacea; excerpt:

Will hold fire on any others until consensus is reached. Anyone any thoughts? - MPF 08:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Daggers are becoming extinct, and I'd like to help make it so. The dagger symbol is used in this manner because of the Christian overtones in connotes. As a non-Christian, I distinctly dislike this usage. An asterix is the currently accepted replacement for this usage. Otherwise, I'm fine with the notion. - UtherSRG 09:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm irreligious so to me the dagger and the asterisk are just symbols. If the prevailing wind of scientific convention uses the asterisk we should go for that. However it is not particularly intuitive to the general reader so maybe we will need a key at the bottom.
Also if we are making a distinction in the in-article lists, shouldn't we also make a distinction in the status section of the taxobox - i.e. split out {{extinct}} into {{extinct}} and {{extinct-fossil}}. Pcb21| Pete 09:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've no problem with an asterisk (though an asterix will be real difficult to do! :-)), but won't an asterisk at the start of a line need <nowiki> markup - a bit tedious? I'm with Pete in being irreligious and regarding † as just a symbol, regardless of its origin. Also agreed on splitting {{extinct}} and {{extinct-fossil}} (or just {{fossil}}?), that seems very sensible. PS thanks for moving this to the talk page, I thought I was on it already! - MPF 11:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We could put the asterisk at the end rather than the beginning thus alleviating the need for nowiki tags? Pcb21| Pete 11:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Must admit, I think the symbol, whichever symbol is chosen, is better placed at the start to make it more obvious that it isn't just a footnote indicator. - MPF 16:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please don't use asterisks. I don't know how often the are used to mark extinct groups, but a terminal asterisk is becoming a standard way to mark paraphyletic groups, so it would be confusing. The dagger is common, and I don't think its origin should stop us from using it. Who knows where asterisks come from, and who thinks it is important to their use?

Incidentally, with the whales, I think it would be better not to point out when there is no common name, and in such cases just list the scientific name by itself. This goes double for extinct groups, among which common names are extremely rare. Josh 18:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The asterisk, when used in conjunction with the dagger, becomes a religious symbol (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_Year#Neutral_born/died_symbols?). I retract my suggestion because ofthis and because of the usage to indicate paraphyly. There are plenty of other symbols usable to indicate a fossil-only species. Let's brainstorm. What symbol would best represent a fossil? Something that looks like a bone? A skeleton? A rock? I'm in agreement to split {{fossil}} from {{extinct}} - UtherSRG 21:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Daggers have the advantage that they are the recognizable standard, used in books, papers, and web pages. Something like a bone may not be, especially when applied to invertebrate groups. I find it hard to believe that they're on the way out, but that there is no generally used alternative, and I don't see why a word or symbol's origin should stop us from using it when it has acquired a separate and generally accepted meaning (there are reasons to associate daggers with death other than that they look like crosses). That seems to be the general opinion here. If we can't use a dagger, though, I think it would be better to write extinct or some such after the group in question than to invent our own symbol.

Also, if you do separate extinctions that happened in recent and prehistoric times, please give them different names! As far as I'm concerned, extinct doesn't carry the connotation that it happened recently, and I'm sure anyone who works with palaeontology will feel the same way. Also, you may want to define exactly what the splitting point is, at what point something stops being a fossil. Perhaps it would be better to record periods and dates - extinct, Creataceous or extinct, 1497 AD? Josh 21:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and ToLWeb isn't a user edittable encyclopedia that is concerned with presenting a fully NPOV. The dagger (and in conjunction) the asterisk present a connotation that is user un-friendly to some users. Since the rock surrounding fossils is often called the matrix, how about using # to indicate a fossil species? For species that became extinct in the human era, how about ! or @ or ^ or anything else? I agree with indicating the (approximate) extinction year, but I think using fossil, Cretaceous or even fossil, Cretaceous (xx-yy mya) would be better for fossil species. - UtherSRG 22:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of dates, the IUCN use 1600 as a start date to separate modern, definitely human-caused extinctions from older extinctions (some of which may well be human-caused, but are mostly open to dispute, e.g. mammoth). I reckon that would be the date to use - MPF 22:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ToLWeb is just an example - as said, most papers do the same thing, and if our goal is to convey information sticking to a standard is valuable. My preferences remain to use the dagger (which seems to be favored above) and if not to use text, but I'd like to offer another possibility. We already have colors that connote extant and extinct groups, in the status messages. Instead of putting random punctuation, we could use these same colors for groups in the lists, and that would at least have the advantage of always having explanations near at hand (in the status bar of the linked group). Josh 22:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm agnostic with regard to the particular symbol used. Dagger, or something else. However I would object strongly to selecting AD1600 as the cut-off date. That might (or might not) work in a recently-settled place like Europe, but it's useless over here in Australia (which has been settled for 50-odd thousand years). A great many now-extinct Australian species were alive and well when humans first arrived and began making changes. It would be absurd to make a distinction between "extinct (white Australians)" and "extinct (black Australians). A parallel argument applies to North America, which also had a massive loss of species after human settlement began.

Differentiating between Extinct and Fossil, on the other hand, is an excellent idea, which I fully support.

Tannin 08:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tannin - I agree that many animals became extinct due to man before 1600 (applies here too, Europe has been inhabited by Homo sapiens for as long as Australia, and longer by H. neanderthalensis). I think the difference is more related to whether written descriptions from life exist or not; obviously this doesn't always apply (e.g. moa), but that date does more-or-less divide species for which contemporary written accounts survive, from those which are only known from fossil or sub-fossil evidence. - MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are two critical differences we might try to capture: (a) extinct due to "natural" processes vs extinct due to human action; (b) known only from fossils vs. known from contemporary accounts (MPF's suggestion above). Neither can be applied absolutely objectively, and there may be cases for blurring either line (there, are, after all, written accounts in natural history books of "Antipodeans", sensu strictu - i.e. people with their feet pointing backwards). But of the two, (b) seems to me by far the easier and less contentious to apply, so it would have my vote any time. It also seems to me to correspond to a more important distinction in the kind of knowledge we can have about a species.
While I'm on the air, my two-pennorth on symbols... Look, it's fine with me for everyone to exhibit their sensitivities (which I don't share) on religious symbolism, and I hope you're all going to get rid of the crosses, stars, etc on your national flags... But for goodness' sake let's not be actually perverse about it. To put a * to indicate disappearance rather than appearance would be to run in contradiction to about 3 million printed German-language obituaries, where (as someone referenced above), asterisk/dagger are used to indicate birth/death - for reasons that may be religious in origin but are now completely conventional. If I remember rightly the same is done in a number of other European countries, and the convention is certainly familiar to many people other than Germans (me for one). The reality is there are only a limited number of simple symbols, and they've probably all been used by some religious or political group somewhere; so while I wouldn't actually advocate using swastikas to indicate introduced species, we have to be a bit pragmatic about reusing things. Also it may not be sensible, or indeed scientific, to get into denial about a couple of thousand years of cultural history, or to ignore the way that cultural symbols of all sorts acquire layers of meaning that don't just obscure but replace their origins. Ah, for the times when anthropology was considered to be part of biological science.
seglea 18:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it's just the one person who's been "exhibiting their sensitivities". The bulk of support seems to be in the "I'm not religious but am happy to use the religious symbol" camp. In fact if the literature tends to use the dagger, it would be more POV of us to use something else. It is not for Wikipedia to "make a stand". It is for Wikipedia to follow others. If that turns out to be the case, I have a bit of a hope that SRG will let this one go in turn for some brownie points when we try to close the categories debate :) Pcb21| Pete 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tempting. Very tempting. :) I'm willing to let it go, but I will point to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_Year#Neutral_born/died_symbols? once again. :) They removed the dagger and asterisk in favor of the more neutral d. and b. respectively. - UtherSRG 01:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For what is worth, books like Rails define recently extinct as after 1600 for the reasons given above relating to the existence of specimens or written descriptions. jimfbleak

IUCN uses 1500. Since our status system is based upon theirs, I suppose it makes sense to use 1500. I'd prefer the more nebulous "all of recorded history", but it does seem that that is pushing things too far. - UtherSRG 12:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther - do you have a reference for 1500? - 1600 is the date I've come across several places, e.g. Errol Fuller in the major introduction on fossil birds in Lynx HBW 7: 11-68 - "It has become traditional to regard 1600 as an approximate cut-off date from which to determine recently extinct bird species. Lionel Walter Rothschild's pioneering work of 1907 began this trend, since which time the date on 1600 has been adopted by several other writers, including the present one. The date is not quite as arbitarily chosen as it may seem. The year 1600 represents a date heralding a period at which relatively reliable records began to accumulate; before this time it is generally impossible to make realistic sense of the few records that exist" - MPF 22:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure do: IUCN Redlist FAQ. - UtherSRG 22:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

implementation of templates

Ok... so I've got the energy and eagerness to create {{StatusFossil}} or a set of them, or a parameterized template. Do we want "fossil" to show up as "extinct" currently does? Do we want it parmeterized so that we can indicate what epoch/age/etc the fossil record link back to? Should it have the "Status" link? - UtherSRG 08:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, should "extinct" be modified to allow a parameter for the (approximate) year of extinction? - UtherSRG 08:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther - excellent, go ahead! I don't know the workings of the system very well, but if it would need a seperate template for each year or period ({{StatusExtinct 1603}}, {{StatusExtinct 1604}}, {{StatusExtinct 1605}}; {{StatusFossil Triassic}}, {{StatusFossil Cretaceous}}, {{StatusFossil Eocene}}, etc) then I think we should go for just {{StatusExtinct}} and {{StatusFossil}}. For fossil, I'd go for black or very dark grey (the colour that most fossils are!). - MPF 14:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No we wouldn't need separate templates like that - the new 1.3 templates allow parameters. Thus we could write something like {{StatusFossil|when=Creataceous}} or {{StatusExtinct|when=c1620}}. i.e. we only need two templates in total. The disadvantage of having parameters is that something has to be put in for the parameter every time the template is used, even if the answer isn't really known in a particular given article. If we include the status link, we should update the status article to also make the distinction between fossils and recently extinct too. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Pete is correct. Take a look at Template:StatusExtinct to see how I've modified it and then check out the "What links here" for it to see it in use. I've left Template:StatusFossil with the old "Extinct" behavior for now. Its range of input parameters could be more varied - I can think of a few different ways parameters might be used. We may want {{StatusFossil plain}}, {{StatusFossil era|when=[[era]]}}, {{StatusFossil range|appear=[[era1]]|extinct=[[era2]]}}, or a few other possibilities. These variations *would* need different templates, hence the "plain", etc., epithets. - UtherSRG 14:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a bit more on status templates

While on this, I notice that the colour for Lower Risk on Conservation status is different colour to the template; I originally chose orange to be intermediate between green Secure and brown Vulnerable but someone changed it on the template as the orange was hard to see in one of the taxobox colours - unfortunately the new colour (greeny-blue) isn't too easy to see on plant taxoboxes! (nor is green Secure). Should there be a check-out to make sure all combinations are easily readable, with amendments if necessary? - MPF 14:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

colors

Here's the previous "test pattern". "Darkgrey" is used for "Bacteria" - do we have any fossil-only bacterial species? I'll see about adding a "Lower Risk" entry to the test pattern. - UtherSRG 18:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
AnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
SecureAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
Lower Risk AnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
Vulnerable AnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
EndangeredAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
CriticalAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
Extinct in the wildAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
ExtinctAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
FossilAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea
UnclassifiedAnimaliaPlantaeFungiProtistaBacteriaArchaea



Hi Uther - missed out Template:StatusConcern ({{StatusConcern}}) :-) - MPF 20:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ooops - how did I miss seeing your introduction sentence . . . must get my eyes tested! - MPF 20:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and yes - there's fossil bacteria, OK, from way back to near the start of the fossil record. No idea if any are cited on Wikipedia, but they might be, as examples of the oldest known life forms - MPF 20:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heh... Yes... an eye test indeed... and here's your color chart. *grins* Ok, it seems that the "Bacteria" "darkgrey" isn't so dark as it works well with the "darkslategrey" I picked for "Fossil", at least to my eyes on my monitor. I've added "Lower Risk" into the table, too, and it doesn't look bad to me. But I'm color blind. :) - UtherSRG 20:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther, thanks for doing the chart! Very strange, Fossil "darkslategrey" shows up bright red (same colour as Critical) on my computer. Even stranger, 'Extinct in the wild' and 'Extinct' are different on my computer, even though both are "darkslateblue" ('Extinct' being a paler shade of violet). - MPF 23:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, only the name for "Extinct" is "darkslateblue". The table's coloring is "slateblue". But you are right about "Fossil Red". I grabbed the name from a table elsewhere, and I suppose it isn't a standard HTML color name. I've fixed it by using the raw number: #25383c. - UtherSRG 00:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taxonomist reference - brackets or not

I just read that the taxonomist reference is enclosed in brackets in case the group was later renamed or changed its parenthood, it is written without in case the taxonomist who first described it already "placed it correctly". As it was an astronomy magazine (sic!) I'd like to find confirmation on this, and of course the question arises whether we already follow this standard or should follow it. I saw taxoboxes with and without brackets already, but never noticed a system behind it. andy 11:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The Sand Lizard would be 

Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758

because Linnaeus named it so. However, the Fire Salamander is 

Salamandra salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758)

because Linnaeus originally named it Lacerta salamandra and not Salamandra salamandra. -- Baldhur 12:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed with the above for animals; conventions are slightly different for plants; e.g. Scots Pine is: 

Pinus sylvestris L.

as Linnaeus so named it, whereas Norway Spruce is: 

Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.

as Linnaeus originally named it Pinus abies but Karsten transferred it from Pinus to Picea. Note that (unlike with animals) the revising author is cited; that authors are commonly abbreviated (to a set of standard abbreviations); and dates are not given, unless giving a full citation with place of publication: 

Picea abies (L.) H. Karst., Deutsche Fl. 324 (1881).

MPF 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_10&oldid=4618460"