Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 5

message: I've been looking through the mammal pages and noticed a number of inconsistencies.  For instance, the Red Panda is listed as both a member of Procyonidae and Ursidae.  The hamsters are listed as both a separate family (Cricetidae) at Rodentia, and as a subfamily of Muridae (Cricetinae).  How are such issues to be dealt with?  Is there any standard reference on which wikipedia's taxonomic schemes are based? john 19:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail on the head, John. Taxonomy is nearly as fluid as it is static; almost as soon as a taxonomy is published, something in the classification is refuted in another work. While this project (ToL) is a great start and an excellent place to ensure consistent policies, there really isn't much standardizing what taxonomies are used. The only exceptions are the "leaf" descendants of this project (Birds, Primates, and Cetaceans). In those projects, we attempt to set policies on taxonomic references, as well as rabble rousing... err... brainstorming new policies for ToL. *grins* If you are particularly moved, I would be very supportive of you starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivora or Insectivora. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, my own taxonomic knowledge is rather limited, or at least dated, largely coming from books I read in my childhood in the late 1980s (Facts on File's Encyclopedia of Mammals from 1986, mostly) so I'm probably not the best person to work on such things.  I am always astonished to discover how much the taxonomic scheme has changed in the past 20 years from the scheme elaborated in that book.  BTW, there is a wikiproject on Mammals in general, but it is so far rather barebones.  It seems to me that the thing to do would be to find the most recent general reference work and follow it, noting where appropriate controversies and suggested alternative arrangements.  Trying to assemble all of the most recent articles into a general scheme strikes me as striking at the edges of the "no primary research" rule.  Obviously, this would not be primary research, but the process of ourselves constructing a somewhat idiosyncratic general model of the classification of mammals, for instance, strikes me as unwise, given the extent to which this stuff is disputed.  It could certainly be accused of being POV.  Sticking to a single standard reference work for, say, mammals, would make the most sense. john 00:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomic Inconsistencies

message: ::The taxoboxes can be easily translated already. See Ruffe for an example of a taxobox that was translated from nl: to en: using existing message syntax. The German wikipedia has set the usage of the messages as their standard. They intend to change their taxoboxes using a robot and it will be possible to translate their taxoboxes to any other wikipedia that adheres to the mechanism.
::The intention is to get cooperation going between the different wikipedia's. Standard exist in many wikipedias and when we can agree to the same standards a lot of donkeywork will become unnecessary. This means that we have to talk not on a local level but on a multi-wikipedia level. It means that we come to a standard for all wikipedia's not just on translatable taxoboxes.
::My intention is to translate a lot of stuff to for instance the Farsi wikipedia. This means that it is important to talk and look at each others standards. GerardM 17:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status and translatable taxoboxes

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

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