Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 4

message: Ok, it looks like Uther's bolding approach is going to be used, so I've added it formally to the page.  I don't think we should always put in a stub for the range map, because they simply aren't appropriate for some groups, but it wouldn't be bad to stubs in on pages we think should have them.  His other six points I fully support, and for the reference in the binomial name box, I suggest we allow either one or two lines depending on how much room is necessary.  One more addition I think might be valuable would be to give existence dates for extinct groups - i.e. whether it was a recent extinction, whether they existed back in the Lower Jurassic, or so forth.  And I still think it would be worthwhile to get some idea on how big images and maps should be. -- Josh
:I agree that range maps are not approprate across the board. And I love your idea about extinctions. 'Status: extinct' should be used for those extinctions that happened in humanity's lifetime, while those before should have.... what? Perhaps something like: Jurassic (180-170 M.y.a) - UtherSRG 21:00, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified Omomyidae, removing extinct conservation status and replacing it with and indication of when it existed. Unfortunately, it lived across two -ocenes. Even so, I think it looks pretty good. - UtherSRG 22:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: In botanics to be complete, not only is a name is given like Genus species (first author) second author but to complete it, the publication is mentioned. For the best reference to the occurence of botanical names, their publications and authors; [www.ipni.org the IPNI website] see also  article on IPNI. The thing is that there are names with the same (second author) and a DIFFERENT publication therefore a diffent description to the name.
IPNI has standardized the names of the publications. A great resource IPNI.
 GerardM 11:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The place of publication is only given in very specialised checklists; I've got the full set for Conifers in the Kew Checklist (quite a few of which aren't in the IPNI list, or are not accurately given there), but it would be a very long, slow task editing them all in. Do we really need it? - MPF 17:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: more

message: (I moved the following text from the Village Pump to here as Andy has pointed out to me that this is being discussed here.)--Lowellian 23:58, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
:I noticed, because of the Featured Article, yesterday that the title of both words of the Sperm Whale entry was capitalized. Following some more links, I realized that other animal entries, like Blue Whale or Asian Elephant, were also capitalized. I don't think that is correct. The entries should be titled Sperm whale, Blue whale, Asian elephant, etc., instead, because normally in sentences you would write something like "The blue whale is the largest mammal," not "The Blue Whale is the largest mammal." You simply don't capitalize common names of animals (for example, see praying mantis), except when a word is already a proper noun (for example, "Persian cat" or "Asian elephant"), and even then you only capitalize the proper noun and not the entire common name. --Lowellian 17:27, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)
::The capitalization is the style agreed on in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. Just that topic has come up again shortly ago, so you can still find some discussion about it there. It seems that many scientific sources use the capitalized version like a name, for example to distinguish between "the Common Sparrow" and "a common Sparrow". andy 19:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Village Pump

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 Incosistencies