Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 19

message: Did i once see a way to write in a bit of code and wikipedia would do some wizzy work and produce a taxonomy tree? Something similar to the <math> function. Did i see this, or was it just an experimental thing? chris_huh 18:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at it here: User:Pengo/clad and had a rant about it here. But it's a pretty miserable attempt. The best thing is still is to make one from scratch in Inkscape or something. —Pengo  talk · contribs 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't this be more of a wikispecies kind of thing? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cladistics coding 

message: All US "fauna by state" categories have been nominated for deletion.  I think this would be of interest.  
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13#Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories
:Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state_and_its_subcategories up for deletion 

message: I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Forna of <region>/Biora of <region> caregories.
:Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the usage of sub-categories of [[:Category:Biota by country]]

message: Please comment on the move and reversion jimfbleak 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:List of regional bird lists]]

message: This talk page has been archived. Feel free to reintroduce any topic that needs more discussion. Also, someone else needs to list the topics of that archive in the archive TOC. pschemp | talk 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TeunSpaans 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I took this ptoto in Turkey this year, , but don't know their species name. Can anyone help on this? Thanks --Ugur Basak 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help on species name 

message: I added a cladogram to the Amborellaceae article, just an image, but I will try to use this code to make it a set of clickable links.  Anyone want to jump ahead and do it for me, would be fine by me.  It needs a branch for angiosperms as a whole, though.  KP Botany 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can do... but I think we need to teach me how to do a div so that the text will flow around it like the image... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But it's so much more useful in this manner than a static, unclickable, difficult to change, image.  Thanks.  KP Botany 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this tree only looks optimal in IE; it needs some more work to make it presentable in all browsers. See below for what it looks like in Opera (left) and Firefox (right). -- Eugène van der Pijll 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh crap.  So I can't use it.  Thanks for checking.  I guess I'll just make a new and cleaner image of the one I've uploaded and use it for now. KP Botany 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amborellaceae cladogram

message: Mixed-breed dog is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mixed-breed dog]]

message: I've been finding a few minor copyvios in plant pathology articles (like Phytoplasma), involving word-for-word inclusion of materials from the Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology. It's usually just a sentence or two... should I just add the book as a source? I just don't see why someone would bother typing something in without adding the citation (citations only improve the articles, right?). Should I bother with using <ref> tage, or just add it to the bottom? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that wherever possible, we should be using the <ref> tags. That way, it's clearer which individual statements are sourced and which are not. --Stemonitis 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding some copyvios, what to do? 

message: This is a new proposed deletion policy that should interest ToL contributors. Many articles, especially about species as diverse as Moray eel or Tongue Orchid, lack references or sources and will fall under this speedy deletion policy if it gets adopted. Consequences could be enormous. We should follow this discussion closely and participate in it to discuss the consequences. JoJan 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However, those articles still need sources. I think the proposed policy is reasonable. Perhaps a variant template for ToL articles so that they get added to a ToL Category, so that we can speedily source them, albeit at a rudimentary level? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Existing articles are exempt (sp?) from the proposed speedy deletion rule. Eugène van der Pijll 14:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is serious discussion on the talk page about the grandfather clause. It looks like this proposed policy will include ALL non-referenced articles. I have no idea how many articles in ToL-range we're talking about, but I suspect there could be many. Only the original contributors know what sources have been used. If we want to source them, we would have to use references to sources we would have used. Besides we would have to check every fact first. That can be very difficult if one has no access to scientific journals, asking payment per view. There could be a tremendous task ahead. JoJan 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary to check every fact, a basic ref will do, and for many vertebrate groups at least it should be feasible to give  suitable text. jimfbleak 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the worst case scenario, if this rule will be applied to existing articles, it would be trivial for a bot to add an external link to, say, ITIS or one of the other taxonomic databases automatically. This would be enough to save the article from speedy deletion. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, the proposal is deliberately restricted to apply only to articles created after it becomes part of the speedy deletion criteria. There has been discussion about the possibility that it may eventually be extended to articles that existed before the criteria is accepted, but it is also recognized in the discussion that it will be a while before the community of editors will reach consensus to do that, so it won't be coming soon. -- Donald Albury 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, though, users should be able to immediately tie everything in the article to a source that they can verify for themselves.  This is one area where I feel that Wikipedia falls down: a lot of editors don't use reliable sources.  Part of this is simply because articles are being created by editors in subject areas where the editor's knowledge is not up to discerning the various sources.  But dang, it's a lot more work for an editor.  KP Botany 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]] 

message: Is there any naming standard for breeds/varieties? I see that list of breeds of cattle has X (cattle), X cattle, and X Cattle. List of breeds of horses also has all three. List of breeds of dogs is mainly X Dog with a few X (dog). Is there any standard? Rmhermen 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breed disambiguation

message: Folk, the list of placental mammals is up for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever would anyone consider deleting such a useful list for?  Thanks for the alert.  KP Botany 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: There is currently a barnstar proposal at :Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildlife Barnstar 

message: Over the past few weeks I've transwikied some ToL pages that had contained how to sections, all are now on wikibooks and will be incorporated into other books (mostly b:Animal Care). The howto sections should probably be removed now, if anyone's interested in helping with the cleanup:
*African Grey Parrot
*American black bear
*Brown Bear
*Fischer's Lovebird
*Heliciculture
*House Gecko
*Lovebird
*Red acro bug
*Rosy-faced Lovebird
I'll mostly be doing the cleanup on the wikibooks side, if anyone wants to help dewikify the wikibooks versions, that would be great! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwikied ToL pages 

message: Stemonitis and I had the idea of linking the year of description inside a taxobox like this: [[Species described in <year>|<year>]]. This would be a nice feature if one wanted for example to check out what other species were described in the same year. right now, when the year is just linked like this: [[<year>]], this is not really useful, because it will link to a very long list of events that are normally not interesting to the user following the link. Alternatively, this could be implemented as categories, analogous to Category:People born in <year>. If this feature would be deemed useful, it would probably be best to let a bot do the work of changing the existing taxoboxes. Alternatively, or additionally, there could be an extra optional field like binomial_authority_year, but that would lead to problems when first describers stand in parentheses. --Sarefo 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, especially if the bot could create the categories or lists. I can't say that I would find it particularly useful, but if it is useful to someone else, I am all for it. --liquidGhoul 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current format is rather useless, but I don't think [[Species described in <year>|<year>]] would be that much of an improvement. I imagine that eventually there would be many entries for each year: long lists of totally unrelated species all mixed up with each other. Ho-hum. On the other hand, if this were to be more specific, i.e. [[Bird species described in <year>|<year>]] or whatever, now that would be interesting! --Jwinius 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Another suggestion in the same discussion, incidentally, was to link the date, where possible, to an article about the work in which the name was published. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to link a taxon to its original description; as an example, Carcinus maenas already does this (I hope that's not a violation of WP:POINT), linking the date 1758 to Systema Naturae. And while, yes, a category or list of names published by Linnaeus (even in individual works by Linnaeus) will probably be too big to be useful, for other authors it may be more reasonable. Wouldn't a list/category of species described by Darwin be interesting? Dana? Asa Gray? Lamarck? --Stemonitis 13:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I do actually find it very interesting, but there is a big problem of incompleteness for the more recent years. --liquidGhoul 15:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, these are only lists of species that currently have articles in Wikipedia. (Articles with information on the authority, I should say.) Data from other sources could be added, but it is hard to guarantee consistency in that case. Eugène van der Pijll 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see incompleteness as a problem. I'm pretty sure that outside a few exceptional groups (furry things and feathery things, usually) Wikipedia will never be comprehensive. The categories, should we make them, will inevitably contain only species/taxa about which we've already got articles, but that's OK, because they'll tend to be the most notable taxa (or so we hope). --Stemonitis 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikifying describer year 

message: There is an inconsistency over Sugarbird (Promeropidae) that needs resolving. The family is categorized as Passerida, but listed under the Corvida page. One of these is clearly wrong, but I don't know which.
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask the question. JohnCastle 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promeropidae  

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I was wondering what people here think about dropping the kingdom Protista, and treating them directly as basal eukaryotes.  When we started not enough was known about their relationships to make that really practical, but now they most of them could be arranged in terms of a few unranked supergroups, following current systems like Adl et al.  I know we normally prefer ranked taxa, but recently enough editors have been trying to move towards a clade-based system that it has made the current organization hard to maintain.
We wouldn't have to change other kingdoms, and could keep using lower ranks from phyla on down.  The new organization would then look something like this:
* Domain Eukaryota
** Supergroup "Opisthokonts"
*** Kingdom Animalia
*** Kingdom Fungi
*** Several classes
** Supergroup Archaeplastida
*** Kingdom Plantae
*** Phyla Rhodophyta, Glaucophyta
** Supergroup Chromista
*** Phyla Heterokontophyta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta
** Supergroup Alveolata
*** Phyla Dinoflagellata, Apicomplexa, Ciliophora
** Supergroup Excavata
*** Phyla Euglenozoa, Percolozoa, Metamonada
** Supergroup Amoebozoa
*** Phylum Amoebozoa
** A few unplaced orders
If people support this, I'd be happy to adjust all protist articles, taxoboxes, and categories as necessary. Josh 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sentimental about taxa, so if it's supported by evidence and better reflects real clades, then I'm all for it. Can you point the uninitiated towards some literature on the changes/research/new understanding of these groups? How new is this taxonomy? —Pengo  talk · contribs 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'd like to think about this some more.  My only concern is that users be able to find them by searching for them in the Protist Kingdom, as much as I abhor that.  I want to restart WikiProject Protists.  In general, if you can make it so people can still find them, I'm fine.  But I don't want to use all Cavalier-Smith, as he's considered a bit of a, well forward-thinker.  I suspect his work will prove the hardiest in the long run, but he's not in total accord with his peers on everything.  I'm okay with it, but to repeat: users have to be able to find things the old way, if C-S is the only authority, other classifications must be explained, and overall you need to justify this change extensively from the literature.  KP Botany 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I'm still reading!! Everyone reads scientific literature a lot faster than I do, or has more time to.  KP Botany 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a style change throughout Wikipedia.  Don't you think that it should be discussed first?  That's what this page is for.  Also I want to get the Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists up and running again, a proposal on that page would be useful.  This has been discussed before, with no conclusion drawn, feel free, also, to find past discussions and throw your 2 cents worth in to try to bring participants to a conclusion.  There are multiple issues here, and it is a matter in great contention in the scientific community, to assume that the Wikipedia community could easily meet a consensus when none exists in the scientific community, is probably unrealistic.  Also, I think Josh's point that everything should be found in serveral ways should be considered with taxoboxes, rather than making them something different, show that protists can be defined in two ways, morphologically as protists, and phylogenetically with their nearest close relations in some cases, and as evolutionarily distinct branches in other.  KP Botany 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you go ahead and revert them for now, until we can reach some consensus on the issue?  You also used multiple colors and colors that won't be distinguished on all monitors well.  KP Botany 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Werothegreat was asked to revert his changes to the taxobox colors, and didn't.  It appears there may be about 100 that have various nonstandard colors that don't mean anything according to the taxobox information page, and there are eukaryotes that appear, because of User:Werothegreat's color choice, to be bacteria by color, something else by text.  These have to be changed, so would folks check his list and change them.  I put a vandal warning on his talk page, also.  This is quite a bit of work to undo.  KP Botany 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, other users changed most of them, I changed some.  His whole edit list probably needs checked, though.  KP Botany 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Animalia	pink
Plantae 	lightgreen
Fungi   	lightblue
Protista	khaki
Bacteria	lightgrey
Archaea 	darkgray
Virus   	violet
The background colors are based on this table, eukrayote brown is not listed, although I've seen it on the eukaryote page.  Since Protist is more refined, and they were already khaki, they should just stay where they were, until a decision is made to do otherwise.  KP Botany 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be impossible to reach a consensus on the protist pages.  I would like to include something additional in the taxobox to show that its classification as a protist is Linnaean hierarchial, and that other classifications treat the various protists on equivalent levels as other large groups.  I don't know what to do.  KP Botany 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. What about making a color for the controversial ones? Maybe some sort of combination? For example (I'm not a computer guy so I don't know), couldn't someone make a background that's half light green half khaki for some of the algae? A background like that (a transitional background? lol) would not only reflect the controversy in classification, but also the fact that (some groups of) green algae are kind of in between. I admit it may lead to some confusion about evolution and transitional organisms (I'm not saying this right... for example, people may think that extant groups of plants evolved from extant groups of algae). Or how about a little "controversy" or "inconclusive classification" symbol? I guess that would cut down on the explanations and what is not nearly as controversial as taxonomic classifications is that there is a controversy about taxonomic classifications :P It seems that completely changing the color of taxoboxes and making it appear as if their classification is conclusive is not going to make anyone happy.--TheAlphaWolf 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Werothegreat's idea, of using light green for the Glaucophyta and Rhodophyta, to indicate some affinity.  There are additional issues, you know, like the fact that the Chlorophyta are not monophyletic and have two pages--and part of them should be light green.  I suggested the split color scheme, also, it was soundly ignored.  We can also try bringing this up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, as it could be an expansive location for discussing protist issues, with the WikiProject Protist dead.  AlphaWolf, I have sad news for you: people today think that humans evolved from extant apes, or that evolution says that.  In the case of the Glaucophyta and Rhodophyta, it's not so much the issue of controversy or inconclusiveness as that some classification schemes don't bring the archaeplastida into play.  There is at least one classification scheme that plces the Rhodophyta differently, and another, although not an academic one, that places the Phaeophyta differently, though.  I think Josh is right, we have too few people to reach a consensus, can we try the issue at WikiProject Microbiology, carefullly laying out the issues, the groups, the considerations, both technical and academic and aesthetic for some of us.  KP Botany 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, plants are already lightgreen. It would be a stronger statement than just "some affinity". I think TOL is the best place for this discussion, but if nothing works then I guess it is a good idea to take it somewhere else. I really don't know much about protists, microbiology, or taxonomy (and I know more than most), and I can tell you that this whole thing confuses the heck out of me. I think wikipedia should be accessible to almost anyone (isn't that one of the pillars or tacit rules or whatnot?). The split color scheme would probably be the most neutral and reflective of the opinions of the scientific community wouldn't it? (again, I don't know much about this... but if there is no controversy, then what are we arguing for?) Is there really a general scientific consensus about what groups like the rhodophyta and chlorophyta should be classified as? Aren't we being a little presumptuous trying to settle this by ourselves? Instead of ignoring the split color scheme idea, does anyone have specific objections to it? I think it would accomplish all of our goals. One, it would be simple, not too technical, and it would make it easier for a layperson to understand. Two, it would reflect the scientific community's view on the subject (or lack thereof). And finally, it would (hopefully) reflect the most real relationships between groups. --TheAlphaWolf 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "TOL is the best place for this discussion, but if nothing works then I guess it is a good idea to take it somewhere else."  So do I, but it went nowhere there.  "I really don't know much about protists, microbiology, or taxonomy (and I know more than most), and I can tell you that this whole thing confuses the heck out of me."  Good, then we're not preaching to the choir.  "I think wikipedia should be accessible to almost anyone (isn't that one of the pillars or tacit rules or whatnot?)." There, you provided your own best reason for participating in the discussion of a subject about which you claim to know little.  "The split color scheme would probably be the most neutral and reflective of the opinions of the scientific community wouldn't it? (again, I don't know much about this... but if there is no controversy, then what are we arguing for?)" I liked the idea the first time someone suggested it, we don't even have to update the page on taxoboxes, just add the split color scheme capacity.  "Is there really a general scientific consensus about what groups like the rhodophyta and chlorophyta should be classified as?" No, there isn't, but it's pretty darn close to strict consensus excepting a few outliers, the only question is where on the tree you make your single cut, before or after them--if after them you get plants sensu stricto, if before, you get plants sensu lato, oh, and what you call plants sensu lato.  "Aren't we being a little presumptuous trying to settle this by ourselves?"  What, just because hundreds of botanists the world over can't decide upon APG II versus Cronquist, 5 kingdoms versus 3 domains?  Yes, we are.  "Instead of ignoring the split color scheme idea, does anyone have specific objections to it?"  There was a programming objection, but I don't remember what it was.  "I think it would accomplish all of our goals. One, it would be simple, not too technical, and it would make it easier for a layperson to understand. Two, it would reflect the scientific community's view on the subject (or lack thereof). And finally, it would (hopefully) reflect the most real relationships between groups."  Yes.  KP Botany 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally discovered this discussion thanks to KP Botany. I read the previous discussions and I am of the opinion that we should revert the taxobox colors to khaki, although maintaining the supergroup classification. I am not a taxonomist (I just work with cyanobacteria and probably some green algae in the future), but doesn't C-S call Excavata, Rhizaria and Alveolata subkingdoms? Can we include that along with Protists? Also I think C-S does not ascribe to the three domains. He treats Archaea as Bacteria! So our scheme is basically a hybrid of many authorities which is not a bad idea after all. Also even if other people do not agree with C-S, part of their disagreement is also personal (see egoism). I read a couple of C-S's papers and I find them very rigorous. By the way who is his nemesis? The good thing about us is that we can appreciate C-S's work or any C-S's work for that matter more objectively. This is the beauty about WP. This is science and not history or politics. I respect NPoV but sometimes I find it inhibitory to the growth of our knowledge. This is my oppinion. Cheers. Also if you need any help or a second opinion when creating a taxobox2 to accept two colors let me know, I might be able to help. Kupirijo 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of solid disagreements with C-S's systems that have nothing whatsoever to do with egotism.  Science is full of such disagreements, paritcularly when new techniques become available, like the current use of computing power combined with steady advances in molecular techniques, it's part of the process of science, in fact.  I didn't know that he treated Archaea as Bacteria, though.  This, unfortunately, does not agree much with most of the evidence.  The articles were returned to khaki, already.  If you find any that need reverted, please do so. Hybrid systems are fine, if they are clearly indicated as such in the article, but that isn't the case in most of Wikipedia's botany articles.   Hybrid systems not fine if they're made up independently by various Wikipedians, as this simply adds a layer of POV to an already befuddled area.   We can only report the existing science, nothing else.  Impressed that you could find anything with a direction from me--still can't seem to link to various WP project pages well.  Programming wise, would it be straightfoward to make a box two colors?  Just a single diagonal split, say, not parti-colored hash lines?  KP Botany 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protista 

message: Hi everyone,
I was wondering whether anyone had access to the "Zootaxa" journal (ISSN 1175-5334). I want to find out how to differentiate some species in the Mixophyes genus, and this is the only reference to work off, as the species are brand new. I am specifically looking for the paper: "Species boundaries among barred river frogs, Mixophyes (Anura:  Myobatrachidae) in north-eastern Australia, with descriptions of two new species" 1228: 35-60 (2006). My uni doesn't have a subscription to this journal, so it makes it hard :).
If someone could read it, and right up somewhere how to tell the difference between species (morphologically), that would be great. The abstract says there are morphological differences. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been eyeing Zootaxa articles enviously for months! Some articles are free access and they are brilliant. Does anyone know how much it is and is some kind of Wikigrant available for this kind of thing:)Richard Barlow 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the abstract, though it doesn't look like it has a lot of information (maybe you already found that). If you want, I can have a look at it (it's in the library of Naturalis). But I don't know when I will be able to go there. Ucucha 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Access to journal

message: There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Veterinary medicine project 

message: Would anyone be able to ID this fly pictured in Victoria, Australia and listed at:
?
I think it may be Calliphora stygia, common brown blowfly or eastern goldenhaired blowfly,
but it's not my field of expertise.--Melburnian 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fly ID

message: User:Werothegreat (contribs) has been modifying some taxoboxes, changing their color and changing "regnum = Protista" to "domain = Eukaryota unranked_phylum = Rhizaria". This looks highly controversial to me but I'm underqualified to address this, please someone look in to this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion took place on this page just a few sections up (section title = Protista).  --Aranae 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unranked phyla 

message: I imported this to wikibooks this morning to make a how-to page, and my research hit on a lot of things not in the article (and in fact contrary to it insofar as the safety claims are concerned. At least two extension service websites and one "medical Q&A" website noted that the organism was indeed capable of infecting mammals, including humans. However, these references were made "in passing" on the Extension sites, and the EPA factsheet doesn't address the issue at all. There are references on the wikibooks page (the  template works the same way, so feel free to just copy them).
I still have a bunch of work to do in the wikibooks page, but I'll copy what I have so far into the edit history of the WP article (for the GFDL requirements), and maybe someone could have a look and see? I'd really just like some general pointers on how to re-incorporate additional research done on the wikibooks side back into the original wikipedia article as a matter of course, since I often come up with a lot of "encyclopedic" information along with the "how-to" stuff that I'm actually looking for. See the topic below too: would heavy-handed reorganisations following wikibooks standards be inappropriate for wikipedia? 
Also, I'm wondering if someone with paid access to the New York Times could have a look at the article referenced for the potential use of B. bassiana for malarial mosquito control. In particular, I'd like to know if that article has any discussion of potential pathogenicity in humans. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on [[Beauveria bassiana]] (and [[b:A Wikimanual of Gardening/Beauveria bassiana|A Wikimanual of Gardening/Beauveria bassiana]] 

message: Aren't there any pictures of Archaea?  I've seen some in various locations (books, websites, etc.) but I haven't seen any on Wikipedia except for one of a thermophilic location on one of the more obscure archaea.  I've also posted on the Archaea discussion page that a picture of an Archaea cell (like the bacteria cell picture on the bacteria page, the eukaryote cell picture on the eukaryote page) would considerably add to the article, especially since Archaea cells are very different from bacterial cells.  Any thoughts?  Werothegreat 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a pictures of cells, we need someone with access to a good microscope to take some microphotographs and release them under the GFDL. As for appearance, I thought that Archaea looked a lot like bacteria (after all, they were regarded as the same thing until fairly recently), and that the differences were in the biochemistry. It would be interesting to have something like :Image:Prokaryote_cell_diagram.svg that illustrated the structural differences between Archaea and (Eu)Bacteria. -- Donald Albury 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaea

message: I have posted this on the deuteromycota page, and the fungi page, and now i'm bringing it here.  The deuteromycota page needs a lot of work.  Its creation was by User:Jaknouse, though for for some reason in the discussion it says that it was created by a 15 year old boy.  This was the entirety of the discussion page before I added my comment for help:
"This Fungi is a division form of fungi, it uses sexual reproduction.it is more recentyl known as mitosporic fungi. the common forn of this fungi is a mushroom. the DNA based technology we can clarify the difference between other fungi. Fungi is mold and can be found on many things sunch as bread in he form of mold. this articel was written by a 15 year old boy."
The article needs work from an expert, or perhaps an entire rewrite.  Yes, it is only the incertae sedis of kindgom fungi, but it is still a major division, listed on the taxobox of the kindgom fungi page.
Also, on a different note, the animal page has a very nice collage picture in its taxobox.  Since the fungal kingdom contains more than mushrooms, wouldn't it be aestheticly pleasing if fungi also had such a collage?  Thoughts?  Comments?  Rants?  Werothegreat 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's going to be harder to find images of diferent types of fungi that are distinctive when displayed at small sizes in a collage than it was for animals. -- Donald Albury 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Animal didn't do the collage well, there is only one invertebrate in the whole lot, with two mammals. I'm afraid that the same thing would probably happen here. If a collage were to be made, please include the widest diversity possible. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant like have pictures of say, a chytrid, a mold, a yeast, a sac mushroom, a club mushroom, maybe a mycchorizae, something like that. Werothegreat 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fungi

message: I've added a bunch of other conservation status systems to the taxobox template. See Wikipedia:Conservation status and Taxobox usage for details (I moved the taxobox usage page too because the old super long name was bugging me). Anyway, for an e.g. see Banksia brownii. Enjoy. —Pengo  talk · contribs 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation status 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Hi,
Been a while since I last posted here, but I've got two images of a damselfly I'd like to get identified. It was taken beside a river at Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia in November 2006. Thanks for any help! --Fir0002 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified green colored damselfly 

message: Hi,
Come up with another batch of photos I would appreciate help in identifying! --Fir0002 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the duck is the Wandering Whistling Duck, and the pigeon is the Peaceful Dove. Great photos, especially the dove. --liquidGhoul 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! Yeah I like the dove photo - works really well as a desktop bg with the green bokeh on the LHS where the icons are --Fir0002 08:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified birds from Melb Zoo 

message: Hi again!
Back so soon you say? Yes well sorry but I'm not that great on biology. 
Image:Lesueurs Frog02.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog03.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog04.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog05.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog06.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog07.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog08.jpg
Image:Lesueurs Frog.jpg
Thanks again for your help you guys! --Fir0002 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming these photos were taken near your place (Vic). These guys are Lesueur's Frog (Litoria lesueuri). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah they are from Vic, sorry for not specifying and thanks for the ID! Would I be correct in saying the yellow one is a male? --Fir0002 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not neccesarily. If you took these photos during the day, the males won't be yellow. They only go yellow at night. Check out Stoney Creek Frog (very closely related) for how yellow they go. From the photos, the lightest one looks the biggest (is that correct), which would probably mean it is female. The size difference in this species is pretty huge. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the light one is the biggest, I think I'll just leave them as "Lesueur's Frog". Thanks again --Fir0002 09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added three more which I think are the same - could I just get a confirmation from you that they are that species? Btw - which is your fav? --Fir0002 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, they are all the same. The second last is my favourite, shows the features neccesary for ID and is nice and clear. --liquidGhoul 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentifed frogs 

message: Took these yesterday, they were on a Black walnut (Juglans nigra). The tree was also covered in Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), if that makes any difference.
Image:Eggs on Juglans nigra 1.JPG
Image:Eggs on Juglans nigra 2.JPG
Anyone wanna take a stab? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like eggs of Wheel Bugs (Arilus cristatus)--Melburnian 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right! We have a lot of those bugs around, actually. Thanks! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need ID on some insect eggs 

message: A trivial but escalating edit war is in process here, and I unfortunately am a participant. Another editor is Americanizing the spelling of colour on the basis of what appears to me to be a made-up policy. It's getting a bit unpleasant on both sides, and any constructive intervention would be welcome. jimfbleak 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
The policy does not refer to a unique tie; merely to a strong tie.  The population of cardinals is higher in the United States than in any other anglophonic nation. —SlamDiego 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Trivial? Absolutely. Escalating? You, Jimfbleak, brought it here. My recommendation is to determine which national variety of English was first used in the article, return to that, and move on.--Curtis Clark 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure someone can also give a technological solution involving a template with javascript that produces output based on system/browser locale. Shyamal 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was as reasonable as you make it sound, such a solution would have been implemented a LONG time ago, and wiki-wide. Circeus 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cardinal (bird)]] 

message: Could interested people please comment on the renaming/deletion of some illogical categories recently added for rats and mice, see rat breeds and mice breeds here. Thanks. --Peta 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rats and mice

message: Hi all, DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a real concerted attempt at an FA. 
Link here......Fungi Collaboration
(hope I got all the templates right...)
cheers Cas Liber 10:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Collaboration Alert - Fungi as of Jan 2007

message: I think the tag saying the article does not cite its sources isn't needed anymore, as the article has a section labeled "References."  Maybe someone higher up could remove the tag?  Werothegreat 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template removed.  JoJan 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chromista]] References Tag

message: The category Tree of life is up for deletion.  It doesn't appear to be being used properly, so maybe it should be deleted, but it would be nice to have a coherent evaluation of its value, proper usage, and alternative titles if necessary.   KP Botany 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I've proposed it be replaced with :Category:Organisms.  As it is, there is no category simply for organisms; Tree of life is the closest, but it also contains articles on scientific concepts related to tree(s) of life, and has the potential to become even more of an unwieldy hybrid in the future.  Likewise, there are some categories of organisms that are not based on evolutionary relationship (e.g., :Category:Aquatic organisms) and articles that currently have no better home than the overcrowded Biology category that would fit in Organisms perfectly but not Tree of life (e.g., Largest organism, Smallest organism).  Another advantage is that Organism would be a more useful navigational category for readers who do not know their scientific classifications well; we could (optionally, though be no means necessarily) include the more traditional divisions/kingdoms (Plants, Animals, Fungi, Protists, Monera) in addition to the modern three.--ragesoss 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematically the Tree of Life is actually about the relationships among organisms, this is different than it being about the organisms, so you're offering a category about something else.  It's like having a category about relatives and a category about people, the former might contain aunts, uncles, cousins, while the latter could contain Bob1, Bob2, Jimbo, and George.  You're arguing there is no category about people, so the category relatives should be replaced by people.  Why not just make the people/organisms category if it needs to be done?  KP Botany 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it really was just about relationships, that would be different; in fact, it has been used since its creation as the highest taxonomic level as well as an alternate category for a very small number of articles related to evolution and phylogenetics, or directly related to the "tree of life" concept.  This small amount of material is better off in other categories such as :Category:Evolution and :Category:Phylogenetics.  Even if it were just a category about evolutionary relationships, it would still not be the most obvious term for that category; that would probably be 'Phylogenetics or Phylogeny.  If a tree of life category still has a place, it would as a subcategory of Phylogenetics, rather than the supercategory of all taxons.--ragesoss 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been looking around on the web a bit, and although it's not quite on target it is often used to refer to all organisms as opposed to their relationships.  Still, I'm not really arguing to keep the category, but rather to evaluate its usefulness, and this requires something different from what can be done at CFD.  I don't follow your last sentence, aren't you arguing that the category organisms is the proper supercategory for all taxa?  Let's do stick with what is useful for the categorization here, though, rather than the deletion debate.  I think a supercategory for all organisms, as a subcategory of :Category:Life is useful.  I don't know if the phylogeny categories are useful.  KP Botany 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Organisms, with subcat :Catgeory:Organisms by classification (or "systematic classification" or "phylogeny") perhaps? -- Eugène van der Pijll 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we could do Cavalier-Smith and Linneaus then. Might be useful. I kinda like the idea, since I'm always arguing for various systems for the plants in taxoboxes, as you know.  KP Botany 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know that it has to be.  If it can't be neatly filled, then there is no necessity for it.  What I'm objecting to is taking an ill-defined category that is not needed and changing it to something else.  Why not just create the category Organisms if it is needed?  If you change this category will everything in it already be transferred to Organisms, and does everything belong?  It seems to me there are two separate issues that are being tied together for no good reason.  1. Should :Category:Tree of life be deleted and 2. Should :Category:Organisms be created?  WHY does either have to be attached to the other?  I refuse to argue that :Category:Tree of life should be changed to :Category:Organisms because I don't see that :Category:Tree of life is right now intended to be about Organisms.  It's unclear what was intended with that category, as it's subcategories (Eukaryotes, Hybrid organisms, Prokaryotes,  and Viruses!) are unrelated to its pages (Phylogenetic tree, Tree of life (science), Tree of life (disambiguation).)  So, are you renaming the category so that you can put phylogenetic tree into :Category:Organisms?  If so, why?  KP Botany 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "renaming" for categories just means moving all the content and deleting, I'm trying to figure out what you think, all other issues aside, the Tree of life category should be.  If there is a use for the tree of life category, it won't be deleted.  What I'm asking is, should it contain the organism categories it currently does, and what categories should it be in?--ragesoss 16:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Organisms category is not a one to one replacement of the current Tree of life category; I mean it only to include the organisms cats, not the the phylogenetic trees and such.  As I tried to explain before but maybe wasn't clear, I think the non-organism stuff currently in Tree of life is better off in other existing categories such as Evolution and Phylogenetics, rather than Organisms.--ragesoss 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another good option in my view would be to (optionally) remove the organism subcats from Tree of life and (definitely) remove the Biology and Life supercats.  Then it would be a subcat of Scientific classification and Evolutionary biology, which makes a fair amount of sense as a a category about relationships instead of it's current role as a substitute for Organisms.--ragesoss 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see that these two issues deleting/keeping Tree of life as a category and creating/not creating organisms could be entirely separate issues?   KP Botany 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are separate issues, which is why I already created the Organisms category.  The only issue left is what to do with the Tree of life category.--ragesoss 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good start.  Would the :Category:Tree of life be useful for sorting pages related to phylogenetic systematics?  Including pages like Tree of life (science), Taxonomy, Cladistics?  KP Botany 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CFD]] [[:CATEGORY:Tree of life]] 

message: I will be updating the Carnivora taxa articles shortly, to match the listing in MSW3. I have previously updated many of the other mammalian orders in this way. However, I see there is plenty of disagreement in the taxonomy. I will try to use a gentle touch in editing the articles. However I thought it prudent to post here my intentions. You can also see the MSW3 taxonomy at User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Carnivora, starting with Feliformia 

message: I took a photo which seems to match the description of Sydney rock oyster. If anyone knows about these things, could they look at the photo I added and try and confirm it? Thanks. Stevage 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post a thumbnail?  KP Botany 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added his photo, I don't know about oysters myself. --liquidGhoul 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation of photo 

message: If i wanted to create an infobox which was similar to another infobox, do i need to list it somewhere? It will only be a variation of that original infobox. Simply south 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add it to a category and mention it in the relevant wikiproject(s)? You might need to be more specific about what you want to do. Perhaps you could make modifications to the original so it serves both purposes. More info needed. —Pengo  talk · contribs 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me start again. I am trying to create an infobox within the transport area which is a variation of an existing template. There will be seperate fields. I was wondering if i need to list somwhere that i am creating or (when i have finished) have created an infobox and whether it needs to be approved. Simply south 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within what transport area?  Cellular movement? Name any organism you are dealing with, as I am not understanding how this relates to Tree of Life. KP Botany 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have reached a misunderstanding here. I was following links on the Help:Infobox page or something similar and it lead me to this WikiProject. I was talking generally about infoboxes and the other sort of transport e.g. trains, cabs, buses, planes etc. Simply south 09:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you will want this wikiproject. Good luck. --liquidGhoul 09:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Anyone have an idea what this is? They kind of look like very small pippies, they were found on the beach and are 3-4mm long. I have no idea what they are attached to, it kind of looks like plastic, but could be biological (calcium carbonate?). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look like immature barnacles of some kind, but I have no idea what they might be attached to. MrDarwin 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, looks like man made plastic tubing of some sort and barnicles growing on it. Jnpet 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something in Lingulata, see the image at . -- Donald Albury 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unidentified Sea Creature

message: The amount and variety of lifeforms we know of is simply staggering. Having said that, we actually don't have all that many projects out there extant to deal with all of them. Right now, this is what we've got:
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Beekeeping
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian biota
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats (dealing with all felids)
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs (dealing with all canids)
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopods
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Banksia
***Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Pterosaurs
**Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses
and that's it. Personally, I am far from being expert in this field, but I think that there are a lot of life forms which do not yet have any organized project dealing with them. On that basis, I would like to encourage anyone who believes that there is a significant number of articles dealing with specific life forms out there to propose a project dealing with them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and see if there is sufficient interest in such a project to create one. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More focused subprojects? 

message: This prob doesn't quite fit here but there didn't appear to be a more suitable place to ask this - do people feel that it would be useful to add a page listing various (often technical) terms describing animal lifestyles and habitats? I'm thinking about words like fossorial, lacrustine, piscivorous, crepuscular, graviportal, etc. Some of these have stubs but quite a few don't. I was thinking of keeping it simple and elegant, something like...
====Habitat====
* Arboreal — Living primarily within the tree canopy
* Littoral — Living or feeding within the shore zone of a body of water such as a river, lake, sea
====Movement====
* Digitigrade — Walking with the weight supported on the toes
* Plantigrade — Walking with the weight supported on the soles of the feet
* Unguligrade — Walking with the weight supported on the tips of the toes or hooves
Will obviously include relevant wl and could include an example animal for each term. I'm happy to use different format. Yays or nays anyone? Secret Squïrrel 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  But do they have their own articles already?  Still a page with all the terms would be handy.  KP Botany 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, some have stubs (eg Unguligrade and there's a nice Digitigrade) but others do not (lacrustine, graviportal). It's intended to supplement not replace the existing articles. I just thought it might be handy to have a single place to go to see what terms exist (and a brief description) with the main articles providing more detail for those that require it. Secret Squïrrel 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean lacustrine?--Curtis Clark 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of animal lifestyle terms

message: * Digitigrade — Walking with the weight supported on the toes
* Plantigrade — Walking with the weight supported on the soles of the feet
* Unguligrade — Walking with the weight supported on the tips of the toes or hooves
Will obviously include relevant wl and could include an example animal for each term. I'm happy to use different format. Yays or nays anyone? Secret Squïrrel 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  But do they have their own articles already?  Still a page with all the terms would be handy.  KP Botany 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, some have stubs (eg Unguligrade and there's a nice Digitigrade) but others do not (lacrustine, graviportal). It's intended to supplement not replace the existing articles. I just thought it might be handy to have a single place to go to see what terms exist (and a brief description) with the main articles providing more detail for those that require it. Secret Squïrrel 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean lacustrine?--Curtis Clark 04:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movement

message: Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat FAR

message: thumb|right|Unidentified Limidae species
Having trouble identifying this limidae species. I took this picture in Sulawesi, Indonesia. This fellow was almost a meter wide and it had electric sparks flashing on its mantle. A google search for "electric fire clam" provides video footage of the electric sparks. Would appreciate if anyone could help with the identity. And of course if anyone would like a go at an article of this species, that would be great too.</br> P.S. I posted this on Marine Life Portal discussion page December 16th, but didn't get an answer. So trying my luck here. Jnpet 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably the Electric Flame Scallop (Lima sp.) (picture. JoJan 10:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, genus level is as far as I got in my search as well. Species remain elusive. On the right track though. Jnpet 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you dont know the species but an article on the family limidae with that pic would be good in the mean time.--DSWebb 16:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified Limidae species 

message: How should I title an article about the flora of a region?  Flora of California seemed obvious, but apparently not.  So, in general, what is used?  KP Botany 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on how the area is defined by your sources, If the article is based on political boundaries then the title should be that (ie Flora of California). If the article is a region defined by its biology/geography then something like Mallee (biogeographic region) is more appropriate Gnangarra 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora of a region article title 

message: I think that the water mould article needs some work.  In its taxobox, it lists seven orders, only four of which I have actually found in other sources, and only two of those actually have articles to go with them.  Could some with experience in Chromistan taxonomy do some editing to this article and its sub-articles?  Werothegreat 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oomycota

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Species_of_Wolf - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category disagreement 

message: The kelp genus Nereocystis contains only one species, Nereocystis luetkeana, and yet the genus and the species have seperate pages.  I think that it would function better as a single page, as both pages are essentially giving the same information.  I don't know how I would go about merging the pages, so could someone higher up lend a hand if they agree with me?  Werothegreat 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, clearly there should only be the one article. Copy across the text from the genus page and then turn the genus page into a redirect to the species page. —Pengo 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And how do I make it redirect? Werothegreat 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the usual practice (as discussed on this project's page) is to put the article at the genus' name, and redirect from the species. For details on making a redirect, see WP:REDIR. --Stemonitis 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Nereocystis]]'' separate pages

message: Found this page Wikipedia:Expert retention and feel that more folks here should add their comments. Shyamal 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments may help here 

message: The article "under construction", "Time range of Hexanchiformes species", which was deleted on February 9th without previous discussion, is the only on-line source I found for Mesozoic frilled-shark species (Chlamydoselachus—the article is still on-line in several WP clones). It wasn't suitable for the article namespace, since not only that it contained non-canonical terms like "Cretacic" instead of Cretaceous, etc., but, above all, it was completely lacking references. But I think it should be restored in a user's namespace (I don't know whodunnit). -- Hämbörger 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the article Time range of Hexanchiformes species (for now). Please do something with it before it gets deleted again. —Pengo 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sharks about the article; it does need some explanation before it is useful for a wider audience. -- Eugène van der Pijll 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Time range of Hexanchiformes species" deleted 

message: I've brought up a request about putting the chromosome number into the Template:Taxobox. If you would like to comment, please direct your comments here − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxobox is not meant to be the repository of everyone favorite information about the taxa. It is intended as a quick reference and navigation aid on taxonomy, picture and range. Anything else should be placed only within the text of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded at Template talk:Taxobox#Chromosome number. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosome number in Taxobox 

message: If you go to this site, http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/19, you will find a paper Mr C-S published in July of last year.  I didn't understand most of it, but what I did understand really changed my views on a 3-domain system and the monophyletic-ness of Bacteria.  Take a look.  Werothegreat 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely flawed, but horizontal gene transfer makes a sequencing approach to prokaryote phylogeny a testy undertaking. In the Prokarya, genetic relatedness cannot really be used to argue for phylogenetic relatedness (though of course it does indicate evolutionary relatedness). The "tree" model does not at all apply to prokaryote phylogeny, we're beginning to realize; it's all more like a shrubbery overgrown with dodder. Still, at last some of his major clades are bound to be good. Dysmorodrepanis 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalier-Smith does it again 

message: Someone please revert User:Influencey on monkey. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[monkey]] 

message: I started an article a while back, Postelsia, and I'd like some tips on how I could improve it.  This is the first article I've started all by myself, and it's kind of hard to judge your own work.  I would really like to improve it enough to be a good article, and maybe even that most coveted of prizes, featured article status.  Any tips?  Comments?  Things I did absolutely wrong?  Werothegreat 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Peer review for general feedback on the article. If you want contributions from experts on the subject, that may be more difficult to find, but you could try contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists (although that does not seem to be a very active project.) Eugène van der Pijll 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article help 

message: The section on common names doesn't say anything about their capitalisation - I prefer "Neon Tetra" to "neon tetra" (and to the article name "Neon tetra") and note that. elsewhere Little Grebe (for example) is capitalised. Is there a standard? Andy Mabbett 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). A subject of many previous arguments, read the archives of this page to see. BTW, bird common names are conventionally capitalised by ornithologists (and we follow that convention here), fish aren't, and with mammals it depends. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For fish, the standard used by WP:FISH is to follow FishBase in using sentence case. --Stemonitis 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Captalisation of common names

message: and thumb|right|this 
(Western Cape, SA). Also I have an image of an huge Outeniqua Yellowwood, Podoarpus falcatus, but I don't know where to use it. jimfbleak 13:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start a new stub (Podoarpus falcatus) so that you can use your image. I know I've done that a few times before. —Pengo 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently known as Afrocarpus falcatus and the article there does need a picture.--Melburnian 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, done
I'm not at all an entomologist, but the beetle looks like some sort of tock tock, family Tenebrionidae.  I believe they are the ones that acquire moisture as dew on their backs.  --Aranae 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks jimfbleak 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about Tenebrionidae. This little fellow has all its legs attached to the pronotum, while in Tenebrionidae, diverse as this family may be, only one pair is attached to the pronotum, while the other pairs are attached to the back part of the thorax. Some photos of tock tocks  JoJan 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: According to , this may be a juvenile African Bushhopper  Phymateus leprosus (Pyrgomorphidae); see also   JoJan 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks again, that looks good jimfbleak 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this please?

message: Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome here or on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat

message: Project participants might find iSepcies, a species search engine, useful. Andy Mabbett 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: iSpecies

message: I found these old photos from uni, from when i'd jammed my old point-and-shoot camera against the microscope eyepiece and got some surprising results. Now I need help with what they are. The left image i'm pretty sure is some sort of Penicillium sp., the right is some sort of fungus, but I don't know beyond that. Any help? —Pengo 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The left is definitely Penicillium; I'm not sure how easy it would be to get to species, since the color of the conidia is a diagnostic (and these are obviously stained). The one on the right is a rupturing cleistothecium; the hyphae extending from the outside look very familiar, but I can't put a name on it. The genus Talaromyces is the sexual stage of a Penicillium, and I believe it has "hairy" cleistothecia.--Curtis Clark 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungi ID