On the question of the place of controversial and discuss various other issues

Eugene, I honestly do not see how the structure of the section to develop a community, to make it easier (and more precisely - do not see the best samples of new sections, which would not be threatened with the fate of empty or half-empty left). The only opportunity to comment on plans supraspecific taxa, articles and authors.This should help to reduce and offtopic, but not drastically. If someone has ideas which sections still need - let's really talk about it. If necessary, I will implement the technical part.

In some cases, controversy is inevitable. For example the debate over generic / specific accessory butterfly. I suggest that everything in its place with this butterfly will rise simply to remove excess. It really is not a forum. Example: Ornitoptera priamus.

Peter, Basil! I agree that the "when everything will fall into place, " it is necessary to "removes extra ", but that discussion of the status of a particular photo / species. here is simple. And with the forum it is not so simple.
Peter! Is it possible to make the structure of infinitesimal Forum the standard for the majority of sites? Ieyou come to the forum / community and see a branch with fresh reports or their absence?
A proposal by the main forum for discussion can offer are:
1. Issues of work and structure of the site.
2. Questions taxonomy of butterflies and improve the structure of the database and directory.
3. Identification of species in the photo on this site.The first section will be specific to the work site. Ie its structure, the necessary information on the pages, access members, perhaps - the diversification of levels of access for participants, and so on. like. It must be all that concerns the development of the resource.
The second - the debate like the one that arose because of Troides, includinguseful links to taxonomic resources, ideas, etc.
Third - displays information on the taxonomic assessment laid out photos.
This is a first approximation. Accordingly, in at least the first two, has created some branches.
Well, something like that would be desirable. Heads there are many - let's think together as far as possible.

Comments to the proposed version of Eugene:

The first section could go just present Blog / (where topics are few and, in general, on this topic).

The second - probably, such discussions can be carried out in the pages devoted to specific species and taxa above species level.Why not?

Evaluation of the photo as a taxonomic or any other - in the pages of most of these photos. A Home Communities, as now, all the assembly of comments on this site.
What do you think?

Peter, yes it is better to do so as it is! And IPB (of forum engine) or something like that here is not to cling, and who it will be moderate? Site is enough. Of course this is my subjective opinion.

It's not the engine of forum. As I understand it, Eugene proposes to increase the number of sections, and I'm not against it, but you need to understand exactly what areas really need (and are not empty). There is a suspicion that now people do not often choose any section other than the main ...

Peter! I no longer even on the other. This is the discussion after his post I just missed - saw just now.
I mean, to going to the "community ", can be seen - in which topics (sections) have any new messages and new themes emerged. IeCome on in, I see new topics, as well as the older ones among them, where my last visit there are new posts. Now, if you come here a couple of days, the chance to miss something interesting is great.And if a couple of weeks? I can not judge how to do this - I, alas, the user :) So if you want too much, let it be as it is. There are more important issues.

Eugene, in the near future - a section with commentary relating to a particular user (so as not to miss the theme, which is his messages, photos, etc.) With regard to the new backlight - will have to think about, too, but at this stage, assuming should be sufficient separation on the blog / news, photos and Forms, as well as section of their comments.