Wikispecies:Village Pump
From Wikispecies
Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies. This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel (species.wikipedia) for real-time chat.
Note: if you insert links to Wikipedia pages, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code and name of the page (including when you reference your user page instead of a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwikis detached into the sidebar instead of normal placement within the discussion. Thanks.
For the latest on all Wikimedia wikis, check out
| Post a comment |
| if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body |
 Archives |
|---|
| *Archive 1 (September 21, 2004 - January 4, 2005) |
| *Archive 2 (January 5, 2005 - August 23, 2005) |
| *Archive 3 (August 24, 2005 - December 31, 2005) |
| *Archive 4 (January 1, 2006 - May 31, 2005) |
| *Archive 5 (June 1, 2006 - December 16, 2006) |
| *Archive 6 (December 17, 2006 - December 31, 2006) |
| *Archive 7 (January 1, 2007 - February 28, 2007) |
| *Archive 8 (March 1, 2007 - April 30, 2007) |
| *Archive 9 (May 1, 2007 - August 31, 2007) |
| *Archive 10 (September 1, 2007 - October 31, 2007) |
| *Archive 11 (November 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007) |
| *Archive 12 (January 1, 2008 - February 28, 2008) |
| *Archive 13 (March 1, 2008 - April 28, 2008) |
| *Archive 14 (April 29, 2008 - June 30, 2008) |
| *Archive 15 (July 1, 2008 - September 30, 2008) |
| *Archive 16 (October 1, 2008 - December 25, 2008) |
| *Archive 17 (December 26, 2008 - February 29, 2009) |
Village pump in other languages:
Contents |
[edit] 3 images = too many?
There's a trend to limit species pages to one image, however, I think for some species it should be acceptable for more. Specifically when the male/female or juvenile/adult forms are considerably different. As an example, I added a couple images to Danaus plexippus. There you have a female, a male, and a larva. I don't think it's too much, but I would like to hear other opinions. Rocket000 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks alright to me, but generally 220px is reserved for portrait images, not landscape. Landscape uses 250px. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know but I wanted it inline with the sections (vs. [1]). They're all good images; the subject can be seen clearly at these slightly smaller sizes I think. I normally view/edit this site at 1680x1050 which means lots of whitespace and no scrolling in most cases, so I didn't know if this was image overload. Rocket000 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per Help:Image_Guidelines even 2 is too many. You can always link to commons for more. Wikispecies is not meant as an image repository IMHO. One could always find sound reasons to add 2, 3 or even ten images. But this will then be uncontrollable I expect. CTD 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course Wikispecies is not a image repository; we only have 7 images. ;P I think you're kinda missing the point I was raising. I'm well aware there's a 1-image standard here but when you're talking about visually distinct male/female forms (especially for butterflies, birds, and some mammals) why show only one sex? I mean, if we didn't have this nice convenient non-offensive boring image, what sex would you chose to represent Homo sapiens? As for visually distinct developmental phases, I would say the immature forms should only be included when the species undergoes metamorphosis and, as in the case of most butterflies, is visibly unique when compare to larvae of related species. I don't think include image of various tadpoles or maggots or grubs is particularly useful (they all look the same to me, but with caterpillars, some are as easily identifiable as their adult counterparts and just as unique). Of course, pictures of puppies or infant humans don't count either (no metamorphosis). Rocket000 06:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per Help:Image_Guidelines even 2 is too many. You can always link to commons for more. Wikispecies is not meant as an image repository IMHO. One could always find sound reasons to add 2, 3 or even ten images. But this will then be uncontrollable I expect. CTD 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the number of images depends on a case by case basis, and what exactly we are trying to do. A single image only gives some indication of what a species looks like, but may be insufficient to technically be able to identify it. There is also the point mentioned above that a single species may look totally different depending on whether male or female, or mature/immature (i.e., larvae of insects). I say that images should not repeat each other, but if there is space, and different images tell us different things about a species, then why not add more than one? Stho002 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Organisms which exhibit sexual dimorphism should be exempt from the 1-image rule. As for larvae, I'll sit on the fence and watch the arguments presented by both sides before I decide. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Larvae: in many cases, the larva lives far longer than the ephemeral adult (e.g. mayflies). Surveying stream invertebrates is big business, and it is the larvae that are important here, not the adults. So, why oh why would we be biased towards adults? Stho002 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC) PS: I draw the line at images of eggs!
- True, and some species are even more popular (to non-specialists) in their larva stage, e.g. silkworms. Some species live in their adult form only a week or two simply to reproduce (although when you turn out like this, it's easier to see why they get more attention). I guess it doesn't make sense to have one single rule for all organisms. It all depends on the species. And I agree with the egg thing. Rocket000 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- My work-around if I have more than one picture I want to show is to make up a collage (for example showing both sexes, or specimens from different locations) and then post this as a single image. The thumb then links to a larger image on Commons where those interested can see more detail. No-one has objected to this. Accassidy 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's good too, especially the way you do it. You even got both sides in there! (which is something I didn't want to bring up because people might take that as "what's next? shots from every possible angle?" not realizing this would only apply to a very small group of species that are commonly illustrated this way in identification guides and plates in scientific literature). I think this approach works best for insects. The scale's a nice touch too. But unless you can take the photos yourself, combining photos with different locations/size/camera/quality/etc. usually doesn't work so well. Rocket000 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know but I wanted it inline with the sections (vs. [1]). They're all good images; the subject can be seen clearly at these slightly smaller sizes I think. I normally view/edit this site at 1680x1050 which means lots of whitespace and no scrolling in most cases, so I didn't know if this was image overload. Rocket000 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, photos of eggs can be important - in ornithology at least ... Stho002 22:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] GLAM -Challenge
On August 6 & 7 Wikimedia Australia is hosting GLAM-Wiki at the Australian War Memorial supported by the
- Wikimedia Foundation
- Australian War Memorial
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation
- Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre
In lead up to the event some of the GLAM institutions(Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) have donated items to be given away, Wikimedia Australia has organised the GLAM Challenge which will run from 13th July until 23:59UTC on the 19th July. This is open to all registered editors in any Wikimedia project, you dont need to be in Australia to win as prizes will be posted to anywhere in the world. Nominate yourself by the 13th July, see GLAM Challenge for more details. Gnangarra 12:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sister Project links
I was originally going to beg for information beyond taxonomy and common names here, but a bit of browsing was enough to tell me that such a thing would go against policy.
Instead, I'll ask: would it really go against policy or be too much trouble to include some Sister Project links (to Wikipedia articles or pages from WikiBooks) to provide additional information? Wikispecies is supposed to be the "free species directory", and a phone book (that is, a directory of people who own phones) that lists names but no numbers is pretty useless.
--Proginoskes 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- They already exist for most pages. Look on the left side of the screen at the bottom of the column. If there are sisterproject pages the links to those pages will be there.--Kevmin 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Announcements from ZooKeys
Delivering good news to you all from ZooKey's latest announcements This unplanned collaboration between ZooKeys and Wikispecies brings scientists closer to the general public. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
