Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 31122006b

From Wikispecies

[edit] Discussion about invalidly published names

I had a little discussion with I think a Chinese contributor at User talk:212.144.90.102. Maybe someone has a clear answer to the problem raised by this user? It's a fair concern (our goal is to attract researchers), how to deal with invalidly published names? --Kempm 13:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This project has so far been about taxonomy rather than nomenclature. i.e. it exists to document taxa, not names of taxa. If we wanted to document names of taxa, then we would have to have a page for each published name, valid or otherwise, current or otherwise, including invalid descriptions with no taxonomic assignment. Instead we have a page for each current taxon, and the various published names merely get a section on the relevant taxon page. As such, we can't host invalid descriptions that haven't been assigned to a taxon, because we have no taxon page on which to put the information.

We could, if we wanted to, alter our brief to cover both nomenclature and taxonomy. One way to do so would be to open up a "Name:" or "Nomina:" namespace. The Name: namespace would play the role of a nomenclatural database; it would contain a page for each published name, irrespective of currency or validity, providing such information as (a) the name as published; (b) author (c) publication details (c) the status: nomina nuda, nomina dubia, nomina illegit, taxonomic synonym of Some current name, nomenclatural synonym of Some other name, etc; (d) other names that have been declared synonyms of it; (e) the current taxon to which it is attributable. The main namespace would continue to host only pages on current taxa. It would contain taxonavigation info, images, descriptions, distribution, habitat, but it would no longer attempt to cover nomenclatural matters.

This would be about the biggest, most significant change that I can imagine making to Wikispecies. One thing's for sure; it sure would differentiate us from Wikipedia!

Hesperian 12:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is coming close to my original idea when I started contributing to Wikispecies. I think all that information matters, and I have been trying to add as much nomenclatural details as I could. (For example my fungi contributions, I added all synonyms I could find, homotypic synonyms, (non)-competing synonyms, basionyms, and also published spelling errors). There is room for all this information on one page though, so the question is will we add pages for every name published? Currently we only make redirects for pages that have become a synonym (well sometimes). Putting invalid names (for whatever reason) in a seperate namespace could be a solution. It keeps the taxonomical-tree clean and we can decide on how to deal with those pages at every given moment, because they are seperated. So good idea for me.

BTW I have been stuggling with a totally new idea, which could also adress and incorporate your ideas. If we only add species pages, put those pages in Categories (Vulpes vulpes in cat: Vulpes; Panthera leo in cat: Panthera), we can use the Categories to build the trees. This also gives a rapid overview of how many children are in Genus Panthera, etc. This also does allow for a certain Genus to have more than one parent, which is sometimes necessary to reflect the flux of the scientific world. (Just brainstorming, and I hope the idea is clear). Before we get anywhere near something like this, I think all other problems need to be solved first. --Kempm 13:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multilingual?

There is an experimental language localisation in meta, could it be used here in Wikispecies too? This would solve the problem that all people can't speak english. --Icepenguin 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We really have no intention to do localisation. From Help:Contents: "Wikispecies is language independent as much as possible. Text is mostly limited to actual data, and when text is used it is mainly for formatting purposes. The scientific convention used in nomenclature and taxonomy is Latin. Wikispecies embraces this convention and uses the Linnean binomial nomenclature system. Latin is therefore used in taxonomy and nomenclature sections. For markup purposes and for data descriptional purposes the English language is used, by convention of the Wikispecies project."

Wikispecies will be scripted into a database (Wikidata). There will only be one database, and only the data that you find on our pages. Providing the same information is not necessary, since the data is equal for everyone on our planet.

Localization for non-content pages is discussable, but I really don't think there is much use for it. Someone requested a Finnish Village Pump about two months ago, but not a single letter has been posted on that page. Questions asked in other languages, usually already get answered in the same language. --Kempm 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I requested that finnish village pump, and it hasn't been a succes :( ... You're right that this project is language independent, but we already have main page in other languages too. So it would be great if non-content pages could have localization. --Icepenguin 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said I have nothing against translation those pages, but ask yourself the question if it is useful? Your work is probably much more useful if you translate pages from the English wikipedia, to the Finnish wikipedia. Our public is not everyone surfing the Internet, but only taxonomists in the first place. People with above average education, and as such they are likely to know enough English. Though I must confess this is not always true. --Kempm 11:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

After my trial to translate to Dutch, I figured out it wasn't very usefull because scientific names are used. I guess developers can easily add a feature to translate the English headings automatically to a chosen language. But I do miss critical information about "why" the classification is the way it is proposed. Those sections will require translation. In meanwhile, i'll stop the useless translations. If necessary, an administrator can remove my current translation contributions. Inge Habex 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Beste Inge, aan uw verzoek werd voldaan en die nederlandstalige paginas werden verwijderd. Lycaon 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation template

I created a translation template. To use it in a page, you should

create a specific template for the multilingual page using the name Template:Pagename/Translation.
Leave out the prefix "Help:" if necessary.
The content of this template should be

 {{Template:Translation|
 1={{{1|Other languages}}}|
 page=Pagename}}

Translated pages should be named Pagename/Fr (existing pagename / Language)
Add the template {{pagename/Translation}} on all translated pages

Can somebody add the translation template to Wikispecies:Templates ? Inge Habex 15:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks Lycaon 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA linguaggio lingua

Alessandro Manzoni nei "Promessi Sposi" scrive l'introduzione in italiano del seicento; dopo poche righe passa a scrivere in un italiano moderno, piu' agile e comprensibile. Quando sapremo leggere il DNA potremo scriverlo in maniera piu' elegante per avere forme di vita migliori, piu' facili da riparare e da programmare, tutte intelligenti e si potranno ottenere proteine per l'alimentazione, sfruttando singoli segmenti di DNA. Ecc. ecc. Franco Tadiotto Genova

[edit] Tree of Life

I don't know it this has already been discussed, but when I first heard about wikispecies I thought it was something to the effect of an online phylogenetic tree. Is this going to be an option for the direction of wikispecies? Something along the lines of each page stating where each specie fits in the tree and why scientist believe this.

Take a look at Help:General_Wikispecies. It explains why there is wikispecies, and more or less what we do. --Kempm 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't explain WHY there is a Wikispecies at all!!! In fact Wikispecies seems to concentrate on getting international and interlinguistic non-phylogenic taxonomy standardized. I'm rather disappointed- although I guess this will remain a good resource for creationists who want to be involved in biology.

Wikispecies:About -that's better. I still think the project is not forward-thinking enough, compared to efforts like Tolweb.org

[edit] A new Specie?

Is this a new specie of a amphibian just found in Colombia?

www.eltiempo.com/nacion/caribe/2006-12-12/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-3363094.html

[edit] How to help

I'm pretty new to editing Wikis, so I may ask some stupid questions or not use the right jargon. I'm interested in contributing, but I'm feeling kind of lost. The main page does mention that an upcoming help manual, so maybe this will be more user friendly.

What tools exist to automate preparing data? I can figure out how to modify a delimited text file to create a wiki marked-up set of genera level templates, generic articles, or specific articles. I did find an Excel file (can't remember who made it) that converts binomials to an appropriate format for pasting into a species list in a genus article. If other editors have developed data conversion tools, it'd help to have those available in a single place. For example, if it's already been done, I'd rather not spend the time making a tool to convert a file with (a minimum of) these fields: genus, species, authority, reference, into a set of appropriately formatted species articles.

To what extent can data entry be botted/scripted? I don't have the computer skills to do this myself. I realize that Wikipedia would have a problem with somebody automatically creating large numbers of templates or articles. It seems to me that Wikispecies is pretty crippled without this capability. I see in the Recent Changes that the most active editors were posting about 3 articles/minute. This suggests to me that they have to open something in the Wiki for editing, copy and paste data from another file, and then save the Wiki article. If I have a file with rows that are formatted as species articles, do I really have to copy and paste each row into a new article?

I'm not sure what the immediate goals and progress of the project are. I realize that Wikis are fairly anarchistic (perhaps on of their virtues). In Plantae, apparently genera are at least all mentioned in their next highest taxon. Should I work on making generic templates for use in species articles? Should I make generic or species articles? Obviously I can do whatever I want, but I don't see any discussion of what the next landmark should be. The PLANTS database has been used for some species level articles. If I pick a family to work down to species level using PLANTS data, how do I find out whether I'm duplicating somebody else's effort? Who's using PLANTS now, and what are they working on?

There are several other efforts out there to put together The Ultimate Species List. I used to work for one of them. My former employer was woefully understaffed, and certainly had it's share of critics in the taxonomic community. The ease of contributing to Wikispecies is very positive, and might be a way around the staffing problems other projects might face (and any Ultimate Species List is going face criticism from some taxonomists). However, as I understand it now, data entry for Wikispecies is very inefficient. Maybe that's inherent in the Wiki model. If I'm missing some resources to make it more efficient, let me know. Am I missing the point of Wikispecies? There's already plenty of duplicated effort constructing The Ultimate Species List. Is Wikispecies aiming for something different?

--70.249.209.212 08:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello anonymous. I'll first give you a few links that might answer a few questions. I see you already did research, so maybe you have read some of the articles already.

Wikispecies:About (Why the need for wikispecies?)
Wikispecies:Done and to do (Lists what has been done, and what needs to be done)
Help:Contents (The new help-manual)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata (External link: The future of Wikispecies: Wikidata)

I believe the above links can answer some of the questions you asked. The goal of Wikispecies is in the first place to aide the wikipedia projects, in the taxonomical and nomenclatural field. The taxoboxes on Wikipedia are updated on each and every one of the language-wikipedia's, and in the near future, those boxes should be automatically updated from the data we are using here on wikispecies. The goal of the Wikimedia foundation, that runs all the projects, like Wikipedia, Wikispecies, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews, is to give access to all data to anyone in any language. What this means for wikispecies is indeed to construct that 'Ultimate Species-list'. The original idea for Wikispecies wanted to take a few more steps though. The original idea was to provide sort of a central registrar for newly described species. Something like ICZN is trying to achieve. But we never formulated any policy on this matter, and I personally think a wiki wouldn't get the backup from the scientific world. It is still a goal, and ideas on how to achieve this would be very much appreciated.

Adding content to wikispecies: There are a few tools. User:Lycaon created an excel-template that converts data into wikispecies-format. From the excel-sheet it is indeed copying and pasting the data into wikispecies. Also robots have been created to fully access and alter wikimedia pages, based on certain rules. These bots mainly change certain things within a page though, and don't add new content. There is a pretty big developer community working on wikimedia, and one of the things that needs to be done, is perhaps alter the workings of a bot to put the data from an excel sheet into wikispecies automatically. Or even to create a bot that extracts the data from an external database, and put it into wikispecies. (Full automation). I myself, I am still adding pages to wikispecies manually, since I'm working from too many sources.

We don't keep track of what is being at this very moment. But the wikispecies-community is not very big (I think this will change when wikidata is operational), and I believe the chances two users will work on the same thing at the same time is very small. You can just find an area of your own interest and start there. Any help is very much appreciated. Not only by adding content, also checking content (is the information correct), or even setting policies for wikispecies. Too many things need to be done, and all help is needed, especially from people who have experience on projects like these.

I hope I have adressed most questions, so far. --Kempm 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual scope of wikispecies

Following a little discussion on prions, viroids, viruses, it's becoming evident the rule for content-allowance needs to be set. What exactly do we include on wikispecies. From the main page: "It (Wikispecies) is meant to become an open, free directory of species. This will cover Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Bacteria, Archaea, Protista and all other forms of life to the extent that our users allow us." So the key is: 'life'. How exactly do we determine life? We need to answer this question, before we can decide on what should be included on wikispecies.

I'll make a first attempt: Wikispecies considers an organisms to be living when .......

) Living things need to take in energy
) Living things get rid of waste
) Living things grow and develop
) Living things respond to their environment
) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring
) Over time, living things evolve (change) in response to their environment

(Taken from http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Life/life1.html) Does this include what we want? And exclude what we want? --Kempm 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is an interesting and important question, but one best left to the professionals. If they describe it under the Linnaen system, give it a species, genus, order, kingdom, etc. classification, I'd say it's fair game.

[edit] Incertae sedis

Hi, I've been away for a while. I love the new simpler taxonavigation. I'm wondering though, how to do taxa that are incertae sedis at some level. One example, which hasn't been edited since the update, is Stereomyxidae. The family Stereomyxidae here is incertae sedis (unplaced in an order) within the class Variosea. How should the taxonavigation look in the updated system, both at this level and above and below it? --Jmb 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, JMB! I have updated that area a little. I think alternatively one could choose to leave the rank Incertae sedis out of the tree at lower levels. --Kempm 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help for creating proper "template"

see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pocillopora#Taxonavigation

I have at least 3 questions :

Is there a tool bar to have the special " I " between brackets for

How can create a special template for the genus Pocillopora ?

To go from one line to another does not seem easy to me.

Any light to evident but still confuse solutions ?

Thanks Gaiapolis 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The | is the so-called pipe-character, that's it's name. As far as I know it's on all keyboards, though it may look as two little stripes above each other with a little opening in between.
Easiest to create is type the name {{Pocillopora}} and submit the page. If the template is non-existant it creates a red link, instead of filling in what ought to be there. Then simply clicking the red link let's you create the template page.
Not sure what you mean by going to another line? --Kempm 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You see I have just gone to another line thanks to " : " and now again :

If you go to the Pocillopora eydouxi and pocillopora verrucosa, you 'll find I have gone to another line.

It sounds odd isn'it ?

Please, before I go further I need you to edit properly P. eydouxi for example and let P verucosa as I made it, so I can comparate and learn what to do exactly.

Are you OK ? gaiapolis 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Go and sleep. See you soon gaiapolis 23:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's the difference: http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pocillopora_eydouxi&diff=248645&oldid=248642

[edit] Wikidata in action

A few weeks a new wiki has started that implements the features of Wikidata. This wiki is not directly related to wikimedia but run by a seperate group of people, but I thought this is significant enough to mention it. http://www.omegawiki.org/DefinedMeaning. Scope of the wiki is a bit like Wiktionary, and the wikidata features can especially be seen when words in one language are connected to their synonyms in others. --Kempm 08:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced template and Featured articles

I think we need something like en:Template:Unreferenced. It would be easy to add template to pages that don't have sources and have different data than in Wikipedia. I noticed that Onychophora and de:Stummelfüßer have very different kind taxonomia, but I think they are about same subject? I know taxonomia is changing everytime and scientist doesn't always agree each other, but that's why we need references. And another idea: I think we should start "featured page" -thing, too. :) – linnea (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Linnea. I don't think that unreferenced template has much use here. I really hope that we all will add references to every page that is added to wikispecies. It is very much needed. A rough estimate is that maybe 50% of the wikispecies pages has no reference, or, in fewer cases, incorrect references. Perhaps it is an idea to use such a reference, but for our pages it is probably just as easy to find a reference, as it is to add the template? But maybe we can make a template, or several templates, that will be added when a section is missing: i.e. no name section or no reference section. The real problem of the poor state of our wiki is lack of workforce I think. We are only with a few people trying to manage almost 90.000 pages. You are right though that something needs to be done.

Your example of the different taxonomy is not too different :) When you consider Animalia and Metazoa to be synonyms, and clade Bilateria is mentioned on wikispecies (Eumetazoa), just not treated as a seperate taxon. The only thing we're missing is that we didn't place Onychophora inside Ecdysozoa. Not too bad. I think you will find worse examples.

Good idea to make a featured page thing, wanna make it? --Kempm 16:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I make something, Wikispecies:Featured articles. If you have suggestions feel free to edit and add comments to the talk page. There is also example vote open. – linnea (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Panthera tigris is almost over. I would suggest making a block for 'Article of the Month' on the Main Page. Looking at the Main Page I would suggest to use the space that is now occupied by language-links for 'Article of the Month'. Containing picture, link to article, the golden star, maybe a few lines more. Then move the language block downwards aligned horizontally above the 'other wiki' block. --Kempm 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's good place for it. But I think the language block could be located top of the page with small font size and 100% width. – linnea (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC for articles

I have noticed that we don't use TOC in article pages. Usually pages are short, but some kind TOC would altough be nice. So I created this:

Contents: Taxonavigation · Name · Reference · Vernacular names

This goes top of the page, so you can just jump to the vernacular names is they are what you are looking for. What do you do think? It's similar than template:TOC and also I took something from HelpHeader -template. (It's holiday and I'm bored :) – linnea (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you are bored :), but much appreciated really. When we started the transition to our trees, I added notoc's to our top-level templates. I don't mind if this toc gets added, but we either have to use it on all pages or on none of them. I really want standards. I myself am only interested in the actual data on the pages, and don't really care what a page looks like, as long as all pages look the same. We are very far off from a standard look, and I welcome every attempt to make that happen! I placed a few links to current discussions we're having on User:Kempm/Request_For_Change_II_followup. The links leading mostly to help:talk-pages have discussions that try to discuss some of those standards. So if you're still bored, add to that discussion as well :) --Kempm 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] porifera

I was starting my own tree of life cladogram and I found wiki species very useful. I did end up getting a bit more extension to the branches built here on the first day (just animalia, eukarya, animalia, parazoa, porifera at http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/porifera/index.php.... I don't have the time and was a little frustrated by the way they list the same taxa in multiple places while leaving them as "acceped as"... This was only seen in wiki species for one species, but there was a lot more species, though sometimes less genera... in short use it if you want to develope the wiki red

Thank you. I hope someone has the time to pick this up. --Kempm 09:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

Hello on this 2nd day it seems we have gotten a gift from Santa. Interwikis have been moved to the place where they should be. So now we need to think on how to adept to the new situation. Any ideas? --Kempm 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some kind of template which would show like: "English: tiger, Suomi: tiikeri", {{vernacular|en=tiger|fi=tiikeri}} .. so it has all languages, but shows only those with are called. – linnea (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

English: Village Pump

Suomi: Kahvihuone

I made that template. It works now. It's now easy to change it's look from template. – linnea (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is fantastic. Now we just need to decide whether names go across or one per line. Open2universe 14:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a version that list them one per line {{VN|en=tiger|fi=tiikeri}}

English: tiger

Suomi: tiikeri

. What do folks think? Open2universe 03:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Any of the two, as long as we use it as standard :) --Kempm 04:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the in line type is more compact, the vernacular list before were pain to read. But on other hand, maybe it's easier to find some particular language? I still vote for inline but on per line is ok too. – linnea (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is wonderful! You people amaze me. By the way, I like the list (one per line) format. Another way to put it: format these links like the other side bar links. Excellent work linnea! Totipotent 21:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I add to this that before we start implementing this that we make decisions about other open discussions as well? I made a summary of the open discussions a while ago on User:Kempm/Request For Change II followup. It would be great if we could finally reach consensus for everything. Whatever the consensus is doesn't matter to me, as long as we have consensus :) If someone wants to give me tips on that... I'm listening. In the mean time, let me hear your voices, this includes the regular contributors who don't discuss much. --Kempm 11:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks for keeping us on track. Open2universe 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Linnea and User:HarrivBOT have experiment running a bot. Everything seems to work fine. So we can also think about how we can make use of this capacity. --Kempm 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How does a person decided where to put "fi=tiikeri" because it both starts with "F" and "S" (Suomi)? Before, we would have put [[fi:tiikeri]] which made it go after "E"... Totipotent 21:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if we add interwikis fi should be placed as su(omi), as vernacular perhaps just sort under fi? --Kempm 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's problem always with Finish / Suomi. We can sort with suomi and keep the code "fi"? – linnea (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Every one should use now on {{VN}}, because it's better name. But we haven't still agreed which way it is showed. – linnea (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Difficult decision. Both have pro's and contra. I like the starred list optically, but when the list gets too long it's annoying, and one would prefer everything inline. Need to think a bit about it, before I place my vote!. --Kempm 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary has dealt with this issue fairly extensively, and has opted for a two-column bulleted list; see for example wikt:en:squid#Translations. I don't know how applicable that approach would be here; even with two columns, the list of names for a widespread animal can get rather unwieldy. But maybe something to consider. Cheers, -- Visviva 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have a small problem: VN not support Latvian lannguage. Code lv, isn't it?--Arachn0 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Added (code lv). Ucucha (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful Wikipedia links on the left! Could they be made to display the name they are linking to as well as the language? E.g. Afrikaans (Hond) Deutcsh (Hund) English (Dog) Or use hyphens, colons, spaces, anything, just so I don't have to look at the HTML link just to see what Wikipedia article it links to. It's right there in the code (e.g. *[[af:Hond]] ). -24.218.111.82 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps

[edit] Poll

[edit] Star list (like VN)

Support Lycaon 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Kevmin 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Totipotent 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Open2universe 14:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Kempm 13:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (I believe there's a solution for the long list... hideable lists based on user's preferences. Linnea is looking into this, therefore the concern I had with the long lists is now gone).
Support --Arachn0 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compact (like vernacular)

Support – linnea (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Lycaon 17:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Inline becomes very confusing for long lists

[edit] Neutral

[edit] New bot in the block

Hi all. Linnea asked if there could be bot in Wikispecies and now there is, User:HarrivBOT. Because bot does a lot of work pretty fast, recent changes will get flooded unless the bot flag is granted. According to meta:Request for bot status local community should first approve the bot before status is granted, so please state your opinion here. --Harriv 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If noone objects I can add your botbit. Have to wait a few days here, but don't think there's need you go through voting on meta.

Support --Kempm 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support – linnea (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support – Totipotent 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support – Open2universe 01:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Support – Lycaon 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What will be done to remove all of the "Vernacular names", "Interwikis", "In Wikipedia" titles that no longer have a use?

There's no ready-made solution available, but I'm working on it. --Harriv 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The feature is now implemented. --Harriv 13:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

HarrivBOT has been given bot-status. --Kempm 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_31122006b"