Welcome to Wikispecies!
Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
- Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
- Have a look at Done and to do.
If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.
If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!
Staying tuned ;-) — Lycaon 13:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add content that is not linked through higher taxa. They show up as orphaned pages and may end up as candidates for deletion. It is customary to fill the taxonomy top/down rather than bottom/up. Lycaon 10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I second Lycaon's comment, also I'm not sure you are using a current classification of fungi. It certainly doesn't match the top level taxa in Wikispecies. For instance you have:
- Regnum: Fungi
while the top level taxa here follow the classification in ITIS which runs:
- Regnum: Fungi
The 'reason', if it can be called that, it that classifications have been produced by different taxonomists at different times. The Plants database is using a rather pointless classification where Division Ascomycota is 'divided' into a single Class Ascomycetes. No doubt there is a primary source for this, but they don't appear to cite it. The scheme used on Wikispecies and ITIS seems to follow Eriksson O.E., (ed.) 2006. Outline of Ascomycota - 2006. Myconet 12: 1-82. which would seem preferable because it is recent, citable, accessible and doesn't squander the available levels with one on one hierarchies.--Keith Edkins (Talk) 14:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
May I also urge you to use 'standard' wikispecies formatting? I.e. use , italics and abbreviated generic names for enumerating multiple species under a genus. Have a look at the Recent Changes for corrections I made to your most recent contributions. An Excel-file that facilitates input of multiple taxa can be found here: taxa.xls -- Lycaon 15:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, would you please fix your links to authors? You have created links linking to the whole phrase and not the individual authors. E.g. in Hookeria lucens you have typed [[(Hedw.) Sm.]]. That should be ([[Hedw.]]) [[Sm.]] . The difference looks like this: (Hedw.) Sm. vs. (Hedw.) Sm. We do not have all taxon authors listed here, but I am working on it. You can look at Catalog:Taxon Authorities for what we do have. Thanks Open2universe 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have never worked with bots. If you have experience writing bots, you should work with Ucucha. As far as I know he is the only one who has written bots for wikispecies. Open2universe 13:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again, Could you please fill the species list under the genus before you continue adding the species? thanks. Lycaon 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... time..., bummer. I'll see what I can do (if I find some of that time myself). Lycaon 13:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, me again. There is one thing you could do to make it easier for us: Before you start adding your species, could you first do a search for the genus and then use the higher taxonomy that you find there? E.g. with Bidens, you didn't take the Tribus or Subfamily into account, and then it's a lot of work to adapt each of the species you entered. The same happened with Astragalus and—I think—many others. Thanks for your effort. Lycaon 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed some of the pages for species names you have created have no links to them. I think it is because there are no pages for the genera that include them. I could create those pages, but I know almost nothing about those taxa. --Carlosp420 04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)