Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 11

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons Image: How to link

I apologize for the noobness, but I read the Image help and didn't get how to link an image from the Wikimedia. And is there a general guide for wiki editing?

It is always good to ask questions. I am usually not good at writing guidelines myself and I know the ones we have can always use improvement. Help:Image Guidelines is the current guidelines for adding images from commons. Basically when you use the form [[Image:HouseSparrow23.jpg|thumb|250px|''Passer domesticus'']] it knows to pull the image file HouseSparrow23.jpg from Common. It will create it with a width of 250px

I imagine that we could create an image template to make it easier. There are a number of templates that link back to Commons so that a reader may see more images. I will be honest, I don't know all the pros and cons of the various ones. I tend to use Template:Commons. Directions for using it are given there.

Help:Contents gives more general wiki editing help. Since the is a wikimedia wiki, editing should be similar for all the wikis. For a lot more detail you can look at the help for wikipedia. en:Help:Contents

--Open2universe 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it right now, I was certainly doing something wrong because my first image links opened to empty pages, Thanx! Pjsouza 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Species" microformat

May I remind people of the 'species' microformat and its potential for enhancing WikiSpecies' usefulness? It's already used on Wikipedia. Is anyone willing to help me make the template edits needed to apply it here? Andy Mabbett 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why a paper index

Hello, I normally do not use wikispecies. I have just done some work on a species list I had that gave me problems when I worte a script to get sequence data for the entries due to spelling, fossil and obscure species. Wikispecies could have been the solution to all my problems but it was not. A plus side is that it is perfect for to be read by a program: you search the name of the animal and you do not get a rockband as happens on wikipedia, so I cannot figure out why the mircoformat posted above has little support and why tools to mine wikispecies do not exist, people try to do it with wikipedia and the scripts make a mess when they encounter say the previously mentioned rockbands. I know that this is a side effect of it being english language indipendent, but it could be a gold mine. A thing that strikes me is that wikispecies needs more bots. there are many species that are listed in their genus but do not have a page, it is ridicolous to think that volunteers should do something as boring as create species entries using already existant data. Software/bots to quickly integrate wikipedia entries should be made. Once you get to the species you get to a dead-end. links to other databses and their ID, like NCBI taxon, are not present because keys are beyond the scope of this project, In my view they should be (at the bottom of the page say), the more information is better, and this data could be obtained again thanks to a program, increasing the utility of wikispecies (utility=ultimate objective, no??). There are not that many editors here so to make this a better taxonomy tool than wikipedia this project needs more automated entry fixing and creation! As it stands, I would conclude that wikipedia is better and wikispecies is a hindrance as editors could improve wikipedia instead of repeating entries or fixing in an automaton fashion. Wikispecies has potential, so PLEASE get a programmer to make this project worth while. I am sorry that I am just passing by and give advise how to manage it, but this project needs to be less of a manually curated index and more of a digital tool. (Squidonius in wikipedia)

Translation problems


I've noted a little problem with the portal. The main page in portuguese is: Página principal, but the link in portuguese main menu and logo send the user to the english page (Main page). Can be fixed? Rossicev 12:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that link can be tied to a user's chosen language. My gut is saying that it can't, but I'm not 100% certain. EVula // talk // 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the language of menu can be changed, the links can be too (I think so...). In Wikimedia Commons we don't have this problem. Who are the ones that have permission do change menu data? Rossicev 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, sure enough... I never noticed that before (probably because my interface is always set to English). I'm not entirely sure about how to get it changed; I've posted a question on Meta to see about how to fix this. EVula // talk // 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The devs can change this with mw:$wgForceUIMsgAsContentMsg. I'll submit a request on Bugzilla for "MediaWiki:Mainpage". SPQRobin 12:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See bugzilla:12119. SPQRobin 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for handling this, SPQRobin. EVula // talk // 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I like doing such things :-) SPQRobin 15:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bug is fixed, you can go now to a main page in your language :-) SPQRobin 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Formica

Someone created the article Formica, forcing the taxinavigation in page Formica (Formicini). The article is in italian language (like formicini). As a multilanguage project, I think we can't have articles like Wikipedia. My suggestion is:

  1. Delete Formica
  2. Move Formica (Formicini) to Formica

Rossicev 14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EVula // talk // // 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is a place on Wikipedia made has added hamster page. I need to create one now I do not have somewhere oh no. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarahmcgarrigle (talkcontribs).

I'm assuming you're referring to Hamsters, which was deleted; we're here to create a free species directory, and that page wasn't within Wikispecies' scope. The scientific name for the Hamster is Cricetinae, and you can find the encyclopedia article for it at w:Hamster. EVula // talk // // 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are two similar templates: {{Warning}} and Template:Test2. Can one of these be deleted? -- Dario and Mario 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second don't be just a test? I don't know, but somewone can be working about this. Rossicev 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say ditch {{Warning}} in favor of {{Test2}}; the first one is very casually worded, and doesn't sound (or look) particularly threatening, while the second one has some teeth to it (and looks much better than ). With the EVula // talk // // 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template warning isn't used anywhere on this site, so can be deleted if noone objects. --Kempm 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Tld|Warning}] deleted. -- Dario and Mario 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More two similar templates: Template:Fishbase genus and Template:FishBase genus. Which of these should be deleted? -- Dario and Mario 14:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with . The first template is used two times only. But I don't like the lay-out of the last template. Because it links to a French mirror (why not Chinese, Hungarian, German, or Zulu?), and FishBase likes to be quoted as:
"Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2007.FishBase.
World Wide Web electronic publication., version (10/2007)." 

see Perhaps we can use it as:

Main Page

The user Z asked for a sysop to put this main page on the languages template. But I think the page is too small. Can this language be added on the template?

P.S.: Sorry for my bad English. -- Dario and Mario 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's way too short to be a viable page. Most of the translations use Main Page's box layout, but even the ones that don't (such as Frontispicio) at least have a lot more information than Main Page (Simple English) does. A bit of work is in order before it gets added, I believe. EVula // talk // // 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the page, although it might need to be more simple. Monobi 15:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it can be added. -- Dario and Mario 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Dario and Mario 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with taxonomy of order Rodentia

The entire taxonomy of order Rodentia should be updated according to Mammal Species of the World 3rd edition.

The classification adopted in Rodentia follows the previous edition of MSW and conflicts with other pages such as Castorimorpha or Anomaluromorpha, following the updated classification.

--Esculapio 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big problem. A simple edition in the relationed template can fix it. But we need the opinion of the community. Rossicevmsg 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The community doen't seem to be very interested to the question... What do you suggest to stimulate the debate? --Esculapio 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The third edition was not out when many of the articles were created. My understanding at the time is that they would be updated when it came out. I have not done much with Rodentia but if you have access to Mammal Species of the World 3rd edition then go for it. --Open2universe 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd edition can be accessed online: I'll wait for other opinions before starting --Esculapio 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still waiting or have you started? ;-). Please be bold. This is established taxo by now. Go for it. Lycaon 10:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started, but help would be appreciated! --Esculapio 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have completed the updating. If somebody could check, it would be better! --Esculapio 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Featured picture

What you think abou we put a "Today's featured picture" on main page? We can use one of the featured picture of Wikimedia Commons. Here I have two options for image description: Use only the name or use the related vernacular name in each especific language Main Page. Rossicevmsg 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here and may not (yet) have a balanced view of how thing work here but my opinion is:
  1. Images belong to Commons and I find it ackward to feature images from Commons here.
  2. If something should be featured here I guess it should be Wikispecies pages of species and other taxa. However, although there may have put quite some effort into a Wikispecies page, I do not think personally get a "wow" feeling from seing such a page. For something to be featured it has to be extraordinary in some way. And although retrieving all the needed information for a Wikispecies page can be hard work, I do not think it makes sense to feature them.
  3. The number of active users here is too low get a voting process going. It is my impression that most users pass by.
  4. For me, Wikispecies is still not very mature and it is more important to spend the limited resources available on adding content and tuning the framework (templates, help, bots, making the data useful for other Wikimedia projects, etc.).

So, in conclusion, i do not think it is a very good idea. -- Slaunger 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best practises for finding source information about plants on the internet.

I am a newcomer to this project and not a taxo god, but just interested in the taxononmy of some plants. For some strange reasons I plan to do some work on the taxonomic tree below Saxifragaceae. I do not have access the professional scientific literature except for what is open access to all via the internet. Is it still possible to contribute with these limitations? I was thinking of using ITIS to build up the taxonomic tree below Saxifragaceae and make redirects to known synonyms mentioned there. For each species I then have an idea of using the International Plant Names Index to get the reference to the original source and the info about the Holotype. Besides that I would search other wikis and commons for interwiki links and perhaps a link to Commons and add a suitable photo if such a one can be found on Commons. Would that be an acceptable procedure? Are there suggestions for improvements of the procedure from more experienced users? (I have read the help page and think I have understood that) -- Slaunger 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adhérer à Wikimedia France pour soutenir et promouvoir la connaissance libre

Bonjour à tous,

Wikimédia France a décidé de diminuer le coût de sa cotisation à 24 € (tarif normal) et à 12 € (tarif réduit) (voir ). C'est l'occasion pour vous aussi de nous rejoindre en devenant membre de Wikimédia France.

Adhérer à l'association, c'est soutenir et rendre possible des projets tel que la numérisation de fonds d'archives ou d'ouvrages anciens, la réalisation de vidéos expliquant le fonctionnement des projets Wikimedia, ou l'envoi de photoreporters lors d'évènements politiques et culturels.

C'est aussi donner à l'association davantage de poids auprès des décideurs que nous rencontrons. Plus nous avons d'adhérents, plus cela montre que nos idées sont partagées et notre cause soutenue.

L'année 2007 a été une année charnière pour Wikimédia France, une année de structuration. Plusieurs projets concrets sont en cours et d'autres en préparation pour l'année 2008. Nous avons néanmoins ressenti la faible implication des membres actuels, malgré la mise en place des groupes de travail. Nous vous invitons donc non seulement à nous rejoindre, mais surtout à participer aux activités de l'association, à votre échelle ; c'est ensemble que nous ferons progresser la connaissance libre.

Adhérer, c'est soutenir cet effort et permettre que d'autres projets soient menés. C'est aussi la possibilité de s'impliquer et d'aider à la réalisation de ces projets.

En 2007, Wikimédia France a passé la barre symbolique des 100 adhérents. En 2008, grâce à vous, nous comptons atteindre celle des 200 adhérents et accroître la proportion de membres actifs.

Wikimédia France espère vous compter parmis ses membres très prochainement, et vous souhaite de joyeuses fêtes de fin d'année. Que 2008 soit une année riche en connaissance libre !

Guillaume Paumier (guillom), secrétaire de Wikimedia France. 14:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies and references to ZipCodeZoo

Recently I have started using as a taxa information site and a general resource regarding plants, animals, etc. I think the site often has good and valuable supplementary information, which can be referenced from Wikispecies pages. See Saxifraga nivalis for an example. But what does the community think? Is it recommended to cite ZipCodeZoo as a secondary internet source as done with ITIS, USDA, IPNI and so on?

I noticed we do not have a ZipZooCode template for referencing, like {{ITIS}} and {{PLANTS}}. Could this be of use (I volunteer for making one)?

I have searched the ZipCodeZoo web for terms and conditions for referencing, and did not find any restrictions. Just to be sure I wrote an e-mail to the site as contributor from Wikispecies to be sure I had not overlooked anything. I got a very positive reply from the man sponsoring the cite (David Stang), which can be found here. A response to the project. It is on a subpage on my User page. Maybe it should be relocated elsewhere for further reference? -- Slaunger 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems nobody is taking you up on this one. Small community, little response at times (often ;-)). I think it is a good idea. Outlinking and especially referencing is an important part of Wikispecies. A ZipZooCode template may come in handy. Lycaon 10:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It has been rightly requested that we deal with classification systems more specifically. From my perspective, the best approach is to state a prefered classification system and then if required, show alternates. I am still struggling with the best way to add this to our current structure.

Liné1 has done quite a bit of this work on commons and I am hopeful that we will be able to use some of that work here.

For starters I propose the following prefered classifications.

APG II for plants (Currently there is a mix of APG, APG II, Cronquist and others)

Sibley-Ahlquist for birds (I believe we were mostly going by en:Handbook of the Birds of the World )

Mammal Species of the World 3rd edition. for mammals

I am busy this holiday season and do not know when I will have time to work on mocking up example templates of adding the classification. If there is someone else who would like to take that on, that would be good.

Happy New Year everyone.

--Open2universe | Talk 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]