Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 12

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Email sent with new talk page edits

On some of the other WMF projects, such as Commons and Meta, you can set in your Preferences to receive an email when your user talk page is edited (in addition to the bar that appears on the site itself). This is a very handy feature, especially for projects where editors might not log in for several days at a time (such as this one).

Is there community consensus to activate this feature here as well? I think it would be helpful, and furthermore, I'd like it to be turned on by default if at all possible (ie: as long as you've got a confirmed email address, it'll work). For additional explanations, see bugzilla:8545 and bugzilla:5220 (the request for this change will go through bugzilla, but community consensus needs to be determined first, if I understand it correctly).

Thoughts? EVula // talk // // 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pro. Lycaon 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too :). Copying a message from EVula, it's a very handy feature Cobalttempest 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for that pref to be set, but not by default. Maybe it's just me, but I go on each of my projects every day. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can enable this feature, but I don't like the idea of automatic opt-in. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only reason I suggested default activation is because, while it's a feature on Meta, few people actually use it, instead telling people to go to their talk pages on other projects (which isn't terribly efficient). Each time I've pointed out the feature, it's been received with "oh, cool, thanks for letting me know, I'm turning it on now"... though that might just be them telling me what I want to hear so I'll shut up. ;) If having it on by default makes people uncomfortable, though, then it shouldn't be on; I won't make any such note when I post the request to bugzilla. EVula // talk // // 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I tell people to got o my (x) talk page on (x) project because its convenient, not for quick response. ;) ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't visit wikispecies every day anymore, but I do check my email. Receiving an email would be a good solution for me --Kempm 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter to me, but it seems like a good idea. --Open2universe | Talk 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think this would definitely be handy. Don't think it should be 'on' by defaultt though, that could aggrevate existing users that aren't aware of this feature being added suddenly getting e-mails (it may even legally be a problem since they didn't opt-in when signing up). MichielT 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking it would be turned on by default for new accounts; I don't think it should be retroactively activated for existing accounts. EVula // talk // // 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Logical, I'd make use of it for sure. Mønobi 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support.....Great idea, and default would work for me for now........Pvmoutside 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, as this is a very useful tool, I've used it on Commons. Maxim(talk) 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year competition 2007

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2007
Voting to select the finalists is open from 10 January until 17 January

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2007 Picture of the Year competition will be held soon. Any user who is registered at any Wikimedia wiki and has more than 200 edits is invited to vote.

The competition is among the 514 images that became Featured Pictures at Wikimedia Commons between 2007-01-01 and 2007-12-31. There are literally hundreds of beautiful high quality pictures... please help us choose the best one!

Voting will be conducted through a tool on the toolserver (to make it easier to count compared to editing on a wiki). Users can request a voting token on . You will need to have email enabled for the user account you intend to vote from. You can only vote once, even if you have multiple accounts that meet the edit requirement. The voter log will be public although the actual votes themselves will be private.

There are two rounds of voting. In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like, regardless of category. In the final (28), you can only vote for one image.

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Why is this section called the village pump? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

"Village Pump" is the common name across many different projects for the general discussion area. In old villages, the local water pump was traditionally the place people would congregate and discuss local issues. EVula // talk // // 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates: why nbsp?

According to Wikispecies:Templates: "Multiple taxa of the same level should then be separated by a nonbreakingspace-dash-space combination ( - )."

Why can't this simply be space-dash-space? I'm assuming someone had good reason for it, but cannot figure out what that might have been. Just trying to understand (I have a strange aversion the   character...).

MichielT 13:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was for aesthetics. By putting nonbreakingspace in then you do not have lines starting with a dash when the lists wrap around. Use templates for your lists and you can pretend it that the nbsp doesn't exist. --Open2universe | Talk 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, wrapping lines. Makes sense. Thanks! MichielT 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open!

Please visit here to see if you are eligible and get a voting token: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting.

The images are presented in categories, but you can vote for as many as you like, in as many categories as you like. (The categories are just so you don't have to look at hundreds of images at once.) The top 28 images will make it to the final.

Before you cast your vote, you can preview them all at Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Galleries . Voting is open from January 10-17, so please take the time to have your say!

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition

There is a couple of new templates for mammals from the Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition. Just look up on the website and add for genera and species: {{MSWsp|id number}} (rendered in italics) and for higher taxa: {{MSW|id number}}. Lycaon 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting more attention

I think we are slowly expanding, but kind of too slow. A lot of people think WikiSpecies is something similar to rocket science and won't take part if they're not scientists. We should promote the idea that everyone, not just Wiki-scientists, can use and edit WikiSpecies. I suggest that we should do some kind of a drive in English Wikipedia to promote WikiSpecies. Any ideas? OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. English Wikipedia appears to me to be too sterotype oriented, too Euro-anglo centric. I propose Meta. How the drive would work though, I don't know. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can do improvement drives. Ask people to cross-reference info from Wikipedia and from Wikispecies. If the article is not available in Wikispecies then they can create an article on it. (This drive is in the hopes that someone will gain interest and become a constant contributor in here. We will have nothing to lose and everything to gain even if only one person becomes interested in Wikispecies.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read the criticisms from User:Liné1 at Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_31102007#Some_remarks. I also think we should be looking more at Meta and Commons. One of the areas that we need to improve is the multi-linguality (I know that is probably not a word but I hope you know what I mean.) of wikispecies in order for it to be truly useful across projects. --Open2universe | Talk 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely (and, truth be told, that's one of the reasons for my email topic a bit further up; if we can nab more casual editors, we might be able to hold onto them a bit better). EVula // talk // // 14:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-linguality is definetely something that WikiSpecies can improve on (heck, that's the goal for every WMF project). But the problem is that even the english WikiSpecies need more editors. Even though more editors means there's a possibility that more errors occur, but we have much more people to correct mistakes as proven in English Wikipedia. Getting more editors also mean that we will have a chance of getting more people from different parts of the world. A question though, does that mean there will be more WikiSpecies in other langagues (other than the current Main Page with different languages)?
No, it is more like Commons, which is why it can be so difficult to try to convey the information in as language neutral a way as possible. --Open2universe | Talk 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for ideas, we can hold some kind of improvement drive or similar. As long as we give out barnstar, many will be be interested (yes, bribing editors with barnstars, lol). We just need to give them a crash course on formatting (for all editors) and taxonomy (for non-scientists) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I signed up only because I wanted to revert a vandal. I've reverted a bit more, commented in an RfA, but I'm suck at bio... so I'm quite useless in regards to writing stuff. :'( Maxim(talk) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got this idea as I was travelling on a bus to get home on today. We can do an image drive where we ask volunteers to get images from WikiCommons and place them in WikiSpecies articles. To ensure accuracy, they should use the commons image that is displayed in a Wikipedia article (regardless of language) OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASW5 Template

When editing Bombina_fortinuptialis I came across the ASW5 template (which I didn't know existed). It creates a reference to the online reference "Amphibian Species of the World", however there are a few buts:

  • it creates a direct link to the specified taxon using its id, but the ASW website doesn't allow this and forwards the user to its main page
  • the created citation is different then how the ASW website states it wants to be cited.

I have left the reference to the ASW I was adding to Bombina_fortinuptialis so you can see the difference.

  1. I believe we would need to modify the ASW template so it only links to the ASW home page, and is cited according to their preference
  2. Can we maybe add a list all of these type templates to Help:Reference_section? I couldn't find such a list anywhere, and I know there are quite a few of these sort of templates out there.

I'd be happy to do it myself by the way, just would like to hear opinions before I do
MichielT 12:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great to if you would add a list of the templates to the help section. Some of the template can be found in the category Category:External link templates --Open2universe | Talk 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a table to the help:reference section, and also added some help to the templates that didn't have any. I think i'm  Done
MichielT 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

I kinda don't know where to post this but, User: needs a rather long block, see their deleted contribs, block log, and user talk page. They are creating a fork of Puma concolor at Cougar. The page may needs protection from creation as well as delete. --Maxim(talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the page before I saw this topic... article deleted (again) and the user has been blocked for 3 months. If they continue when they come back, I'm inclined to block for 6. EVula // talk // // 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you consider semi-protecting the article against creation? (ie anons can't create it) Also, where is the best place to ask for admin assistance? Maxim(talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not used to being able to protect non-existent pages; I've just fully-protected Cougar. That should be the end of that...
As for getting admin assistance, here is just fine (aside from going to an individual admin's talk page; I try to swing by at least once a day, generally to see if anything needs deletion). EVula // talk // // 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since they have turned off the creation of Special:Wantedpages, I have created an editable report at Wikispecies:Wantedpages from the latest database dump. Does anyone consider this useful? If not, I won't continue to create it. Thanks, --Open2universe | Talk 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Type Specimen Repositories

At this point out help guidelines for Type materials is just a short paragraph on what type specimens are. The example included shows the institution abbreviation in the specimen number is wikilinked: eg. 2003.2.5CDM029a,b and SR 01-01-05. There is no instuction as to what to wikilink to in the guide. Of the type specimen number in wikispecies only part of them are blue linked, but they all link to the same page: Holotype, which is just a list of institutions.

I propose that these links should be changed to a purpose the same as the Author wikilinks. Instead of linking to the one page, they should link to a page for the institution, 2003.2.5CDM029a,b would link to Courtenay and District Museum. This page would have an address and interwikis to the relevant wikipedia articles.

Thoughts? --Kevmin 11:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems reasonable. But I think they shoud be in their own namespace. I wish I had started putting the author pages in their own namespace, but it seems too daunting to change now.--Open2universe | Talk 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who should be talked to to get a namespace created for the Repositories?--Kevmin 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get a little more community consensus before adding a new namespace. I believe we would put in a request to the developers but it seems relatively straightforward. See --Open2universe | Talk 13:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin kindly remove the like to Anonymous Dissident's RfA? He was promoted a day ago. Maxim(talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) Maxim(talk) 02:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting for adminship right now. Please update the link to reflect my request. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A call for cooperation

First I must apologize for my awkward English which isn’t my native language.

I’m a new wikispecian , but have already observed some weak points and have come to think on ways of addressing then.

After some 4 years of existence, wikispecies is still in a pitiful condition: no single order is yet complete, many gaps and omissions are lurking everywhere, like a fisherman’s net with big holes. It can’t be useful as a tool or a reference, and the data isn’t reliable nor consistent, nor attractively presented.

I suggest we need some revisions and innovations to drew more interest to this project and to transform it into a useful and attractive site. I can see in it lots and lots of potential which until now was wasted away.

The most urgent task is how to add data more reliably and systematically. The key to accomplishing this is cooperation! We must decide in making a concentrated effort to complete an order at a time, say Mammalia (Mammals) for example. To do this, every person in a group will be assigned a section (for example a mammalian family) to his responsibility to work on. He will spend all his efforts on this section until it is completely and thoroughly finished. A coordinator will supervise and manage the distribution of work among the partners.

Well, I’m asking here from wikispecians who want to cooperate with me in doing this systematic work to contact me here, so we can form a focused group and take the project one step further to become a major tool of reference and learning.

Mariusm 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and to do, a call for collaboration

As a followup to User:Mariusm's call for collaboration, I recommend that we refocus the Wikispecies:Done and to do so that it is easier to get people working together. Thoughts? --Open2universe | Talk 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an inappropriate username. Also, this user has vandalised Wikispecies [1]. Can admin plz block? Maxim(talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Open2universe | Talk 14:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vote for / against inclusion of distribution information in Wikispecies

Every serious species database includes distribution (range) information - the locations where the particular species lives. It is a very important factor, essential in the understanding or evaluation of any species.

It was decided that Wikispecies should include only the strict details, and exclude many other important facts. The reason behind this was to be language-independent and accessible by anyone. However this restriction makes Wikispacies very dry, reducing and restricting the benefits that it may produce, making it boring and devoid of interest. I think a list of countries and regions can be understood by anyone, no matter what language he may speak.

Somebody might argue that country names are very different in Basque, Albanese or Chinese for that matter. Lycaon 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly I propose to conduct a vote to see what is the opinion of Wikispecies users on this issue. Please take a moment to participate in this vote and help improve this site.

Do you want distribution information (countries or regions where a species can be found) to be included in Wikispecies?

Mariusm 08:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



  • As a language-neutral project, including information like this in English is counter-productive. I'd be fine with its inclusion if it were done in It might be okay if we display it in a language-neutral manner, such as the display of images like Image:Carcharodon carcharias distmap.png, but to have English descriptions for everything is outside of the project scope. Wikispecies isn't Wikipedia. EVula // talk // // 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if we have an image and not words, then you vote for yes? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what I initially meant was that If I thought it could be conveyed effectively in a language-neutral manner, I might consider it more. However, as Lycaon noted, this could very easily be considered creep; if we add that, we'll be expected to add even more information, and suddenly, we're an animal encyclopedia, which is what we're not.
        Plus, there's the question of how it could be done neutrally; just tossing up an image isn't a particularly effective method for conveying the information, and with that information being best presented on Wikipedia (and, ideally, we link to as many editions of Wikipedia as possible), I'm not particularly convinced that we even should. EVula // talk // // 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per EVula. This has been discussed before. Next thing somebody wants size or habitat. And although these are very important and interesting characteristics, they have no place on Wikispecies per above arguments. Just as dictionary definitions are also not allowed on wikipedia, e.g. Not everything fits everywhere. The correct place for this kind of information is the respective wikipedias linked through the interwiki links. Lycaon 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Identification of unknown species

I've recently dived head-first into Wikipedia, so am on a steep learning-curve (please excuse my illiteracy!) At the weekend I came across a category on Commons "Unknown Lepidoptera". I've uploaded a few images of butterflies taken in Uganda (from a couple of years back) and would like to get them identified, can anyone offer assistance with this? Tom 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove sysop flag from inactive users

I proposal we confirm the sysop flag (semi?/quarterly?) annually. I don't propose this because I think species sysop are controversial, but rather I don't think it's a great idea to have inactive users with the flag. I think something along the lines of m:Meta:Administrators/confirm should suit. Thoughts? Mønobi 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of this idea, if only because it creates a false impression of what the project's administrative team is like. I'd be shocked if I saw Brion around here, and since he's a steward, he doesn't need the local permissions anyway. EVula // talk // // 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem if my sysop bit was taken away. Although I am still visiting this site from to time, I only use my admin rights in very rare occassions. It should be the same for all other 'inactive' sysops. If I decide to become active again, I know where to request the rights :) Inactive sysop accounts are in theory a security breach and should therefore be avoided. --Kempm 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to the admins that don't use the user power (edit pages) for a long time have to be take away the adminship Fale 07:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know Italian?

Just randomly browsing through userpage, and I landed on User:PICE. I used Babel Fish and determined that this is Italian but the translation didn't give me much information. Can someone who knows Italian let me know what the content of this userpage is, so that I can decide if it's appropriate in WikiSpecies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who do well, will find well
Simone (name)
Picenni (surname)
14 years old (age)
I live in Desenzano of Garda (city)
I love the genetics
I'm a big fan of Umberto Veronesi and Gino Strada, because they do good things
I'm socialist, because I belive in the equality of the people
The other two phrases are 2 quotes from Umberto Veronesi and Gino Strada ;)
I Hope my translation is good :D. Fale 07:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, we might have to find an oversight to remove those edits from public view due to COPPA regulations. Opinions? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


why if I try to enter in the channel, happened this? [16:02] [Comunicazione] -ChanServ- You do not have channel operator access to [#wikispecies]. It seems that the channel doesn't exist... Fale 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could have happened because there was no one in the channel for quite some time, and freenode drops them. Maxim(talk) 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see... than now we don't have a channel? Fale 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wikispecies sucks?

I personally think that wikispecies have an enormous problem. But before I explain you what this is, I'll say you why I am doing a such strong comment. I have looked wikispecies a lot of times in the last year. Now wikispecies have more than 3 years (the first comment in this page is tagged as 13 Feb 2005) but it have only 119k pages, and the biggest part is blank. This is meaning that there aren't a lot of people that create pages and contents. Obviusly the best language-independent page is a white page (sorry, but was a too easy joke). Now, in my humble opinion, the thing that keep wikispecies far from be completed is the language-independent point. Because a lot of people don't know a lot about wikimedia and English, then with the language-independent politics, they will not help this project, even if they know a lot about species. I'm Italian and on wikipedia Italy we have a lot of pages about species, but all these pages are not ported here. If you want know how a person who doesn't know English feels in front of a wikimedia project in English, try to open a wikipedia project in a language that you don't know, try to edit an article. You will find that you will push the wrong button. English is not a language that the whole world know. You want an example of what I'm speaking about? . Obviously the most written language is the English, but there are other languages that have a lot of contents. A lot of time happened that a 'minor wikipedia' created a content that wasn't available on en.wikipedia and after some translator have translate from a 'minor wikipedia' to en.wikipedia. This wasn't possible if wikipedia would be available only in English. Another important point is that the wiki project are not made to store the culture, but to share the culture. Than if all the contents are available only in English (like in wikispecies) a lot of people will be excluded from this 'share process'. These are only my thoughts. I know what the policies of wikispecies says and I wrote all this stuff because in my opinion some policies of wikispecies have to be re-looked with the knowledge of what happened after three years of wikispecies. Fale 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things that made us develop slower than other wiki projects. First, there's an aura that only scientists (biologists to be exact) can/or know how to edit WikiSpecies. Hence not a lot of people joining. Since articles grow exponentially according to the population of community, we are in a disadvantage. Second, we don't have the luxury of using a bot to generate articles. If you go to english wikipedia and take a look at some species articles that are not popular (e.g. not cat, fish, dog... you get the idea), a lot of them are generated by bots, particularly Polbot. Once my midterms are done, I might ask Polbot's owner to see if he can help us and increase article creation speed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely what you say is true, but: when I spoke about wikipedia that have some articles about the species I was speaking about wikipedia italia, were that articles are made by human and I think that have 45k articles is useless if the biggest part is blank or with only one image. When I wrote the previous part I wanted be 'strong' (the title in my opinion is pretty strong) but only to focus on one thing that imho is very important: improve the internationalization. We can do that stuff in thousands of different ways (keeping only one project) and I think that right now wikispecies haven't at all an organized internationalization. The first idea that I have in mind is:
- translate the menu in all the languages (like in commons)
- create subpages for each lang (ie: virus, virus/es, virus/fr, virus/it etc.)
Probably this is not the better way to create an internationalization, but is an idea... maybe someone will come out with a better idea.
About the bots, I think that we can build some (our) bots to do exactly what we need. I, personally, will never write an article, I prefer the 'background' works, and can start working on some bots, if the community want.
At least I think that as number of pages, wikispecies can be good.... but the big problem is that only a few pages are over 30 words...
Last thing and after I'll left you free :D, I think that some kind of templates-implementation can be good. As soon as I will have time, I will post here an idea that in my opinion is pretty good. :) Fale 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have another idea (maybe is a crazy/crappy stuff) create one namespace for each language Fale 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improving languages other than English is definetely something worth considering. However, we're no where close to complete in English. So when are we close to complete? We can declare ourselves almost complete if all the species in WikiSpecies are covered in wikipedia. But we aren't there yet. In fact, we're never complete because new species are always discovered and there're so many places where humans haven't ventured far/deep enough. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason for which I think that now is a good moment to start :D Fale 06:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. You cannot (and shouldn't) compare wikispecies with wikipedia. Wikispecies is a taxonomic species depository. A database in the making. Wikispecies is not about making as much articles as possible, it is about filling current taxonomy as sound and scientifically justified as possible. People that contribute to wikispecies mostly have a thorough background in the systematics of a certain group of organisms, whether professionally or as a dedicated hobbyist. This entails being familiar with relevant international literature (i.e. in English) on the subject. What I'm saying is that if you feel confident that you can contribute in a proper way to wikispecies (taxonomy, authorship, references), then your command of English is automatically sufficient. Turning wikispecies in a multi language structure is, although technically possible, practically not doable. We wouldn't attract more knowledgeable contributors, as the ones that can contribute, have the basic skills in English to do so already. BTW, porting articles from wikipedia (e.g. Italian one) to wikispecies is useless; transferring scientifically sound taxonomy over here where it is missing, at the other hand, is very helpful. Lycaon 12:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that all the biologists know enough english to help wikispecies in english? Fale 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes!! I will even read Italian or Japanese if I have to. Lycaon 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are a special case, but the average of the biologists speak only one language (their language) Fale 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lycaon, don't bite the newcomer. Fale, we are well aware of your concern. Your concern is that most people are not fluent in english so they won't use WikiSpecies, correct? English is the most commonly used language in scientific field, so the primary language of WikiSpecies is always english. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OhanaUnited, You have understood what I mean :). In the other hand, I'm not saying that the english have to be removed, but (imho) is important put with the english language others language. Another little thing: the main language spoken is surely the english. But the scientific language is the latin (in fact all the names are in latin). Fale 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New template

I think that a template similar to this one can be very usefull. I will translate if you don't understand ;) Fale 06:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. Lycaon 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why? Fale 14:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxoboxes are not useful on Wikispecies. Lycaon 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Fale 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cause we're not a fork of Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I think that some templates can create a easiest work for create new contents and a more 'standardization' that as outcome create a more easy to read wikispecies Fale 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you have a look at this and this. Lycaon 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thankyou :) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies -- is it on the right track ?

No doubt Wikispecies is not popular, and the number of contributors and enthusiasts is very limited. On the other hand - nature, plants and animals have a huge attraction and interest on the public. In my view, Wikispecies is stagnating into a narrow and limited site. It is restricting itself to the bare bones of scientific nomenclature. But is the science here serious? I doubt it very much!! Each child with no taxonomic background or training can enter dubious data without any thorough check or verification. Any scientist will laugh at this, and will dismiss Wikispecies as a mere playground. So, it is not the science which we are accustomed with at the universities, nor will it ever be !

What to do then? The logical thing to do is to relax the strict rules and allow new and meaningful contents to be added. Here are a few points that crossed my mind:

  • Construct a more graphical and friendly species page, which is now very boring and uninviting.
  • Construct a data entry template which will facilitate and organize more clearly the data entry procedure.
  • Make the main page more meaningful and entertaining - add features like "species of the week" "focus on a species" "species in the news" "new discovered species" etc. I'm sure it will generate a considerable interest.
  • Decide on a leader for this site, who will be a taxonomic authority, and will instruct and set goals for the other administrators.
  • Make species conservation a prime goal - in campaigns, banners at threatened or endangered species pages etc.

Wikispecies is a great tool and has lots of potential. We just need to use it right !

Mariusm 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... and (imho) another goal can be implement a sort of i18n Fale 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting tired of these discussions. Read Wikispecies:Wikispecies Charter and Wikispecies FAQ to see which points you guys are not clear on. WikiSpecies is formed for a specific reason. So unlike Wikipedia, we have a clear goal and practice, meaning there will be a lot less community's request to change consensus. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This project was designed for the purpose of its "scientific nomenclature". People who dislike this should find another project, rather than us altering our vision. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The charter states that Wikispecies is aimed at scientific users and not to the general public. Very well !! But it provides no restrictions as for whom can make data modifications. A kid of 10 isn't a scientific user by all means, but may become an administrator by the current standards, and provide inaccurate or erroneous data, even his intentions are good.
  • Do we have a procedure by which every modification is verified and checked without exception, for accurancy?
  • My suggestions to improve the main page's look, the graphics and the proccess of data entering doesn't contradict with the charter, and only may help in implementing it better!
  • The amount of data involved is so vast, that it is imperative we attract more serious users, or else the project will remain at its infancy stage forever.
  • I don't dislike the project, but only wish heartily to improve it !
Mariusm 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few good points you got there. I'll address your points now.
* A 10-year-old kid has a chance to apply as admin, but most likely fails. Why? He doesn't understand taxonomy and can't do much edit other than VN or IW.
* We don't need to establish a task force or some sort to check accuracy. Advantage of wiki is that everyone can fix errors as soon as they are spotted (look at wikipedia, vandals get reverted almost immediately)
* If you plan to revamp the main page, try design it in a sandbox and present it to the community when you're ready, ok?
* We never finish, never! Not even any wiki.
* Thanks for your constructive criticism to the project.
OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wiktionary admin, not happy with Wiktionary's efforts in the species area. My personal belief is that there ought to be tighter linkage between WT and WSp, with WSp handling all taxonomic hierarchies, unencumbered by the RfV/RfD processes at WT, taking advantage of the particular structure and sources for this endeavor. I view it as WT's job to have common/vernacular names and, perhaps, as many one-part names as we can, to have the species names as in-line wikilinks to WSp. We like to do etymologies and have active classical language fans. I don't see etymologies here. Is that part of your plans or is that a useful thing for WT to do for you? I would be interested in anything that could be done to enhance the value of both Wikis, including sharing XML dumps, templates to facilitate linking, etc. I am not a delegated ambassador, so this is merely exploratory, at my own initiative. 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to login before. DCDuring 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a good idea - "Wikispecies:Charter" sounds more appropriate. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's two of us. I think I may as well just do it, WS is a lonely place - we could be waiting for other agreements for a while... ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out someone has already done it. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Life

Hi, Encyclopedia of Life ( has just released their first version. That will be a good resource for wikispecies. Are there any contacts between wikispecies and EOL?GoEThe 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]