Wikispecies talk:Featured articles
I think this is a great idea. It would show people, especially new comers, how Wikispecies articles are supposed to look. It would, hopefully, cut down on the number of articles that merely repeat Wikipedia articles. When this is up and running, there should be a link on the Main Page. I also recommend having Featured Articles from all the Kingdoms (if possible), and not just Animalia. -- Rutledge, 25 December 2006 9:28 A.M. (EST)
Maybe all regular contributors can add a few 'personal' favourites? And agreed, that articles should come from as many different kingdoms as possible. --Kempm 15:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Question: Should "External Links" be treated as "References"? For an example of what I'm talking about, see Isurus paucus. -- Rutledge, 14: 10, 25 December 2006 (EST)
- Yep I think it is the same. Some call References, or Reference, or in this case External links, we also have sections like Sources, or Sources & Illustrations, or just Links. I always use References myself (and always plural). And the section should contain the name of the magazine/book where the other of the species name published his original description, and the section should give evidence for the content of the page. --Kempm 20:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we can chose 52 articles so we can change them on a weekly basis and reserve a place for them on the front page. Maybe target for next year is 365 articles, changing on daily basis? Unless 52 votes is a bit too much, then at least 12, for a change every month. --Kempm 11:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
How can we have featured articles when we have not come up with a standard yet? Totipotent 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oops steady. I'm trying to get these standards. See User:Kempm/Request For Change II followup for pending discussions. They were almost all started by me, but in general I'm talking to myself. One thing is sure I'm not authoritive and without proper feedback we do not have a policy.
- Just making a comment. Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For instance, I title my synonym section "Synonymy" and this page has it as a SUB section titled "Synonyms." Felis tigris Linnaeus, 1758 is not a synonym either. That is why there are () around Linnaeus' name, in the first place. Totipotent 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't a real standard for this, and therefore both formattings are correct. Felis tigris is the basionym for Panthera tigris, but basionym is only a special synonym, but still a synonym. I don't mind if we write it like: Glomus_australe. But it is clear when Panthera tigris has Linnaeus in brackets and Felis tigris not, that Felis tigris is the special synonym.
- Then name it a basionym. Listing it this way makes it seem like Linneaus gave the same thing two names. If we do it on one page then we do it on all pages and we have not voted on this yet. Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference section on this page is terrible. From one reference to the next the format is different. The third reference is missing an author, the second has the journal title abbreviated, and none of them conform to an agreed upon reference style. Totipotent 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. I write Systema Naturae always like that, you can only find Systema Naturae on this page because it gave the original description for Felis tigris. Mammal Species of the World is the taxonomic reference for Mammals. I copy this exact line from my computer and is therefore exactly the same as all the other Mammal pages I changed, or created. The study from Luo et al. is not used on other pages because his study only gives proof for the alignment of subspecies.
- The synonyms section is not complete, tigris has been named fluviatilis (Sterndale, 1884) montana (Sterndale, 1884) regalis (J.E. Gray, 1842) striata (Severtzov, 1858) But it is unsure whether the name was Felis fluviatilis, Tigris fluviatilis, Neotigris fluviatilis, or even something else. If you have the correct information, I would very much like to see that added.
- MSW doesn't have authors because it is a project of 2200 pages, made by many authors. I can give you a full bibliography if you want.
- Wikispecies is supposed to be something worth going to. If you are going to name a page that is incomplete a featured article, then we are not going to succeed. Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe MSW should NOT be listed as a reference for Panthera tigris and just be listed on the Mammalia article page.
This page also sends the author link to a redirect page. I feel that it is more correct to have these author links point directly to the full name page, NOT a redirect abbreviated name page. Totipotent 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is standard. All (well most) are redirected. It's convenient and works.
- Well let say that the author's name is Hugh McCormick Smith. There have been many "Smiths" and just putting smith would not be correct. Though it would look correct to an unsuspecting viewer because it is a blue link. Also, Linnaeus had a son and maybe there could be errors found there, too. Therefore, it is more correct and safer to link to specific pages. When I look at an article's sourcecode and I see [ [Hugh_McCormick_Smith|Smith] ], I know the article's editor purposely linked to Hugh McCormick Smith NOT Andrew Smith. Do you see my point? Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the publication that moved Felis tigris to Panthara referenced on this page? This page, by no stretch of the imagination is ready to be shown as the epitome of Wikispecies, yet. Totipotent 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Adding more references can only become important when we're going to add it like this
- Systema Naturae (Original description),
- Phylogeography and Genetic Ancestry of Tigers (Panthera tigris). (Current alignment of subspecies).
- Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition, 2005 ISBN 0801882214 (Taxonomic and Nomenclatural data).
- R.I. Pocock: Tigers. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 33(3): 505-541. (moving tigris to Panthera)
We would have to write down what all the different references actually add. There are species out there, that have been moved from one species to another maybe 100's of times. Without the explanation it becomes just a list.
You can discuss if there's need to provide evidence and if we need to mention Pocock's work if MSW 3 already gives evidence for it. I don't think we want a list of works that mention Tigers. I could probably find a list of 1000 books.
- Pocock's work is very relevant to this article, more so than the MSW 3. Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether this is a good article is personal choice, but your arguments are not justified in my opinion. Everything on this page is standard as far as we have it. I would very much appreciate it that we decide on the things for which we don't have standards. I brought up the discussions, trying to force standards, but like I said, I'm not going to force them upon the community. --Kempm 09:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well then I have a number (60+; and with a little work I can increase that number to ~300 in a short amount of time) of articles ready for you all to vote on (for featured article) that lack an image (and Vernacular names) but are accurate, neutral, complete, and formatted correctly. But I want to conform to a standard and thus I am waiting... Totipotent 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
He also added an idea on what the featured article should look like:
The FA (featured article) should not be to showcase existing work here, but to attract attention to the portal as a whole. On WP the FA is indeed to showcase their exemplary articles but that is because they are past the stage of gathering a large enough base to claim the article is all comprehensive. They already have a readership and are merely entertaining them with their FA.
With WS, we need to attract a readership... with a new template leading to WS from WP, which ill make soon... so that we get the right people to contribute... the result being WS gets a stable readership and become an established source! Now here is my biggest concern, article here look to me to be lists, which is fine from taxonomic point of view, but the Featured article box on the main page is going to look very weird. I think the featured article should be an article we choose from WP. The reason being that we don't have such a boring looking main page. Taxonomy is very interesting but its subjects is even more interesting, when i thought of WS (even though id never been here) i thought of it as a WP all about animals/living things, and how they are taxonomically categorised, but when i came here i saw its all bear bones, no info about the animals integrated here, just lists etc. This is taxonomy, which is very good, people are going to come to WS all the time from WP to check what an animal/plant is when we affix all the WS templates in the relevant WP articles, but we have need to have a bit more colour. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kempm (talk • contribs).