Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders: Difference between revisions
Nuova discussione |
i can't figure out the automatic archive links |
||
(29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Spiders|class=Project}} |
|||
}} |
|||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Tabs}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Tabs}}</noinclude> |
||
{{Shortcut|WT:SPID|WT:Spiders}} |
{{Shortcut|WT:SPID|WT:Spiders}} |
||
{{WikiProject Spiders|class=Project}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| algo = old(30d) |
| algo = old(30d) |
||
Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spiders/Archive 001|Archive 1]] |
* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spiders/Archive 001|Archive 1]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spiders/Archive 2|Archive 2]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spiders/Archive 3|Archive 3]] |
|||
<!-- Comment --> |
<!-- Comment --> |
||
* ''Please also check out the General discussion page on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/General]]''. |
* ''Please also check out the General discussion page on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/General]]''. |
||
Line 24: | Line 28: | ||
Thanks. — [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. — [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub> – [[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC) |
||
== |
== Spider vision article == |
||
Hi I've been working on an article on spider vision since I noticed that we didn't have one. I'd appreciate any help improving it! The draft can be found [[Draft:Spider vision|here]]. I've submitted it for review but there's still a lot that needs improvement, especially the lead and evolution sections. [[User:ThatSpiderByte|ThatSpiderByte]] ([[User talk:ThatSpiderByte|talk]]) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|ThatSpiderByte}} nice work! [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 08:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:those kind of spiders have a very special vision. 3 to 6 times more visual field [[User:Tachito420|Tachito420]] ([[User talk:Tachito420|talk]]) 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''Siamspinops garoensis'' copyright? == |
|||
''[[Siamspinops garoensis]]'' has a description section that I suspect was copied verbatim from the source. Does anybody have access to Zootaxa who can confirm? [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 21:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Plantdrew}} ah, the value of Swiss copyright law is that the World Spider Catalog has a copy accessible to anyone that registers with them (free). Your suspicion was correct, it was directly copied. I removed it. (I seem to recall that I should ask for the history to be removed too, but haven't.) [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Project-independent quality assessments == |
|||
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Content assessment]], but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent [[WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive_198#Project-independent_quality_assessments|Village pump proposal]] was approved and has been implemented to add a {{para|class}} parameter to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. |
|||
Should we add a ''Salticidae Taskforce''? I think 6000+ species will be hard to manage. |
|||
Example [[User:Leomk0403/Salticidae taskforce|here]] (pls improve). |
|||
[[User:Leomk0403|Leomk]] ([[User talk: Leomk0403|Don't shout here]], [[User:Leomk0403/complaints | Shout here!]]) 10:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Do it! I would sign up, but there is this crazy topic ban sanction that restricts me from editing salticid articles. ~ [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|cygnis insignis]] 12:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories. |
|||
===[[jumping spider]]=== |
|||
The article [[jumping spider]] begins "Jumping spiders or the Salticidae are a family of spiders.", I haven't investigated how 'factual' that is, probably less than a qualifiable statement—'''Salticidae''' (jumping spiders) are [or … is?] a family of spiders—, but want to draw attention to the plural in this construct. The article's topic (salticids) is correctly pluralised, or more properly ''inclusive'', by virtue of the citations to verifiable and systematic nomenclature [its taxonomic arrangements of genera, etc.]. |
|||
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} a new {{para|QUALITY_CRITERIA|custom}} parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
That is to say, I wish someone would move this to [[Salticidae]]. ~ [[User talk:Cygnis insignis|cygnis insignis]] 13:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Cygnis insignis}} me too! But we seem to be stuck with the provisions of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Sigh... [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Hello project members! Note that per [[WP:PIQA]], all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we need to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your banner. Would you like to automatically classify these as List-class or Disambig-class perhaps? Alternatively it could just be removed and then the 23 articles in [[:Category:SIA-Class Spiders articles]] would become "unassessed" or just inherit the class from other projects. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like [[Salticidae]] is already in the category. I guess someone beat me to it. The singular/plural for families threw me off at first too. The family itself is a singular object, Salticidae. Another way to think about it is "the group of jumping spiders", where the subject is "group". Including the common name can be a little tricky. Sometimes it is included in the opener ([[Felidae]]), sometimes the singular is specified ([[Pinaceae]]), and sometimes it's included in a separate sentence ([[Corvidae]]). I'm not aware of any guidelines for how to word it- looks like MoS basically says "editor's choice" <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::SIA will now classify as List-class. Banner has been converted to standard scale. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::WP:PLANTS discussed this for plant families. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Singular and plural with the names of taxa]]. I think this holds for spider families too. So "jumping spiders or the Salticidae" is o.k., "jumping spiders or Salticidae" is not. An analogy is "my friends, the Smiths", where "the" is needed with a plural proper noun. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 20:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|MSGJ}} so are the restrictions on list class articles now lifted? The point of SIA-class is that articles can have multiple wikilinks per line, images, references, etc. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 11:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
So... should i do it?[[User:Leomk0403|Leomk0403]] ([[User talk: Leomk0403|Don't shout here]], [[User:Leomk0403/complaints | Shout here!]]) 07:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nothing has changed with the articles, only their assessments. Numerous people have confirmed that SIAs are a subset of lists, so this seems an accurate assessment, unless you have a better idea? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Leomk0403}} not sure what you mean by "do it" – if it's move [[Jumping spider]], I think it would need to be proposed and discussed first. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 13:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|Peter coxhead}} I mean, making the taskforce.[[User:Leomk0403|Leomk0403]] ([[User talk: Leomk0403|Don't shout here]], [[User:Leomk0403/complaints | Shout here!]]) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah, right. Are there enough interested editors? [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 13:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, Cygnis insignis is in. {{ping|Sesamehoneytart|Hyperik|Seacactus 13|Vihaking277}}, any thoughts?[[User:Leomk0403|Leomk0403]] ([[User talk: Leomk0403|Don't shout here]], [[User:Leomk0403/complaints | Shout here!]]) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Credibility bot == |
|||
@leomk0403 sounds great! I'd love to join! I already have made numerous edits to Jumping Spider pages and I also have a lot of fair-quality images to contribute :) [[User:Vihaking277|Vihaking277]] ([[User talk:Vihaking277|talk]]) 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: um... {{ping|Vihaking277}} that's not how you ping. This is the way.[[User:Leomk0403|Leomk0403]] ([[User talk: Leomk0403|Don't shout here]], [[User:Leomk0403/complaints | Shout here!]]) 14:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to [[User:Credibility bot|Credibility bot]]. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at [[Wikipedia:Vaccine safety]] and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at [[WP:CREDBOT]]. Thanks! [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 17:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== List of Arachnologists == |
|||
Our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/List_of_Arachnologists|List of Arachnologists]] includes links, but some also have specific categories like "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taxa_named_by_Paolo_Brignoli Category:Taxa named by Paolo_Brignoli]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taxa_named_by_Carl_Linnaeus Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus]". Do we have a comprehensive list of author categories as well and/or can we merge these lists together? <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 20:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Personally I remain doubtful about these "Taxa named by" categories, because it has never been clarified, to my knowledge, as to whether transferred species are included, and in practice some editors do include them and others don't. In other words, do the categories mean "first named by" as is the case for "Category:Spiders described in YEAR", or do they mean "given the currently accepted name by"? Or possibly "given one of its synonyms by"? [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I've been assuming "named by" really means "described by", which only happens once even if the name changes. The only purpose for these categories I can think of is for research about the author. <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, I agree that this is what it should mean, but I haven't seen a clear statement to this effect. It would be better if the category names matched the "described in YEAR" categories, I think. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've only seen it mentioned once, [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spiders#List of Arachnologists|here]]. Jokes aside, are we not using the [[:Category:Spiders by year of formal description]] category tree? I just added [[Griswoldella aculifera]] to [[:Category:Spiders described in 1916]] a few minutes ago- am I using the wrong categories? <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 05:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Sesamehoneytart}} yes, we should be using this category tree for all spider species articles and for redirects from the scientific name of spiders, either to the monotypic genus or to the vernacular name. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 08:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move discussion: Chrysanthus Janssen --> Chrysanthus (arachnologist) == |
|||
== Junior synonym for ''Stavelaya'' == |
|||
For the genus ''[[Stavelaya]]'', the WSC claims that ''Cnephalocotes dahli'' is the type species, though ''Microneta pusilla'' was correctly published before it. ''[[Microneta]]'' doesn't seem to be invalid, so is there a reason that the type species is not the earliest published description? Or is this an error in the WSC? [https://wsc.nmbe.ch/genus/5916 WSC link] <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 19:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:It's possible for a junior synonym to be designated as a type species (obvious case, the person naming the genus designates a type that they believe to be a distinct species, but which is generally regarded as a synonym by other workers). It is unusual for somebody to designate a type that they believe to be a synonym, but that is exactly what happened here. ''Stavelaya'' is named and typified in [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Danniella-Sherwood/publication/355808543_A_replacement_name_for_Hypsocephalus_Millidge_1978_Araneae_Linyphiidae/links/618bf84661f09877207b1970/A-replacement-name-for-Hypsocephalus-Millidge-1978-Araneae-Linyphiidae.pdf this paper]. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47619654_Hypsocephalus_dahli_is_a_junior_synonym_of_Microneta_pusilla_Araneae_Linyphiidae This paper] explains the synonymy. Apparently ''dahli'' was chosen as the type species because it has a physical type specimen; ''pusilla'' has an illustration, but no physical type specimens. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the requested move discussion happening at [[Talk:Chrysanthus Janssen#Requested move 24 September 2023]]. Thank you for any feedback at that talk page! [[User:Umimmak|Umimmak]] ([[User talk:Umimmak|talk]]) 01:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Taxonomy templates == |
|||
:Discussion is now between [[Chrysanthus (arachnologist)]] and [[Father Chrysanthus]] as possible article titles. Thank you again for any additional comments in that requested move discussion. [[User:Umimmak|Umimmak]] ([[User talk:Umimmak|talk]]) 07:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Currently, only [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=21602541 six] [[Template:Taxonomy]] subpages related to spiders are tagged with {{t|WikiProject Spiders}}. However, [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=21602530 these >4000 pages], apparently all tagged by {{no ping|Ser Amantio di Nicolao}} last year, are using {{t|WikiProject Arthropods}} despite being in scope of this project. I suppose they should be retagged? [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234 kb of .rar files]] ([[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|is this dangerous?]]) 10:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The tagging of taxonomy templates isn't something that bothers me one way or another, but if they are tagged, then, yes, it should be WikiProject Spiders. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== A resource for article expansion == |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of ''[[Cheiracanthium cuniculum]]'' == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]] |
|||
Hi, |
|||
The article ''[[Cheiracanthium cuniculum]]'' has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern: |
|||
<blockquote>'''This is an orphan article because reliable sources, such as the [[World Spider Catalog]] [https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/21580 here], regard it as a "nomen dubium" (dubious name), i.e. it's likely that the name does not actually refer to a species of spider. Hence it's not even linked from the genus article, ''[[Cheiracanthium]]''.'''</blockquote> |
|||
This book https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349297445_A_Field_Guide_to_the_Spider_Genera_of_India has been made publicly accessible by the author. It has some information for many genera whose Wikipedia articles are tiny, specially behavioral and ecological topics that are severely lacking. We can collectively work through this book to expand all these articles, where possible. |
|||
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
[[User:JackTheCritter|JackTheCritter]] ([[User talk:JackTheCritter|talk]]) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Cheiracanthium cuniculum|the article's talk page]]. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Liphistiidae and Heptathelidae == |
|||
== Trichonephila clavata == |
|||
The World Spider Catalog now recognizes [[Heptathelidae]] as distinct from [[Liphistiidae]]. I've made a quick stub at [[Heptathelidae]]. I've also revised the opening of [[Liphistiidae]], but it needs a lot of work, because much of the material now belongs in [[Heptathelidae]]. I don't have much time at present, so I hope there's someone else who can work on this. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[Trichonephila clavata]] needs to have some fiddling done here and on Wikidata, Commons, and Wikispecies. There are two Wikidata entries: [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104386227 Trichonephila clavata] and [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q136925 Nephila clavata]. There are two Commons categories: [[:commons:Category:Trichonephila clavata|Trichonephila clavata]] and [[:commons:Category:Nephila clavata|Nephila clavata]]. There is one Wikispecies article: [[:species:Nephila clavata|Nephila clavata]]. There may be other things I haven't noticed yet, too. Somehow, these all need to be merged appropriately so there's less confusion about it since ''Trichonephila clavata'' and ''Nephila clavata'' are the same thing. How should we do this to cause the least disruption possible? I'm happy to help out, but since this is in an area in which I am less familiar, I wanted input on how to proceed. Please {{tlx|ping}} me in any response. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<span style="color:maroon;">Join WP Japan</span>]]!</small> 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It looks like the [https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/22433 World Spider Catalog] moved it from ''Nephila clavata'' to ''Trichonephila clavata'' in 2019. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<span style="color:maroon;">Join WP Japan</span>]]!</small> 18:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Nihonjoe}} Wikidata should have two items, since so-called taxon items are actually instances of taxon names. There can be items for many synonyms of the same taxon. |
|||
::The Commons categories do need to be merged. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Nihonjoe}} After some false starts, I think I have managed to restore the Wikidata items. Each taxon name should have links to the entry for that taxon name in any taxonomic database that includes that name, whether as an accepted name or a synonym. Then the taxonbar in the article lists all Wikidata items that are synonyms for that taxon. See, as just one example, the taxonbar at ''[[Acmispon decumbens]]''. All of the articles in [[:Category:Taxonbars with multiple manual Wikidata items]] have multiple Wikidata items for synonyms of the taxon linked from the taxonbar. Do not merge Wikidata items for synonyms: there's a taxon synonym property to link synonyms together, and a basionym property. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Peter coxhead}} Thanks for sorting through all of that. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<span style="color:maroon;">Join WP Japan</span>]]!</small> 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Nihonjoe}} no problem. The use of the term "taxon" in Wikidata consistently misleads editors new to Wikidata's taxonomy, in my experience. Some of us have tried in the past to replace the term by "taxon name" (which is what it is), but weren't successful. Sigh... [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I consolidated the two Wikimedia Commons categories at [[:commons:Category:Nephila clavata]], at least for now, since most of the files were in this category, and the file names mostly use "Nephila". It's always difficult to know what to do at Commons; there are a lot of categories under obsolete scientific names. It may not matter too much if there's a category redirect. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 17:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Grammostola porteri no longer a separate species == |
|||
== Redirect Talk Pages == |
|||
More than a few of the more recent publications include new monotypic genera. Manual of style is in agreement that information for both should exist on the higher taxon, and the lower one should redirect. However, I don't think we've discussed talk pages for these redirects. In general, I've been leaving talk pages empty for new redirects because I don't think it's useful, with a few exceptions such as the main page was converted to a redirect and the talk page already has contents, or something like that. The MOS for redirects is... confusing. I'm still not sure what is considered a "hard redirect" and what is a "soft redirect". However, other bio-projects are leaving them blank ex. ({{No redirect|Dugong dugon}}, {{No redirect|Eucheira socialis}}, {{No redirect|Monodon monoceros}}) They all have different styles of page contents, which is fine, but none of these monotypic redirects have contents for the talk pages. I don't know what the general consensus is for this project- or if we have one- but I'm going to keep leaving them blank for newly created pages, if only to keep the new articles homogenized. <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 11:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ ping| Sesamehoneytart}} they should have WP talk templates, so the redirects get maintained together and nothing falls through the cracks. Many editors do not do so, so the cracks are large. --[[User:Awkwafaba|awkwafaba]] ([[User talk:Awkwafaba|📥]]) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Awkwafaba}} The redirects can all be found in [[:Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders]], a category created by the {{tl|R to monotypic taxon|spider}} template on the main page. Their respective talk pages generally don't have more than a project banner. It seems like unnecessary duplicate information, but also I think any information on a redirect talk page should instead be on the talk page of the article it is being redirected to. Additionally, {{t1|Talk page of redirect}} implies that not only should empty/nonexistent talk pages for redirects be left alone, but that unnecessary talk pages qualify for G6 speedy deletion. What needs to be maintained that can't be done via [[:Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders]]? <span style="font-family:Courier;">[[User:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:green">Sesame</span>]][[User talk:Sesamehoneytart|<span style="color:blue">honey</span>]][[User:Sesamehoneytart/created articles|<span style="color:red">tart</span>]]</span> 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I do see the argument that [[:Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders]] implies that the redirect falls within the oversight of this project, but equally I also see the value of making the oversight explicit. Also, without the template on the talk page, the redirect row in the table at [[WP:WikiProject_Spiders#Articles]] isn't correct. I will certainly continue to complete the redirect talk page. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I rarely add WikiProject banners to redirects, but do add redirect categories (to/from monotypic taxon, alternative scientific name, to/from scientific name). Redirect categories can facilitate finding redirects which should have a WikiProject banner added if that is desired. What benefit does the banner itself have? There are a few tools and reports that depend on WikiProject banners being present. They are: |
|||
::::1. Hot articles; shows pages with the most recent edits. Unlikely that any redirect would ever make the list |
|||
::::2. Cleanup listing; shows pages with various maintenance tags. I've never seen a redirect with any maintenance tags, I'm not sure that any would ever apply |
|||
::::3. Dab solver; shows articles with links to disambiguation pages. The backlog of links to dab pages has been conquered, and this tool doesn't pick up redirects wrongly targeted to dab pages anyway |
|||
::::4. Article alerts; shows pages up for discussions (move request, deletion, etc.); for several years now it picks up redirects based on the WikiProject banners of their target, so no need to tag redirects for this report to work |
|||
::::5. Popular pages; most viewed pages in past month. It is somewhat interesting to see what redirects might end up there |
|||
::::6. Assessment log; shows changes to quality/importance assessment. Will also show page moves and conversion of a redirect to an article (but only if "class=redirect" isn't set). The act itself of tagging a redirect shows up in the assessment log |
|||
::::7. Project based watchlists; it's possible to see changes to all articles tagged for a project. There's usually too much activity for any reasonably large project to be able to monitor changes effectively. It's also possible just to see changes to talk pages, which is potentially more useful (e.g. seeing issues raised on talk pages that don't have any active Wikipedians watching them), however the act of tagging redirects is noise for this purpose |
|||
::::8. The assessment table; shows the number of redirects that have been tagged for a project |
|||
::::I'm not opposed to tagging redirects for WikiProjects, but the benefits of doing so don't seem high enough for me to want to spend my time doing so (if I ever run out of more important tasks, I can always go back through the redirects I've categorized and search for the ones missing WikiProject banners). I lost the little enthusiasm I had for redirect tagging once article alerts started picking up redirects by their targets. [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think we can all agree that it's not worth spending time searching for nonexistent redirect talk pages and tagging them when there are many more productive things to do. But I do still think that when you create or modify a redirect, it's worth creating the talk page. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 12:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm realizing tagging all spider redirects is a much smaller task than it would be for many of the other organism projects. Very few spiders are at a vernacular name title and most don't have a vernacular name at all, and as far as I'm aware, there haven't been very redirects created for synonyms. Redirects to/from monotypic taxa account for a bigger share of spider redirects than most other organism projects. In contrast, birds have a minimum of two redirects for every species article (scientific name, and vernacular name following IOC capitalization standards). Plants are mostly at scientific name titles, but there are a lot of vernacular name redirects, and there have been some editors who've been very prolific creating redirects for plant synonyms (one editor created more than 20,000 plant synonym redirects). [[User:Plantdrew|Plantdrew]] ([[User talk:Plantdrew|talk]]) 19:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
The World Spider Catalog revised ''[[Grammostola porteri]]'' as a junior synonym of ''[[Grammostola rosea]]'' in 2022. I've updated the latter's page to reflect this, but I'm not sure how to proceed with the former's, deletion and redirect? [[User:Benjappel|Benjappel]] ([[User talk:Benjappel|talk]]) 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Web decoration == |
|||
:{{ping|Benjappel}} there was no useful referenced material at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grammostola_porteri&oldid=1192504438 this version of ''Grammostola porteri''] so just converting to a redirect seems correct to me, and is what I have done. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi. I've written on the [[Talk:Web decoration|talk page of "Web decoration"]] but nobody answered. I suggested to move the pages to right title (''Stabilimentum''), but i need a mover to complete the process. Can somebody help me? Thanks. --[[User:Lorenzo Longo|Lorenzo Longo]] ([[User talk:Lorenzo Longo|talk]]) 17:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:16, 20 August 2024
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Main page | Talk page | Style guide | Assessment | Activity log | Members | Resources |
---|
- Archive 1
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Please also check out the General discussion page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/General.
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Spider vision article
[edit]Hi I've been working on an article on spider vision since I noticed that we didn't have one. I'd appreciate any help improving it! The draft can be found here. I've submitted it for review but there's still a lot that needs improvement, especially the lead and evolution sections. ThatSpiderByte (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ThatSpiderByte: nice work! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- those kind of spiders have a very special vision. 3 to 6 times more visual field Tachito420 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Siamspinops garoensis copyright?
[edit]Siamspinops garoensis has a description section that I suspect was copied verbatim from the source. Does anybody have access to Zootaxa who can confirm? Plantdrew (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: ah, the value of Swiss copyright law is that the World Spider Catalog has a copy accessible to anyone that registers with them (free). Your suspicion was correct, it was directly copied. I removed it. (I seem to recall that I should ask for the history to be removed too, but haven't.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
[edit]Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we need to remove any non-standard classes like SIA-class from your banner. Would you like to automatically classify these as List-class or Disambig-class perhaps? Alternatively it could just be removed and then the 23 articles in Category:SIA-Class Spiders articles would become "unassessed" or just inherit the class from other projects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- SIA will now classify as List-class. Banner has been converted to standard scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: so are the restrictions on list class articles now lifted? The point of SIA-class is that articles can have multiple wikilinks per line, images, references, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing has changed with the articles, only their assessments. Numerous people have confirmed that SIAs are a subset of lists, so this seems an accurate assessment, unless you have a better idea? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: so are the restrictions on list class articles now lifted? The point of SIA-class is that articles can have multiple wikilinks per line, images, references, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- SIA will now classify as List-class. Banner has been converted to standard scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Credibility bot
[edit]As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Requested move discussion: Chrysanthus Janssen --> Chrysanthus (arachnologist)
[edit]Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the requested move discussion happening at Talk:Chrysanthus Janssen#Requested move 24 September 2023. Thank you for any feedback at that talk page! Umimmak (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Discussion is now between Chrysanthus (arachnologist) and Father Chrysanthus as possible article titles. Thank you again for any additional comments in that requested move discussion. Umimmak (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
A resource for article expansion
[edit]Hi,
This book https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349297445_A_Field_Guide_to_the_Spider_Genera_of_India has been made publicly accessible by the author. It has some information for many genera whose Wikipedia articles are tiny, specially behavioral and ecological topics that are severely lacking. We can collectively work through this book to expand all these articles, where possible.
JackTheCritter (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Liphistiidae and Heptathelidae
[edit]The World Spider Catalog now recognizes Heptathelidae as distinct from Liphistiidae. I've made a quick stub at Heptathelidae. I've also revised the opening of Liphistiidae, but it needs a lot of work, because much of the material now belongs in Heptathelidae. I don't have much time at present, so I hope there's someone else who can work on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Grammostola porteri no longer a separate species
[edit]The World Spider Catalog revised Grammostola porteri as a junior synonym of Grammostola rosea in 2022. I've updated the latter's page to reflect this, but I'm not sure how to proceed with the former's, deletion and redirect? Benjappel (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Benjappel: there was no useful referenced material at this version of Grammostola porteri so just converting to a redirect seems correct to me, and is what I have done. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)