Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders

Main page	Talk page	Style guide	Assessment	Activity log	Members	Resources

• Archive 1
• Please also check out the General discussion page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/General.

Article alerts

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Task force proposal

Should we add a Salticidae Taskforce? I think 6000+ species will be hard to manage. Example here (pls improve). Leomk (Don't shout here, 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. ~ cygnis insignis 12:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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.].

That is to say, I wish someone would move this to Salticidae. ~ cygnis insignis 13:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: me too! But we seem to be stuck with the provisions of WP:COMMONNAME. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2021 (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" Sesamehoneytart 17:25, 22 November 2021 (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. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So... should i do it?Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@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. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I mean, making the taskforce.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right. Are there enough interested editors? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, Cygnis insignis is in. @Sesamehoneytart, Hyperik, Seacactus 13, and Vihaking277:, any thoughts?Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@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 :) Vihaking277 (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

um... @Vihaking277: that's not how you ping. This is the way.Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 14:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Arachnologists

Our List of Arachnologists includes links, but some also have specific categories like "Category:Taxa named by Paolo_Brignoli" and "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? Sesamehoneytart 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"? 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. Sesamehoneytart 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. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only seen it mentioned once, 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? Sesamehoneytart 05:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@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. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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? WSC link Sesamehoneytart 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 this paper. 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. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates

Currently, only six Template:Taxonomy subpages related to spiders are tagged with {{WikiProject Spiders}}. However, these >4000 pages, apparently all tagged by Ser Amantio di Nicolao last year, are using {{WikiProject Arthropods}} despite being in scope of this project. I suppose they should be retagged? 1234 kb of .rar files (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. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cheiracanthium cuniculum

The article Cheiracanthium cuniculum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an orphan article because reliable sources, such as the World Spider Catalog 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.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Trichonephila clavata

Trichonephila clavata needs to have some fiddling done here and on Wikidata, Commons, and Wikispecies. There are two Wikidata entries: Trichonephila clavata and Nephila clavata. There are two Commons categories: Trichonephila clavata and Nephila clavata. There is one Wikispecies article: 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 {{ping}} me in any response. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the World Spider Catalog moved it from Nephila clavata to Trichonephila clavata in 2019. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@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. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@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. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for sorting through all of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@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... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)