![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
|
Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.
A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.
* ... that
Dippy is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world? (1 April)
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't Brochu (2003) have more information on post-cranial anatomy? LittleJerry ( talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canterbury Museum ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Gallimimus has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 16, 2019 and also Echo parakeet for June 20. Please check the articles need no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2019 or at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2019 as the case may be.— Wehwalt ( talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Having some discussions around Category:Taxa by if you'd like to participate...… Pvmoutside ( talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Spinophorosaurus you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Enwebb --
Enwebb (
talk) 00:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
Spinophorosaurus you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Spinophorosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Enwebb --
Enwebb (
talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll assume you were guessing when you created redirect, for whatever reason you did that, it has made a complication as I am unpicking my own error in creating the genus article using an outdated source. If you were and are using a source when editing, best to note that as you go. cygnis insignis 14:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, can I ask you some question for the Tree of Life Newsletter? I notice you've been really active lately, working on two articles that are now FAC. Let me know if that would at all interest you. If not, no hard feelings whatsoever. Thanks, Enwebb ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
|
|
On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.
Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.
1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?
2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?
3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?
4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?
5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?
6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?
Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Sent by DannyS712 ( talk) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confuciusornis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporal region ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
When I come across a problem linked to Commons I think of you, because I think you are, or were, an administrator there. My problem revolves around the images of the tropical tree Lannea welwitschii, for which I am creating an article. There are five images on Commons [1] which, apart from the one showing the labels, are wrong/misleading. They show a smooth trunk, which may well be the correct tree, but the large leaves are not, and may be attached to a vine twining round the trunk. I realised they were wrong when I was adding a description to the article from a reliable source which described the leaves as being pinnate with 5 to 7 leaflets. Here is a picture which shows a leaf. Apart from removing the image from my article, what should I do about the Commons images? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Post_KPG_Coelacanth_fossils check to see if this works because that link does not-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think my original intention was to include information that mr flink would not allow me to, and to just write page on something interesting that many people had not heard of. It shows up as the top search result, so im sure we would need to be careful if we want to redirect it-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
dude thats why i put it ther in the viliditay section to show that the source was creationist.-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thats the point, in the article i used that source to point out creationist, its syays this in the article "the one from Palestinian territories (named by its describer Khalaf as Macropomoides palaestina) were written by a creationist and they had no drawn out pictures.[10][11][12]" Did you read it? Im trying to say that i put it in because i wanted to show people it was a creationist source, come one man its been here since https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Post_Cretaceous_Coelacanth_fossils&oldid=899779009. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ FunkMonk:, I saw your name as a mentor in this list and saw your were specifically interested in zoology. Well, I am a first-time nominator, and this article doesn't specifically pursue to zoology but I thought of consulting you anyway. I am talking about the article Extinction, which I feel follows the WP:FAC and is ready for nomination. Any suggestions from your side. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's a restrictive definition. That's the point. And everybody uses it. A movie or story isn't science fiction just because it's fiction that involves science. It needs space ships and/or time travel. Star Trek and Star Wars, for example. Just as fantasy is stuff like Excalibur or Merlin. Harry Potter isn't fantasy just because it has magic and wizards. It's children's adventure fiction with supernatural elements. NOT fantasy. It's not set in a medieval setting, after all. Lord Of The Rings is fantasy. Calling Jurassic Park science fiction would be like calling all music from the 80s "80s music." Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. ( talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Istiodactylus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 11, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Gallimimus, "made famous by appearing in the movie Jurassic Park (like Dilophosaurus which was promoted recently), and is therefore the most popular article about an "ostrich dinosaur"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Project name | Relative WikiWork |
---|---|
Cats | 4.79
|
Fisheries and fishing | 4.9
|
Dogs | 4.91
|
Viruses | 4.91
|
ToL | 4.94
|
Cetaceans | 4.97
|
Primates | 4.98
|
Sharks | 5.04
|
All wikiprojects average | 5.05
|
Dinosaurs | 5.12
|
Equine | 5.15
|
Bats | 5.25
|
Mammals | 5.32
|
Aquarium fishes | 5.35
|
Hypericaceae | 5.38
|
Turtles | 5.4
|
Birds | 5.46
|
Australian biota | 5.5
|
Marine life | 5.54
|
Animals | 5.56
|
Paleontology | 5.57
|
Rodents | 5.58
|
Amphibians and Reptiles | 5.64
|
Fungi | 5.65
|
Bivalves | 5.66
|
Plants | 5.67
|
Algae | 5.68
|
Arthropods | 5.69
|
Hymenoptera | 5.72
|
Microbiology | 5.72
|
Cephalopods | 5.74
|
Fishes | 5.76
|
Ants | 5.79
|
Gastropods | 5.8
|
Spiders | 5.86
|
Insects | 5.9
|
Beetles | 5.98
|
Lepidoptera | 5.98
|
Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.
We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.
1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?
2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?
3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?
4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?
5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
sent by
ZLEA via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph of Asilisaurus which begins "In a recently published research conducted by paleontologists from Virginia Tech ..." is basically incomprehensible.
Can you fix this or lob it to someone who can? Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 05:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I hope that you don't take this personally, but for security reasons I adhere to the strict policy of never disclosing my e-mail address to any Wikipedian. And I'm about as rigid in such matters as a block of granite. In happier times, I would have been delighted to make your acquaintance on a more informal level, as I've come to know you as an intelligent and kind person — who, of course, shares an interest in a subject very dear to me!
Greetings, -- MWAK ( talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Spinophorosaurus. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 I am trying to find records of a Cretaceous Megalosaurus, here ONE of the most recent articles http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 It displays a possible Cretaceous Megalosaurus footprint, I will be finding more, just go to the talk page and make the section, I will follow right there -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
the study I gave was from the university of Barcelona and is actually from a scientific paper -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought megalosaurus was only a wasebasket during the 1800s-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kosmoceratops you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jens Lallensack --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the "pterosaur (or pterodactyl)", a group "often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images. It is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters." -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Is mein edits now looking good. Elimade said its fine, just remove some images and I did. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
And this, my northern friend, is why I tend to keep well away from dog articles!
William Harris
talk
08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I've unwatched the article. It's a BATTLEGROUND and has become a toxic environment. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions and those of regular collaborators, but I will not work with an editor spewing PAGs and casting aspersions. I've done enough of these GA/FAs as both reviewer and nom that I can recognize trouble when I see it. Unless the disruption is stopped by an admin that GA review is dead in the water. You won't hurt my feelings if you put it on hold. Atsme Talk 📧 17:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Paraceratherium has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
|
Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.
A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.
* ... that
Dippy is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world? (1 April)
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't Brochu (2003) have more information on post-cranial anatomy? LittleJerry ( talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canterbury Museum ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Gallimimus has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 16, 2019 and also Echo parakeet for June 20. Please check the articles need no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2019 or at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2019 as the case may be.— Wehwalt ( talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Having some discussions around Category:Taxa by if you'd like to participate...… Pvmoutside ( talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Spinophorosaurus you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Enwebb --
Enwebb (
talk) 00:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The article
Spinophorosaurus you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Spinophorosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Enwebb --
Enwebb (
talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll assume you were guessing when you created redirect, for whatever reason you did that, it has made a complication as I am unpicking my own error in creating the genus article using an outdated source. If you were and are using a source when editing, best to note that as you go. cygnis insignis 14:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, can I ask you some question for the Tree of Life Newsletter? I notice you've been really active lately, working on two articles that are now FAC. Let me know if that would at all interest you. If not, no hard feelings whatsoever. Thanks, Enwebb ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
|
|
On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.
Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.
1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?
2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?
3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?
4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?
5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?
6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?
Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Sent by DannyS712 ( talk) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confuciusornis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporal region ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
When I come across a problem linked to Commons I think of you, because I think you are, or were, an administrator there. My problem revolves around the images of the tropical tree Lannea welwitschii, for which I am creating an article. There are five images on Commons [1] which, apart from the one showing the labels, are wrong/misleading. They show a smooth trunk, which may well be the correct tree, but the large leaves are not, and may be attached to a vine twining round the trunk. I realised they were wrong when I was adding a description to the article from a reliable source which described the leaves as being pinnate with 5 to 7 leaflets. Here is a picture which shows a leaf. Apart from removing the image from my article, what should I do about the Commons images? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Post_KPG_Coelacanth_fossils check to see if this works because that link does not-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think my original intention was to include information that mr flink would not allow me to, and to just write page on something interesting that many people had not heard of. It shows up as the top search result, so im sure we would need to be careful if we want to redirect it-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
dude thats why i put it ther in the viliditay section to show that the source was creationist.-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thats the point, in the article i used that source to point out creationist, its syays this in the article "the one from Palestinian territories (named by its describer Khalaf as Macropomoides palaestina) were written by a creationist and they had no drawn out pictures.[10][11][12]" Did you read it? Im trying to say that i put it in because i wanted to show people it was a creationist source, come one man its been here since https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Post_Cretaceous_Coelacanth_fossils&oldid=899779009. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ FunkMonk:, I saw your name as a mentor in this list and saw your were specifically interested in zoology. Well, I am a first-time nominator, and this article doesn't specifically pursue to zoology but I thought of consulting you anyway. I am talking about the article Extinction, which I feel follows the WP:FAC and is ready for nomination. Any suggestions from your side. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's a restrictive definition. That's the point. And everybody uses it. A movie or story isn't science fiction just because it's fiction that involves science. It needs space ships and/or time travel. Star Trek and Star Wars, for example. Just as fantasy is stuff like Excalibur or Merlin. Harry Potter isn't fantasy just because it has magic and wizards. It's children's adventure fiction with supernatural elements. NOT fantasy. It's not set in a medieval setting, after all. Lord Of The Rings is fantasy. Calling Jurassic Park science fiction would be like calling all music from the 80s "80s music." Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. ( talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Istiodactylus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 11, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Gallimimus, "made famous by appearing in the movie Jurassic Park (like Dilophosaurus which was promoted recently), and is therefore the most popular article about an "ostrich dinosaur"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Project name | Relative WikiWork |
---|---|
Cats | 4.79
|
Fisheries and fishing | 4.9
|
Dogs | 4.91
|
Viruses | 4.91
|
ToL | 4.94
|
Cetaceans | 4.97
|
Primates | 4.98
|
Sharks | 5.04
|
All wikiprojects average | 5.05
|
Dinosaurs | 5.12
|
Equine | 5.15
|
Bats | 5.25
|
Mammals | 5.32
|
Aquarium fishes | 5.35
|
Hypericaceae | 5.38
|
Turtles | 5.4
|
Birds | 5.46
|
Australian biota | 5.5
|
Marine life | 5.54
|
Animals | 5.56
|
Paleontology | 5.57
|
Rodents | 5.58
|
Amphibians and Reptiles | 5.64
|
Fungi | 5.65
|
Bivalves | 5.66
|
Plants | 5.67
|
Algae | 5.68
|
Arthropods | 5.69
|
Hymenoptera | 5.72
|
Microbiology | 5.72
|
Cephalopods | 5.74
|
Fishes | 5.76
|
Ants | 5.79
|
Gastropods | 5.8
|
Spiders | 5.86
|
Insects | 5.9
|
Beetles | 5.98
|
Lepidoptera | 5.98
|
Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.
We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.
1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?
2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?
3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?
4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?
5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
sent by
ZLEA via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph of Asilisaurus which begins "In a recently published research conducted by paleontologists from Virginia Tech ..." is basically incomprehensible.
Can you fix this or lob it to someone who can? Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 ( talk) 05:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I hope that you don't take this personally, but for security reasons I adhere to the strict policy of never disclosing my e-mail address to any Wikipedian. And I'm about as rigid in such matters as a block of granite. In happier times, I would have been delighted to make your acquaintance on a more informal level, as I've come to know you as an intelligent and kind person — who, of course, shares an interest in a subject very dear to me!
Greetings, -- MWAK ( talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Four Award | |
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Spinophorosaurus. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 I am trying to find records of a Cretaceous Megalosaurus, here ONE of the most recent articles http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 It displays a possible Cretaceous Megalosaurus footprint, I will be finding more, just go to the talk page and make the section, I will follow right there -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
the study I gave was from the university of Barcelona and is actually from a scientific paper -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought megalosaurus was only a wasebasket during the 1800s-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kosmoceratops you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jens Lallensack --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the "pterosaur (or pterodactyl)", a group "often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images. It is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters." -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Is mein edits now looking good. Elimade said its fine, just remove some images and I did. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
And this, my northern friend, is why I tend to keep well away from dog articles!
William Harris
talk
08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk, I've unwatched the article. It's a BATTLEGROUND and has become a toxic environment. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions and those of regular collaborators, but I will not work with an editor spewing PAGs and casting aspersions. I've done enough of these GA/FAs as both reviewer and nom that I can recognize trouble when I see it. Unless the disruption is stopped by an admin that GA review is dead in the water. You won't hurt my feelings if you put it on hold. Atsme Talk 📧 17:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Paraceratherium has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)