This 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. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Rain forest shrew has a Taxobox that gives order Eulipotyphla, while its Taxonbar navbox gives order Soricomorpha. I suspected one would redirect to the other, but they're separate articles.
I'm skeptical there's much utility in providing a navbox all the way back to the order level; family would probably make more sense. If I'm reading up about leopards and ocelots, I'm way more likely to want to navigate to Cheetah and Jaguarundi that to articles on mongooses and seals and wolves. The connection between felids (or whatever) and the rest of their entire order is generally too tenuous for a navbox (see criteria at WP:NAVBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There's an edit request, at Template talk:Taxonomy/Craniata#Template-protected edit request on 23 November 2017, to change the parent taxon to Olfactores. Wanted to get some review of that before I implement it, since sometimes these requests are wrong. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I found this list the other day, and in my opinion, the list name is too ambiguous and not very helpful to readers. I thought of moving the page to List of introduced fish in Sri Lanka, and I can add an incomplete tag.....I did also reach out to the original author and they are OK with any title move.........any other suggestions on what to do with this list?...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 01:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, on all the assessments I look at the IUCN Red List website, the doi field is empty and the html has "display:none;" set. e.g. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/167968/0. Yet it was there when I updated article Congo tetra on 23 November. Anyone else noticed this? William Avery ( talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I created the above article today, and linked an image from Wikimedia Commons. The image has a copyright watermark (and there are a few others on commons for the same species)......If I remember right, watermarked photos are not generally allowed.......since commons hasn't deleted them, and looks like they've been there for a while, and looks like the image creator was the one who took the photo, and uploaded and watermarked the image, am I to assume the images are OK for both Wikipedia and Commons?....... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to simplify the taxobox color scheme at Template talk:Taxobox#Refined proposal. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Kaldari ( talk) 05:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
A new bibliographical landscapeAt the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance ( fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ancyromonadida was categorised only in the non-existent Category:Varisulca.
I will place it instead in Category:Excavata. I'm not sure if this is the best option, so maybe someone with more expertise can check it out. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The article species is a GA nominee and will benefit greatly from all participants here to identify gaps and help in improvement through additional review comments. Shyamal ( talk) 08:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Metadata on the MarchFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved, as suggested, from an earlier discussion.
I would like there to be a way in which if {{ Speciesbox}} is used to provide the taxobox for an article about a monospecific genus, the synonyms for the genus (if any) and the synonyms for the species (if any) are separated. This can be achieved easily by adding "subheadings" to the list of synonyms, but a standardized way of doing it would be good. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
|authority=
and |parent_authority=
, we should add |parent_synonyms=
+ |parent_synonyms_ref=
. Then rather than putting the genus and species synonyms in one 'box', when |parent_synonyms=
was present, there would be a 'box' headed "Genus synonyms" followed by a 'box' headed "Species synonyms". I suppose there could also be |grandparent_synonyms=
, etc. if there was any demand for this.The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.which makes some articles on monospecific genera about the species instead of about the genus, causing inconsistency in the taxonbox and in overall article structure of articles which should pattern together.) Umimmak ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I was curious if there is a strategy to deal with taxonbar templates on genus-level articles when it is monotypic and incorporates information about the species. For instance the genus Sinochasea is about both the genus and the species Sinochasea trigyna, which is a redirect. I didn't immediately find documentation about how to deal with this, but perhaps I am overlooking it. Thanks! -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can do this, as long as all of the key {{
IUCN}}
parameters are sterilized; namely, |id=
, |date=
/|year=
(published or assessed), |title=
(accepted name or synonym), and |author=
/|assessor=
, which I've already done moderate sterilization on, and that they match the most recent output of the citation API for a given |id=
. I just wanted to gauge the project's interest of doing so. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
|status_ref=
instead of filling in the bulleted source in the Sources section. Yes, bare refs are hard enough to parse, but bare sources are even harder to find, even when only deviating slightly from a common format. After I see enough of these, though, I'm sure I can eventually convert most/all of them too (if and only if they match the most recent IUCN citations, of course), so I'd move those into my priority #4. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Working this now; should be fun. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1st priority done, unless they escaped my Polbot-filter. 5636 bare sources converted on 5635 articles, out of a total of 11,374 Polbot articles found under Category:Species by IUCN Red List category. 2nd & 3rd priorities found on those pages were taken care of, if possible. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Working priority #2. I've made a large edit to The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates, replacing 36 {{ IUCN2008}}s, and would appreciate/feel more comfortable if I knew someone more knowledgeable vetted it; positive/negative feedback welcome. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed some citations (
1,
2,
3) using the fine print at the top of the IUCN page as the title of the citation, instead of the much larger text right below it (which, to me, is the rightful title), i.e. |title=Nilopegamys plumbeus (Ethiopian Amphibious Rat, Ethiopian Water Mouse)
, instead of |title=Nilopegamys plumbeus
for
IUCN #40766. What's the desired option here? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Mostly done with all 3 priorities after a little over a month, aside from ~800 exceptions/malformed authors/manual checks/etc., which will take me ~just as long to go through, so I'll post an update (probably final) now right after the bulk of my edits.
IUCN Template | Transclusions 2017 Dec 21 |
Transclusions 2018 Jan 19 |
∆ |
---|---|---|---|
{{ IUCN2006}} | 773 | 618 | -155 |
{{ IUCN2007}} | 91 | 46 | -45 |
{{ IUCN2008}} | 2,489 | 1,787 | -702 |
{{ IUCN2009.1}} | 129 | 83 | -46 |
{{ IUCN2009.2}} | 372 | 192 | -180 |
{{ IUCN2010}} | 487 | 136 | -351 |
{{ IUCN2010.1}} | 89 | 44 | -45 |
{{ IUCN2010.2}} | 83 | 37 | -46 |
{{ IUCN2010.3}} | 156 | 77 | -79 |
{{ IUCN2010.4}} | 169 | 76 | -93 |
{{ IUCN2011.1}} | 115 | 68 | -47 |
{{ IUCN2011.2}} | 203 | 112 | -91 |
{{ IUCN2012.1}} | 74 | 48 | -26 |
{{ IUCN2012.2}} | 335 | 110 | -225 |
{{ IUCN2013.1}} | 418 | 105 | -313 |
{{ IUCN2013.2}} | 988 | 276 | -712 |
{{ IUCN2014.1}} | 420 | 51 | -369 |
{{ IUCN2014.2}} | 467 | 146 | -321 |
{{ IUCN2014.3}} | 905 | 297 | -608 |
{{ IUCN2015.1}} | 76 | 27 | -49 |
{{ IUCN2015.2}} | 64 | 27 | -37 |
{{ IUCN2015.3}} | 14 | 6 | -8 |
{{ IUCN2015.4}} | 18 | 8 | -10 |
{{ IUCN}} | 21,385 | 14,369 | -7,016 |
Totals | 30,320 | 18,746 | -11,574 |
Total {{IUCN/x}}s converted to {{
Cite journal}} ({{IUCNx}}s all call {{IUCN}}; avg=1.11 templates fixed/page) |
7,802 |
I wish I'd taken the first snapshot right before I started, instead of after completing priority #1s 5 days in, but priority #1s only included ~108 collateral template-conversions. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, and sorry for cross posting, as it has been flagged as too long, and having looked I agree, it is also way out of date. I have started major editing of the Turtle I am doing it in steps with a save so that is easier to track what I have done. So far I have done the first paraagraph, still needs some refs, and removed the enourmous phylogeny, that is out of date and plain wrong anyway. I am also going to slash the references, currently it has notes and refs, will make one refs list only that will refer to inlines and remove any unused refs from the bottom. Not done this yet. Would appreciate feedback as I go through it. Particularly from anyone who knows turtles well. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.
Wikidata as HubOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants is used to quickly notify all interested project members of Wikidata discussions (it's not automatic; it's only when someone at WD uses a nice template they have, {{ping project}} that you'll get notified). I've added the link to the WP:TREE main page next to the first instance of "Wikidata", since I only happened across this list by accident, and since I only see a small # of WP:TREE regulars on the list. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I am interested in adding a lot of new stub articles for arthropod species. I can add several thousand of these over a period of a few months, provided I can get a bot approved. (I am hoping this won't present a problem since the bot will be creating new pages instead of altering existing pages, and I can limit the number of new pages per day to something reasonable.)
In my mind, these stubs will serve three primary purposes:
The quality of the pages might be a little above average for WikiPedia stubs. I uploaded these pages today as examples. The content was generated locally with what I hope to use later as a bot, and posted manually on Wikipedia. The topics were roughly selected as a random sample over arthropods.
I've made a similar post on the Arthropods Project, and was hoping to get some input from the Tree of Life project as well.
Thanks! Bob Webster ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The bot to make stub articles for arthropod species is coming along. It even has a name: Qbugbot. I've made a couple of thousand stub articles and manually posted them. The articles now include Speciesbox and Automatic Taxobox, CS1 citation templates, and a taxonbar. The first online trial was done today for the BRFA, creating and uploading the twenty random articles below. Everything worked fine, except for a minor bug that has been fixed (talk pages were blank for pages with images). Comments, questions, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome.
Bob Webster ( talk) 02:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Rain forest shrew has a Taxobox that gives order Eulipotyphla, while its Taxonbar navbox gives order Soricomorpha. I suspected one would redirect to the other, but they're separate articles.
I'm skeptical there's much utility in providing a navbox all the way back to the order level; family would probably make more sense. If I'm reading up about leopards and ocelots, I'm way more likely to want to navigate to Cheetah and Jaguarundi that to articles on mongooses and seals and wolves. The connection between felids (or whatever) and the rest of their entire order is generally too tenuous for a navbox (see criteria at WP:NAVBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There's an edit request, at Template talk:Taxonomy/Craniata#Template-protected edit request on 23 November 2017, to change the parent taxon to Olfactores. Wanted to get some review of that before I implement it, since sometimes these requests are wrong. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I found this list the other day, and in my opinion, the list name is too ambiguous and not very helpful to readers. I thought of moving the page to List of introduced fish in Sri Lanka, and I can add an incomplete tag.....I did also reach out to the original author and they are OK with any title move.........any other suggestions on what to do with this list?...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 01:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, on all the assessments I look at the IUCN Red List website, the doi field is empty and the html has "display:none;" set. e.g. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/167968/0. Yet it was there when I updated article Congo tetra on 23 November. Anyone else noticed this? William Avery ( talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I created the above article today, and linked an image from Wikimedia Commons. The image has a copyright watermark (and there are a few others on commons for the same species)......If I remember right, watermarked photos are not generally allowed.......since commons hasn't deleted them, and looks like they've been there for a while, and looks like the image creator was the one who took the photo, and uploaded and watermarked the image, am I to assume the images are OK for both Wikipedia and Commons?....... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to simplify the taxobox color scheme at Template talk:Taxobox#Refined proposal. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Kaldari ( talk) 05:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
A new bibliographical landscapeAt the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance ( fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ancyromonadida was categorised only in the non-existent Category:Varisulca.
I will place it instead in Category:Excavata. I'm not sure if this is the best option, so maybe someone with more expertise can check it out. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.
Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The article species is a GA nominee and will benefit greatly from all participants here to identify gaps and help in improvement through additional review comments. Shyamal ( talk) 08:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Metadata on the MarchFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Moved, as suggested, from an earlier discussion.
I would like there to be a way in which if {{ Speciesbox}} is used to provide the taxobox for an article about a monospecific genus, the synonyms for the genus (if any) and the synonyms for the species (if any) are separated. This can be achieved easily by adding "subheadings" to the list of synonyms, but a standardized way of doing it would be good. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
|authority=
and |parent_authority=
, we should add |parent_synonyms=
+ |parent_synonyms_ref=
. Then rather than putting the genus and species synonyms in one 'box', when |parent_synonyms=
was present, there would be a 'box' headed "Genus synonyms" followed by a 'box' headed "Species synonyms". I suppose there could also be |grandparent_synonyms=
, etc. if there was any demand for this.The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.which makes some articles on monospecific genera about the species instead of about the genus, causing inconsistency in the taxonbox and in overall article structure of articles which should pattern together.) Umimmak ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I was curious if there is a strategy to deal with taxonbar templates on genus-level articles when it is monotypic and incorporates information about the species. For instance the genus Sinochasea is about both the genus and the species Sinochasea trigyna, which is a redirect. I didn't immediately find documentation about how to deal with this, but perhaps I am overlooking it. Thanks! -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can do this, as long as all of the key {{
IUCN}}
parameters are sterilized; namely, |id=
, |date=
/|year=
(published or assessed), |title=
(accepted name or synonym), and |author=
/|assessor=
, which I've already done moderate sterilization on, and that they match the most recent output of the citation API for a given |id=
. I just wanted to gauge the project's interest of doing so. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
|status_ref=
instead of filling in the bulleted source in the Sources section. Yes, bare refs are hard enough to parse, but bare sources are even harder to find, even when only deviating slightly from a common format. After I see enough of these, though, I'm sure I can eventually convert most/all of them too (if and only if they match the most recent IUCN citations, of course), so I'd move those into my priority #4. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Working this now; should be fun. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1st priority done, unless they escaped my Polbot-filter. 5636 bare sources converted on 5635 articles, out of a total of 11,374 Polbot articles found under Category:Species by IUCN Red List category. 2nd & 3rd priorities found on those pages were taken care of, if possible. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Working priority #2. I've made a large edit to The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates, replacing 36 {{ IUCN2008}}s, and would appreciate/feel more comfortable if I knew someone more knowledgeable vetted it; positive/negative feedback welcome. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Recently I've noticed some citations (
1,
2,
3) using the fine print at the top of the IUCN page as the title of the citation, instead of the much larger text right below it (which, to me, is the rightful title), i.e. |title=Nilopegamys plumbeus (Ethiopian Amphibious Rat, Ethiopian Water Mouse)
, instead of |title=Nilopegamys plumbeus
for
IUCN #40766. What's the desired option here? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Mostly done with all 3 priorities after a little over a month, aside from ~800 exceptions/malformed authors/manual checks/etc., which will take me ~just as long to go through, so I'll post an update (probably final) now right after the bulk of my edits.
IUCN Template | Transclusions 2017 Dec 21 |
Transclusions 2018 Jan 19 |
∆ |
---|---|---|---|
{{ IUCN2006}} | 773 | 618 | -155 |
{{ IUCN2007}} | 91 | 46 | -45 |
{{ IUCN2008}} | 2,489 | 1,787 | -702 |
{{ IUCN2009.1}} | 129 | 83 | -46 |
{{ IUCN2009.2}} | 372 | 192 | -180 |
{{ IUCN2010}} | 487 | 136 | -351 |
{{ IUCN2010.1}} | 89 | 44 | -45 |
{{ IUCN2010.2}} | 83 | 37 | -46 |
{{ IUCN2010.3}} | 156 | 77 | -79 |
{{ IUCN2010.4}} | 169 | 76 | -93 |
{{ IUCN2011.1}} | 115 | 68 | -47 |
{{ IUCN2011.2}} | 203 | 112 | -91 |
{{ IUCN2012.1}} | 74 | 48 | -26 |
{{ IUCN2012.2}} | 335 | 110 | -225 |
{{ IUCN2013.1}} | 418 | 105 | -313 |
{{ IUCN2013.2}} | 988 | 276 | -712 |
{{ IUCN2014.1}} | 420 | 51 | -369 |
{{ IUCN2014.2}} | 467 | 146 | -321 |
{{ IUCN2014.3}} | 905 | 297 | -608 |
{{ IUCN2015.1}} | 76 | 27 | -49 |
{{ IUCN2015.2}} | 64 | 27 | -37 |
{{ IUCN2015.3}} | 14 | 6 | -8 |
{{ IUCN2015.4}} | 18 | 8 | -10 |
{{ IUCN}} | 21,385 | 14,369 | -7,016 |
Totals | 30,320 | 18,746 | -11,574 |
Total {{IUCN/x}}s converted to {{
Cite journal}} ({{IUCNx}}s all call {{IUCN}}; avg=1.11 templates fixed/page) |
7,802 |
I wish I'd taken the first snapshot right before I started, instead of after completing priority #1s 5 days in, but priority #1s only included ~108 collateral template-conversions. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, and sorry for cross posting, as it has been flagged as too long, and having looked I agree, it is also way out of date. I have started major editing of the Turtle I am doing it in steps with a save so that is easier to track what I have done. So far I have done the first paraagraph, still needs some refs, and removed the enourmous phylogeny, that is out of date and plain wrong anyway. I am also going to slash the references, currently it has notes and refs, will make one refs list only that will refer to inlines and remove any unused refs from the bottom. Not done this yet. Would appreciate feedback as I go through it. Particularly from anyone who knows turtles well. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.
Wikidata as HubOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants is used to quickly notify all interested project members of Wikidata discussions (it's not automatic; it's only when someone at WD uses a nice template they have, {{ping project}} that you'll get notified). I've added the link to the WP:TREE main page next to the first instance of "Wikidata", since I only happened across this list by accident, and since I only see a small # of WP:TREE regulars on the list. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I am interested in adding a lot of new stub articles for arthropod species. I can add several thousand of these over a period of a few months, provided I can get a bot approved. (I am hoping this won't present a problem since the bot will be creating new pages instead of altering existing pages, and I can limit the number of new pages per day to something reasonable.)
In my mind, these stubs will serve three primary purposes:
The quality of the pages might be a little above average for WikiPedia stubs. I uploaded these pages today as examples. The content was generated locally with what I hope to use later as a bot, and posted manually on Wikipedia. The topics were roughly selected as a random sample over arthropods.
I've made a similar post on the Arthropods Project, and was hoping to get some input from the Tree of Life project as well.
Thanks! Bob Webster ( talk) 05:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The bot to make stub articles for arthropod species is coming along. It even has a name: Qbugbot. I've made a couple of thousand stub articles and manually posted them. The articles now include Speciesbox and Automatic Taxobox, CS1 citation templates, and a taxonbar. The first online trial was done today for the BRFA, creating and uploading the twenty random articles below. Everything worked fine, except for a minor bug that has been fixed (talk pages were blank for pages with images). Comments, questions, suggestions, and criticisms are welcome.
Bob Webster ( talk) 02:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)