Wikidata talk:Wikispecies

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Include Wikispecies into Wikidata[edit]

(moved from Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/02#Include_Wikispecies_into_Wikidata)

If we included Wikispecies into Wikidata one could automatically create the boxes in the wikipedia articles for animals and one could store things in different languages side by side.--92.193.47.177 09:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just do the proposition: Wikidata:Property_proposal Snipre (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. This isn't a request for a property as far as I can tell. πr2 (t • c) 22:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I think Wikidata would be the perfect place, see Wikidata:Infoboxes task force/terms. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could upload all data from Wikispecies to Wikidata, but what would the purpose of Wikispecies be after that? πr2 (t • c) 22:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
deletion due to redundancy--92.193.47.177 22:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the links to Wikispecies, especially on non-WMF sites? πr2 (t • c) 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the URLs could be redirected. But I don't think we ever delete wikis, though. Likely (soft) redirects will be created and the wiki locked, but even that I'm not sure of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt even soft redirects would be created. If Wikispecies became redundant, the most likely result would just be the wiki locked and a site notice to relevant information now going to Wikidata. However, I don't know if Wikispecies would be entirely redundant to Wikidata. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As phase 2 is coming close we should take a look at pages like Hemerocallis fulva (Q1424440) and make sure that all their info can (if the folks of Wikispecies want) be included into the Wikidata item. Having a field for Latin names would be a good start. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps everyone should do some preliminary research. First, Wikispecies' FAQ would have easily answered a lot of the questions. Second, the mandate of Wikispecies is to create an "open, wiki-based species directory and central database of taxonomy", which appears to be different from Wikidata's mandate of "centralizes access to and management of structured data, such as interwiki references and statistical information". Third, as I wrote on the Wikispecies mailing list in mid January, there are serious problems with the navigation and search abilities of Wikidata. Until those issues have been resolved, there is no chance that a database with high qualities of information be incorporated into a pool of unknown information quality. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of cause Wikidata in phase 1, only collecting interlanguage links, obviously can't store the information of Wikispecies. Taking your example Canis lupus: There is no field "Binomial name" yet (see Wikidata:Property proposal), so you will find "Canis lupus" only by accident. There is no taxonavigation, so obviously taxonavigation does not work yet. We are talking about two different Wikidatas. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onus is on you guys to explain why you're reinventing the wheel and doing the work that we already did. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata's goals seems to be a superset of the goals of Wikispecies. I agree with Kolja21's comments [especially the one directly below mine]. For example, everything on the page species: Genetta angolensis can be stored in a Wikidata item (but only after phase II). πr2 (t • c) 19:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google's search results [and maybe some other Google stuff], Wikipedia's infoboxes, and other [web] applications will use information from Wikidata to get information on a topic, like looking at the item about France and listing some facts [like population]. As such, it would be great to have all Wikispecies information on Wikidata here, but I'm not sure whether Wikispecies would still have a purpose after that. Is there anything Wikispecies does that can't be done here? Maybe "Species of the week", but we could do that on a biology portal. Personally, I don't think Wikidata can replace Wikispecies in the near future, but I think other people would disagree. πr2 (t • c) 19:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We also store references to the original scientific literature that described or revise the genus/species. I don't see if these were done by any Wikipedia or other sister projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References are planned for all properties on Wikidata and could also be added in a specific format for biological items. πr2 (t • c) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies has done a good work as a database of taxonomy, but Wikidata will cover all subjects. Wikispecies work for hisself, Wikidata will provide the informations for 285 Wikipedias. It will maintain the interlanguage links and the data for the info boxes and templates. If you have invented anything that can be used for this purpose, you are more than welcomed to join. --Kolja21 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Wikispecies becomes obsolete with Wikidata. The Urls should be redirected to wikidata and the whole project then stopped and all pages protected.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PiRSquared17, Moe Epsilon, Kolja21, Giftzwerg 88:, As Wikispecies user, I believe you may have a point, and I think the time has maybe come for the Wikispecies community to start discuss this. Is it possible to make a "soft-start", like letting the interwiki language links be integrated into wikidata, letting the community evaluate the progress and discuss further integration? Dan Koehl (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And one more question; would it be possible to make some sort of dummy, which clearly shows how the interface would look for a Wikispecies contributor, and that would make it possible to get an overview over how editing would be different? Dan Koehl (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, integrating interwiki-links from Wikidata is overdue! --Murma174 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page(s) updated as part of documentation overhaul[edit]

Hi all, I recently made some updates to Wikidata:Wikispecies as part of a larger overhaul of all sister projects documentation, including adding some subpages and new navigation. I hope these changes will prove useful for the Wikispecies community, help sustain contributions to Wikidata in the future, and encourage further collaboration.

Cheers -Thepwnco (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to start the integration[edit]

What is needed as the first small steps to integrate Wikispecies with the rest of Wikimedia sites, through Wikidata?

One example is InterWikilink, and this example, pages about autopatrolling:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11302303 has an option to submit pages about autopatrol under "Other sites" where presently commons is activated, through the page commons:Commons:Patrol, but I can't submit the page on Wikispecies there? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest question, for me, is do we simply want "interwiki" links to Wikispecies pages; or does Wikidata completely obsolete Wikispecies, meaning that the latter can be retired, (perhaps after the introduction of a tailored view of Wikidata items)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies has been a project going on since 2004. late it has undergone new changes and is dynamically developing with new energy and a grwoing number of users within its community. I thin times has come to discuss certain integration with sister projects, as well as collaboration and copperation with wikidata. Your words, suggesting closing down the whole project and "retire" it, may not be the first step the Wikispecies community would expect as the first step for an increased cooperation? Wikimedia Foundation has given no such an indication whatsoever, why I suggest first steps of integration could be discussed, without the risk of jumping into a conflict from the first step taken? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (This said, I may have misunderstood your words Dan Koehl (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not misunderstand my words; but nor do they imply "conflict". Let me put it this way: what does Wikispecies do, that cannot be done in Wikidata, or by using Wikidata with an alternative interface, such as https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q19690573 ? Or let me put it another way: why do we need Wikispecies, but not Wikichemicals, Wikibiography or Wikibuildings? Why do we need to store identical data about, say Desmoxytes rhinoparva, in two places? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it like this, why do we need humans? Wikipscies is an existing project since 2004, and I just simply don't believe that the best very first step to take for a cooperation between Wikispecies and Wikidata, is to suggest that one of them should be closed down? Especially if you don't know what the Wikispecies is, does, or is used for, and why we need it. I think I get the point what you mean by storing information on two places, but don't you see any other option to start a discussion about cooperation and integration else than in the first minute vote for closing down one of them?
I have now started species:Wikispecies:Project Wikidata a Wikispecies Project which I hope can contribute in some ways towards a constructive cooperation in those matters. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question is a non-sequitur. "We've done it like this since 2004" is not a reason to keep doing something. I am well aware of what Wikispecies is and what it does, having made numerous contributions and created new items there; not least species:Template:Wikidata. I haven't "voted to close down" anything; I have asked questions, which you have not yet answered. Please do so now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds I am in some sort of conflict already, and I step out of that at once. Above I just politely asked two questions, which has not been addressed. I have been trying to put a seed for a joint cooperation. I have taken the step of establishing a forum of cooperation species:Wikispecies:Project Wikidata. I invite Wikidata users to take part of the discussions there, and at the talk page. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to get the integration working[edit]

Any? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See preceding section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any refined Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is hard. Wikispecies, hopefully, was built by users who had real information and used that information to create pages. Wikidata has to deal with everything anybody ever put in a Wikipedia (often enough just bits dragged off the www, based on embarrassingly little information). The projects are very different.
        Presumably the most valuable part of Wikispecies are the Original Publications, but these are not easily imported into Wikidata, unless there is to be a new property so that it can be put in as a string... - Brya (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitelinks[edit]

In case anyone here missed the status update last month, support for sitelinks for Wikispecies is planned for the 20th of October. - Nikki (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they are at least partially working now! Dan Koehl (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only partly? If you've found a problem, please do let us know :) - Nikki (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, the software works, but is actually anybody adding links to Wikispecies in Wikidata and removing wikitext interwikis from Wikispecies?--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost 53,000 links now, so yes, they are being added! :) Some of those came from people adding links by hand, most of them came from a bot importing some links, which I just mentioned on Wikidata:Bot requests (it's probably best to keep the discussion about importing links on that page). By the way, you can find the current number of links using this AutoList query (the database it's using isn't quite real time, but it's normally only a few minutes out of date, which is good enough).
As for removing the wikitext interwikis from Wikispecies, I know there is a global bot which can remove redundant interwiki links from wikitext (meta:User:YiFeiBot). I asked on the operator's talk page about it but it seems it will need approval first, see meta:User_talk:Zhuyifei1999#Wikispecies.2C_Meta-Wiki_and_Mediawiki.org_interwiki_links. - Nikki (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple ISSNs[edit]

While working on Wikidata:Bot requests#Journals I found a bunch of items with multiple ISSNs, where Wikispecies has a separate page for each. I'm not sure how these should be handled. Any ideas?

The list

- Nikki (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These could be for the paper and online version (I cannot tell), in which case both ISSN's could be included. No idea how the links to Wikispecies could be managed. - Brya (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to start by asking, on Wikispecies, about merging the pages there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Q15765125 which has three ISSN's, two of which are for Zoologia, which is the successor of Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. I would favour a split of the item, but I am not getting into this. - Brya (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communication breakdown?[edit]

Looks like most communication about Wikidata is done at species:Village Pump and has no counterpart at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. That's bad. --Succu (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your claim is correct, nor your conclusion. But supposing for the sake of argument that it is, how do you think WikiProject Taxonomy could be made more welcoming? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC
Omitting your first nonsense sentence: Maybe as an admin at Wikispecies you have some suggestions about how to improve the communication. I found no clue for an improvement by yours at Wikispecies. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My first sentence is not "nonsense", but allow me to clarify it for you. Your assertion that "most communication about Wikidata is done at species:Village Pump" is false. Your "has no counterpart at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy" is irrelevant, as the counterpart is this page. Your claim that "That's bad", if the former pair were true, likewise. My question, "how do you think WikiProject Taxonomy could be made more welcoming? " seems to have been ignored by you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been helpful to have discussions located at d:Wikidata_talk:Wikispecies and species:Wikispecies talk:Project Wikidata? If it is, then it seems like those pages should be used consistently for discussions of stuff that impact the other project (and each project should be alerted to any new discussions on the other projects page). However, a recent discussion on common names that was relevant to Wikidata took place at species:Wikispecies:Village Pump, and was not posted to the Wikispecies Project Wikidata talk page, Wikidata's Wikispecies talk page, nor to d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy.

For my part, as somebody who is interested in taxonomy on WMF projects, I have no trouble keeping up with the WS Village Pump or WD's WikiProject Taxonomy talk page. But I don't think to check in on the WS page on WD or the WD page on WS. I'm not sure it's helpful to segregate discussion about WS/WD issues to subpages with very few watchers, especially when some relevant threads still end up on the main talk page anyway. Post in WS Village Pump or WD WikiProject Taxonomy and cross notify the other project of relevant discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed[edit]

off topic
OK people ... deep breath! Wikispecies is under the control of a vicious sysop mob who are excluding and obstructing "outsiders" like myself from making constructive contributions. Instead, they are making one huge mess of it all. Yesterday, I resorted to socking (as Eves Pair) to try to fix one small genus. This was my version. It has now been changed already to this nonsense! The wrong references are listed, dois and external links have been removed, synonyms are listed as if they were valid species, and nobody gives a shit! People here at Wikidata really need to understand that WS is full of errors and other nonsense. Is it really worth taking any notice at all of WS? I suggest not ... Stho002 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are not welcome! --Succu (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not socking here! Besides, correct information is far more important, don't you think? The WS mob are protecting their own mistakes from correction and foisting it all on present and future generations who might be silly enough to look to WS for information! I'm concerned that Wikidata may end up propagating WS nonsense, that's all, so I'm just trying to tell it to you as it is ... Stho002 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a future generation of your own? --Succu (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider other people to be my possession (i.e. "my own"). Anyway, that question (rhetoric, if I get your drift) hardly addresses the actual issues at stake here, does it? You guys are in danger of wasting your time propagating WS nonsense. It would be nice to think that we could discuss that, with a view to finding some sort of solution, or do you believe that the best way to solve a problem is to shoot the messenger? Stho002 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need an explaination: What exactly you are doing better as this bunch of WS mob are protecting their own mistakes. When.Where.Why? --Succu (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already given you one excellent example whereby my corrections have been reverted again to nonsense. Again: This was my version. It has now been changed already to this nonsense! The wrong references are listed, dois and external links have been removed, synonyms are listed as if they were valid species, and nobody gives a shit! ... Stho002 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: I can't see what is the benefit of discussing with User:Stho002 and letting him deprecate WS. He doesn't represent WS in the least bit and his "story" is far from being a true one. Suffice it to say he's permanently blocked at WS and at e-WP. Please let's not waste our time with this sort of discussion. You claim a communication breakdown with WS? Very well, I'm here to communicate with you. Can you please specify the problems/concerns you have so that we at WS can address them? All the best Mariusm (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to give a balanced view of WS, not an agenda driven overly favourable view (or an agenda driven overly negative view, which Mariusm is giving of me). BTW, I see that the Robinsonia page on WS has, as a result of my prodding, now been restored almost to how I had it, but it is still not quite right! Stho002 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002, are you telling us you know on birds and bees more than anyone else on WS? That you're never wrong? That everything you do is just fine, and everything we do 100% wrong? Well, this I might call objectivity! Mariusm (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikispecies?[edit]

Not appropriate here

The project page here says "Wikispecies is an open, wiki-based species directory and central database of taxonomy. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users."

Well now, it is indeed wiki-based, but that is really the only thing that the above statement has got correct. It is not truly "open" any more (see my comments above). It is slightly unclear what exactly is meant by "scientific users", but, just about the only thing that unites most actual scientists is their dislike of Wikimedia sites as sources of information, except for very simple things like if you want to know the chemical formula for ethanol or something like that. The reality is that WS doesn't actually have a serious audience. Forgetting for a moment all the nonsense in it, at best it provides highly specialised information only of serious interest to a handful of specialists who would never come to WS for that information anyway! Having said that, there is some potential to turn WS into something more useful, but not while it is under the control of a mob of insidious misanthropes whose fragile egos seem to require constant wanking ... Stho002 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, the reason many scientists do not like WM projects is because they believe anyone can edit and they do not appreciate putting time in only to have it undone by people who do not work with the species they do (restricting this to biology). I have spent the last 5 years attempting to undo the damage to Wikimedia's reputation that is done by people who think they know these species. When I write about a group that I have spent 25 years working on, have over 120 publications on, on species I described I do not expect to be told I am wrong, based only on opinion not science or published evidence. I know a number of registered users who are scientists, when I hear things like Darrel Frost being told by an editor that he knows nothing about frogs I find that rather disdainful. Yes there is an issue here in that because we are all effectively anonymous these young editors do not likely realise they have just challenged a persons life's work. As for you, you are no different for one, you are a specialist nomenclatural taxonomist as am I, you specialise in invertebrates. You do not like being told your wrong either and expect people to do everything the way you want, without discussion. However, your blocks and bans from WM had nothing to do with this, it also was not about stopping you from contributing. Personally I tried to find ways to have your input to continue. It is about your continuous disregard for the principals and general editing rules of WM, your abuse of Sysop privs when you had them (which you now accuse others of) and your repeated abuse of other editors and the constant and flagrant use of sock-puppets to get your way. Wikimedia is a community effort, you have not demonstrated your capacity to be a part of a community. This is why you were blocked. Predictably, the moment you have not had your way, you have resorted to abuse, on whatever forum you can manage to still use. Your input is ignored and of no value until such time as you learn to co-operate. You need to understand this, at present you do not. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately, Faendalimas is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His main agenda is to impose his own taxonomic work on Wikimedia sites, while at the same time suppressing the work of others whom he sees as "inferior rivals" (mainly someone called Raymond Hoser). To do so, Faendalimas needs to "bend" many Wikimedia contents policies. So, his sermon above is nothing but pure hypocrisy. I have always been willing to cooperate, but cooperation is a two way street, and the WS mob solidy refuses to cooperate with me while at the same time constantly bleating that I don't know how to cooperate. It wpould seem that their definition of cooperation is that I accept all their demands, even though most of these demands are made with total disrespect to reason and what is best for the project ... Stho002 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is he? What about your own agenda? You omitted any referenced evidens. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I neither consider Ray inferior nor a rival, I actually know him. He also does not work on species I also work on, he mostly works on snakes I do not. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Are you forgetting about your precious turtles, Scott? Wollumbinia vs. Myuchelys, etc., where you renamed Hoser's taxa using identical concepts and tried everything to discredit Hoser's work, initially basing your argument on nonsense, like claiming Hoser's names to be nomina illegitima, which is a botanical term only! Stho002 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again Stho002, you accousing people without evidence. It's hard time to block you here too. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here (I forgot that the turtle case was not Hoser but Wells, but same principle) is my original discussion (from 2009) with Scott ... Stho002 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To kick you off? But I have some doubts you get this non personal. --Succu (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please speak to me in coherent English sentences! I have no idea what you are trying to say, or why you seem to have predetermined that I am the "bad guy" here?? Wake up! Stho002 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002: Rede mit mir. --Succu (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Old history Stephen, I was not the one who declared Wollumbinia unavailable (was Fritz and Havas, 2007), I agreed with it. No one who works with turtles accepts it as available. That was not my doing. The papers that called it nomina illegitima were not authored by me. That is what the IUCN considers it, ie the Turtle Checklist, I am not an author on that. I have told them they cannot use that term. I may have repeated what they said to you, I do not remember and it is not worth reading now. The concept of that genus was part of my Masters done from 1997 to 2000 (7 years before Wells did anything) and Wells knew about my Masters. You have no idea what transpired in that situation, and it will not be said by me in public. It is not something I choose to remember. It is history now and it is staying there. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Old history eh? Leopards don't change their spots. Anyway, I'm quite happy to put all that aside and work with you to find a solution to current WS problems. But are you??? Stho002 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my decision you know that. I have repeatedly said I think you could contribute. But the choice is yours, can you work with people, and convince them you will, or not? Your right, leopards do not change their spots, but can you spot the leopard? Things are not always what they seem. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are either lying or deluded: the choice is not mine. They have no intention of working with me whatever I say or do. That is the problem ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well you are not likely to be offered the proverbial olive branch at this point. So no I am neither lying nor deluded. You will have to convince them to vote for your return. I do not know how you can do that or what you can say. I have supported you recently and will again, but I am one vote, among many. But one piece of advice, you just said they will not "listen" to you, that implies you are demanding their attention. You cannot demand this, you need to show some humility and a genuine willingness to cooperate. Also cut the abuse, it does not help your case. Your block is indefinite, what that means is that it can only be lifted after discussion. So no they are not going to come to you, you have to go to them. So it is your choice what happens, you do nothing or continue the complaints nothing will change, ever. You have to find a way to communicate your intent, in a way that is genuine, only you can do this. Up to you. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: will you stop this chatter please. Mariusm (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

species:Category:Taxon authorities[edit]

It seems that these get regularly new entries (10+ per day). These have a fairly standard format and most if not all information could be stored at Wikidata. Maybe users at Wikispecies are interested in building a template that could draw the information from Wikidata.
--- Jura 14:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

species:Template:Biography was created to be available for this purpose, and to facilitate the import of templated data into Wikidata. Uptake has been disappointing, with only around 200 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the opposite, e.g. the data on Q28154142 would be displayed on species:Heather Lerner. I tried previewing the template on that page, but it didn't display anything. The list of taxa would need to be done by Listeria, but people might like it if a template would display the remaining in a similar way.
--- Jura 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template "was created to be available for this purpose"; that has not yet been implemented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same could probably done with species:Category:Reference_templates, e.g. display data from Q28171620 on species:Template:Lerner et al., 2017.
--- Jura 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
species:Template:cite journal is similarly available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you know that it can't display anything from Wikidata either.
--- Jura 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No; I know that Wikidata integration has not yet been implemented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think both templates are useless, at least for my proposal here (which makes me wonder why you mention them). For the references, one could probably import one from Wikipedia. For the taxon authorities, a new one would need to be made, ideally in LUA.
--- Jura 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the species:Template:Biography does have the advantage of the necessary layout. One just would need to convert it to LUA (or attempt to insert #property).
--- Jura 21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Andy's efforts were in part compounded by my concurrent efforts to localize the site's interface which was met with some resistance/hesitation, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A template that displays the data from Wikidata in a localized way on authority pages could do this in localized form. The Wikidata interface might not be the easiest, but compared to these two approaches it might still be easier for users.
--- Jura 09:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

indigenous to (P2341) broader usage or equivalent[edit]

I was wondering whether the property P2341 should be used to identify the endemic location of plant and animal species and sub-species. AT the moment it is specified for more social aspects rather than the natural habitats. If it is not to be used, is there an alternative that is appropriate? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Items for individual specimen[edit]

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; * *Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler Tris T7 TT me Photocyte GoEThe (talk) Egon Willighagen

Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Hey. What do you think about having individual items for certain notable specimen? I created Berlin specimen (Q112066527) as an example. --Shisma (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Wikispecies&oldid=1643237562"