Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/General

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New stuff

[edit]

List of taxonomists

[edit]

You can use the List of Arachnologists to easily wikify the describers of taxa.

Is included in the {{WPSpiders}} template, so everybody can check what's important now in WPSpiders from any Spider Talk page.
Will help us to get an overview over the articles: Which are good, which need care, and so on.
As the two above, copied from WPBeatles. We'll see if the log will be used and be useful. --Sarefo 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on

[edit]
  • User:Ardric47 started to split the larger family species lists into smaller chunks. Probably this is a good idea, but let's not rush things. These lists are automatically generated, and this should be considered in any changes on them.
[edit]

I think that sometimes diagnostic drawings would be really helpful, or just interesting (eg, the two-eyed and four-eyed species in this article. Does anybody know if it's allowed to just use drawings like that, as fair use for example? But anyway, when we get the spider section to a certain level (where it is interesting for laymen, and at the same time professionals can see the possibilities) we should just ask the authors if they provide pictures like this under an open license. --Sarefo 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

[edit]

I propose that at least family pages should be moved to taxonomic names.

  • Sometimes, the current names do not refer to the whole of the family, but only to some better-known members; this is confusing.

I would even like to move all species pages to taxonomic names, and create vernacular links to them;

  • this would make it easier for non-native English speakers to find their way around, and
  • there would be less confusion with ambiguous names (eg., Fishing spider, which is also a name used for Bolas spiders; and
  • it would make finding the species in lists easier (well, at least for me ;).
  • it would also facilitate inter-wiki work greatly.

--User:Sarefo 08:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is contrary to longstanding Wikipedia policy, which is to prefer common names. (At least when unambiguous). Scientific names should be preferred if there is no established common name; or the common name is sufficiently ambiguous or ill-defined that a meaningful article (other than a dab page) can't be written on the topic. --EngineerScotty 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but for example I just stumbled over this page: Six-eyed sand spider. It's a species page (Sicarius hahnii), and a family page (Sicariidae) at the same time. The thing with the family pages is that of the 111 families, maybe a dozen have really unambiguous common names. when you check the Categories, it's a pain in the ass to have these vernaculars inbetween, so i would say let's rename the family pages at least. With proper redirects, the users won't bother i guess. --Sarefo 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

I started an Article assessment system yesterday. This should facilitate getting an overview over the articles belonging to this project, how good they are etc.

I was thinking that maybe we should also classify taxon pages according to two other criteria:

  • does the page have good / enough pictures?
    • maybe something like:
      • 0 -> no pics
      • 1 -> bad pics
      • 2 -> one good pic
      • 3 -> good pics, but could need even more
      • 4 -> perfect
  • does the page have a range_map?

I started by categorizing mostly the family pages, and probably will continue to include most (hopefully all) pages that belong to WPSpiders. Feel free to re-assess the pages! I did just a very rough assessment, my main aim was to get the project pages together. About the grading i used:

  • Very few pages are Top-level (Spiders, Spider families atm)
  • Family pages are High-level. What else?
  • Obscure species and genera -> Low
  • Mid: totally subjective ;)

the rating i used:

  • no 'real' new information (except naked taxonomy): Stub
  • some real info: Start
  • good, but missing info: B
  • really nice article: A

I rated the Category:Lists of spider species pages A, for they atm serve their purpose nicely as they are.

There's also a new Log file that anybody can edit to tell others what they've been doing. This is optional, but helpful when doing major work on WPSpiders. Like the assessment system, it's been mostly pasted from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles, so feel free to tweak it to suit our needs.

any other ideas, as well as discussion is very welcome!

--Sarefo 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC) All "popular" spiders species should be mid. (e.g. Notable spiders, pest spiders, common spiders)Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 10:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Style suggestions

[edit]

Translation project

[edit]

From the German WP:


Tarantula sub-project

[edit]

Tarantulas (Theraphosidae) are different from most other spiders: they are held as pets. This could lead to a sub-project Tarantulas:

  • people with (common and obscure) species at home could provide good photos.
  • handling information should be provided.
  • most species that are held as pets should be at least mentioned.

As this is quite another crowd than professional arachnologists, maybe it would provide fruitful to contact people in tarantula forums. --Sarefo 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undetermined pictures

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/Undetermined_pictures.

Unclear facts

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/Unclear facts

Scope

[edit]

Giant huntsman spider

[edit]

Two days ago I started the article on the heteropoda maxima, surprised that there was no article about the biggest known spider on Wikipedia. It is now being considered for the "did you know" box on the front page. There are still a few quirks to work out though, and only three days to do it. Please lend a hand so we can get this beautiful specimen on the front page, and hopefully generate some more interest in spiders. Look at the page at giant huntsman spider and see what comments it got in the DYK review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know Basically, it needs cleanup and references. --DarkAvenger (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's the largest huntsman spider, T. blondi is larger. Also, i find leg length misleading. sorry your call went unheard, as you may notice this page is not very visited very often. Next time, try contacting me, or any of the other WPSpiders contributors, directly. keep up the good work! --Sarefo (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spiders/General&oldid=1181257162"