Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders

Add topic
Active discussions
Main page Talk page Style guide Assessment Activity log Members Resources
WikiProject Spiders (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WikiProject icon
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Trichonephila clavataEdit

Trichonephila clavata needs to have some fiddling done here and on Wikidata, Commons, and Wikispecies. There are two Wikidata entries: Trichonephila clavata and Nephila clavata. There are two Commons categories: Trichonephila clavata and Nephila clavata. There is one Wikispecies article: Nephila clavata. There may be other things I haven't noticed yet, too. Somehow, these all need to be merged appropriately so there's less confusion about it since Trichonephila clavata and Nephila clavata are the same thing. How should we do this to cause the least disruption possible? I'm happy to help out, but since this is in an area in which I am less familiar, I wanted input on how to proceed. Please {{ping}} me in any response. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the World Spider Catalog moved it from Nephila clavata to Trichonephila clavata in 2019. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Wikidata should have two items, since so-called taxon items are actually instances of taxon names. There can be items for many synonyms of the same taxon.
The Commons categories do need to be merged. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: After some false starts, I think I have managed to restore the Wikidata items. Each taxon name should have links to the entry for that taxon name in any taxonomic database that includes that name, whether as an accepted name or a synonym. Then the taxonbar in the article lists all Wikidata items that are synonyms for that taxon. See, as just one example, the taxonbar at Acmispon decumbens. All of the articles in Category:Taxonbars with multiple manual Wikidata items have multiple Wikidata items for synonyms of the taxon linked from the taxonbar. Do not merge Wikidata items for synonyms: there's a taxon synonym property to link synonyms together, and a basionym property. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Thanks for sorting through all of that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: no problem. The use of the term "taxon" in Wikidata consistently misleads editors new to Wikidata's taxonomy, in my experience. Some of us have tried in the past to replace the term by "taxon name" (which is what it is), but weren't successful. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I consolidated the two Wikimedia Commons categories at commons:Category:Nephila clavata, at least for now, since most of the files were in this category, and the file names mostly use "Nephila". It's always difficult to know what to do at Commons; there are a lot of categories under obsolete scientific names. It may not matter too much if there's a category redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Talk PagesEdit

More than a few of the more recent publications include new monotypic genera. Manual of style is in agreement that information for both should exist on the higher taxon, and the lower one should redirect. However, I don't think we've discussed talk pages for these redirects. In general, I've been leaving talk pages empty for new redirects because I don't think it's useful, with a few exceptions such as the main page was converted to a redirect and the talk page already has contents, or something like that. The MOS for redirects is... confusing. I'm still not sure what is considered a "hard redirect" and what is a "soft redirect". However, other bio-projects are leaving them blank ex. (Dugong dugon, Eucheira socialis, Monodon monoceros) They all have different styles of page contents, which is fine, but none of these monotypic redirects have contents for the talk pages. I don't know what the general consensus is for this project- or if we have one- but I'm going to keep leaving them blank for newly created pages, if only to keep the new articles homogenized. Sesamehoneytart 11:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sesamehoneytart: they should have WP talk templates, so the redirects get maintained together and nothing falls through the cracks. Many editors do not do so, so the cracks are large. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Awkwafaba: The redirects can all be found in Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders, a category created by the {{R to monotypic taxon}} template on the main page. Their respective talk pages generally don't have more than a project banner. It seems like unnecessary duplicate information, but also I think any information on a redirect talk page should instead be on the talk page of the article it is being redirected to. Additionally, {{Talk page of redirect}} implies that not only should empty/nonexistent talk pages for redirects be left alone, but that unnecessary talk pages qualify for G6 speedy deletion. What needs to be maintained that can't be done via Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders? Sesamehoneytart 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I do see the argument that Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of spiders implies that the redirect falls within the oversight of this project, but equally I also see the value of making the oversight explicit. Also, without the template on the talk page, the redirect row in the table at WP:WikiProject_Spiders#Articles isn't correct. I will certainly continue to complete the redirect talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I rarely add WikiProject banners to redirects, but do add redirect categories (to/from monotypic taxon, alternative scientific name, to/from scientific name). Redirect categories can facilitate finding redirects which should have a WikiProject banner added if that is desired. What benefit does the banner itself have? There are a few tools and reports that depend on WikiProject banners being present. They are:
1. Hot articles; shows pages with the most recent edits. Unlikely that any redirect would ever make the list
2. Cleanup listing; shows pages with various maintenance tags. I've never seen a redirect with any maintenance tags, I'm not sure that any would ever apply
3. Dab solver; shows articles with links to disambiguation pages. The backlog of links to dab pages has been conquered, and this tool doesn't pick up redirects wrongly targeted to dab pages anyway
4. Article alerts; shows pages up for discussions (move request, deletion, etc.); for several years now it picks up redirects based on the WikiProject banners of their target, so no need to tag redirects for this report to work
5. Popular pages; most viewed pages in past month. It is somewhat interesting to see what redirects might end up there
6. Assessment log; shows changes to quality/importance assessment. Will also show page moves and conversion of a redirect to an article (but only if "class=redirect" isn't set). The act itself of tagging a redirect shows up in the assessment log
7. Project based watchlists; it's possible to see changes to all articles tagged for a project. There's usually too much activity for any reasonably large project to be able to monitor changes effectively. It's also possible just to see changes to talk pages, which is potentially more useful (e.g. seeing issues raised on talk pages that don't have any active Wikipedians watching them), however the act of tagging redirects is noise for this purpose
8. The assessment table; shows the number of redirects that have been tagged for a project
I'm not opposed to tagging redirects for WikiProjects, but the benefits of doing so don't seem high enough for me to want to spend my time doing so (if I ever run out of more important tasks, I can always go back through the redirects I've categorized and search for the ones missing WikiProject banners). I lost the little enthusiasm I had for redirect tagging once article alerts started picking up redirects by their targets. Plantdrew (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that it's not worth spending time searching for nonexistent redirect talk pages and tagging them when there are many more productive things to do. But I do still think that when you create or modify a redirect, it's worth creating the talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm realizing tagging all spider redirects is a much smaller task than it would be for many of the other organism projects. Very few spiders are at a vernacular name title and most don't have a vernacular name at all, and as far as I'm aware, there haven't been very redirects created for synonyms. Redirects to/from monotypic taxa account for a bigger share of spider redirects than most other organism projects. In contrast, birds have a minimum of two redirects for every species article (scientific name, and vernacular name following IOC capitalization standards). Plants are mostly at scientific name titles, but there are a lot of vernacular name redirects, and there have been some editors who've been very prolific creating redirects for plant synonyms (one editor created more than 20,000 plant synonym redirects). Plantdrew (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Web decorationEdit

Hi. I've written on the talk page of "Web decoration" but nobody answered. I suggested to move the pages to right title (Stabilimentum), but i need a mover to complete the process. Can somebody help me? Thanks. --Lorenzo Longo (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Done It seemed uncontroversial to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies discussing revamping spider classificationEdit

See species:Village_Pump#The_tragedy_of_Wikispecies'_spider_taxonomy. Wikispecies spider classification is apparently biased on a bad source compiled by an amateur. There is discussion to revamp it, with as an (interim) source. @Peter coxhead:, you probably have the best awareness of the state of spider classification here (what's been checked against WSC and how recently), and may want to comment on the Wikispecies thread. Plantdrew (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It has like that for as long as I can remember; I don't even know how they'd approach such a large problem/organize fixing it. I haven't even bothered to touch wikispecies- I mostly work with wp/media/data at family/genus level, but a problem I've seen that isn't brought up in that post is that many of these clades and subfamilies are still being decided. I just went through a source yesterday from 2018 and one from 2019 sorting out Pholcidae based on molecular phylogeny. I read through one a few weeks ago done even more recently for Salticidae. Trying to fix it now might be a little like trying to shovel snow while it's still snowing. I'm not sure if this is related, but Wikimedia in particular has its own unique problem where image names are permanent, but the subject it is a picture of can move around, so categories won't necessarily correspond with the image name. Even if they're re-categorized, occasionally someone will come along and move it back because of the permanent image name. Sesamehoneytart 08:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I have commented at Wikispecies. trying to shovel snow while it's still snowing is a good analogy! The other problem is that even when there are reasonably good recent phylogenies, these often don't map to useful ranks or even clades, and certainly rarely match the 'traditional' subfamilies, superfamilies, etc.
Zacmh has also been very active lately in updating species lists for genera and genera lists for families, and may be able to comment. I haven't been working on spiders as much. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Spider vision articleEdit

Hi I've been working on an article on spider vision since I noticed that we didn't have one. I'd appreciate any help improving it! The draft can be found here. I've submitted it for review but there's still a lot that needs improvement, especially the lead and evolution sections. ThatSpiderByte (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@ThatSpiderByte: nice work! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Siamspinops garoensis copyright?Edit

Siamspinops garoensis has a description section that I suspect was copied verbatim from the source. Does anybody have access to Zootaxa who can confirm? Plantdrew (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: ah, the value of Swiss copyright law is that the World Spider Catalog has a copy accessible to anyone that registers with them (free). Your suspicion was correct, it was directly copied. I removed it. (I seem to recall that I should ask for the history to be removed too, but haven't.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)