Daniel Mayer wrote:
One question:
Is the level of detail in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Zion_and_Kolob_canyons_area
appropriate for Wikipedia? Or would it be better to have such an article in a Wikigeology project? I would certainly hate to see similarly detailed [[Biology of ...]] articles not be created for species in Wikipedia because the same content is in Wikispecies. Or worse, for them to exist in both and thus half the contributor base working on each of them.
I realise that there is still a misunderstanding what Wikispecies would look like. This is not about having articles which would be too special for Wikipedia. This is (at least how I understand it) about having a species directory containing raw data. For example, an entry for the European Grass Snake could be structured this way:
Scientific name: Natrix natrix Vernacular names: European Grass Snake (en), Ringelnatter (de), Ringslang (nl), Snog (da)... Author: (Linnaeus 1758) Synonymes: Coluber natrix, Natrix vulgaris, Coluber scutatus... Subspecies: Natrix natrix astreptophora, Natrix natrix cetti, Natrix natrix corsa... Containing clades: Colubridae - Serpentes - Squamata Distribution: Europe, North Africa, West Asia More info: [[de:Ringelnatter]], [[nl:Ringslang]], [[da:Snog (Natrix natrix)]]...
That's it. The textual info remains in Wikipedia and is not duplicated. The aim is having a searchable database of every known species, with data that is mainly interesting for biologists.
I hope I could solve some misunderstandings. Nobody wants to create another Wikipedia containing Biology articles. That is at least my understanding (not knowing if I speak for everyone interested in the Wikispecies project, of course).
See here (http://www.sp2000.org/AnnualChecklist.html) how a taxonomic database may look like.
Mirko (Baldhur)
--- Mirko Thiessen wikipedia@mirko-thiessen.de wrote:
I realise that there is still a misunderstanding what Wikispecies would look like. This is not about having articles which would be too special for Wikipedia. This is (at least how I understand it) about having a species directory containing raw data.
Sweet! That would be neat (based on your example and link). I still think this would be better under the Commons umbrella, but oh well.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 09:06:37AM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Mirko Thiessen wikipedia@mirko-thiessen.de wrote:
I realise that there is still a misunderstanding what Wikispecies would look like. This is not about having articles which would be too special for Wikipedia. This is (at least how I understand it) about having a species directory containing raw data.
Sweet! That would be neat (based on your example and link). I still think this would be better under the Commons umbrella, but oh well.
Maybe its format is too restricted and the data is too similar for the commons. Commons would be simply a storage for linking from, while species is more like a database to transfer data from. It would mess up Commons I believe.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org