Daniel Mayer wrote:
Is the level of detail in this article:
appropriate for Wikipedia? Or would it be better to have such an article
Wikigeology project? I would certainly hate to see similarly detailed
of ...]] articles not be created for species in Wikipedia because the
content is in Wikispecies. Or worse, for them to exist in both and thus
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
Containing clades: Colubridae - Serpentes - Squamata
Distribution: Europe, North Africa, West Asia
More info: [[de:Ringelnatter]], [[nl:Ringslang]], [[da:Snog (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.