[Wikipedia-l] Re: Huge misunderstanding which arose from miscommunication

[Mirko Thiessen]

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)