Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Standardisation

It seems like a lot will need to be done to get the lists and categories to all work nicely with each other. At the moment we have lists for Britain, Great Britain, British Isles and the United Kingdom. This seems a bit like overkill. I would like to tentatively propose that lists where Britain refers to the island (and surrounding islands excl. the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and Ireland) should be renamed Great Britain as per it's political definition. If we go by the geographical definition then it would be difficult to include surrounding islands.

We should lay out definitions of what each word is going to mean so no confusion arises in the future.

These sort of things need to be worked out early on so we can get onto the more interesting stuff! Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. But be sensitive at the same time that if there are no articles for "Ireland", it doesn't make sense to use the label "British Isles" on some categories. In the past I put in a move request for the Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles because it only had articles referring to Britain, but nobody cared enough to vote :-) The first step should be to overhaul the categories although also be aware that sometimes the word "British" appears to be used to include any part of the UK. The standard scientific reporting appears to either be by region/island (as in Great Britain or Ireland), or by the archipelago (British Isles). So if the category only refers to articles on Great Britain fauna, it should be named "Great Britain", and if it refers to "British Isles" it should be named as such. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, each article should be looked at individually. We should aim to get a full set of 'List of {family} of Great Britain' and 'List of {family} of Ireland' to start off with. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Category creation

WP 1.0 Assessment Category Tree was created per request of Jack . You may check Category:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland articles by quality and Category:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland articles by importance . -- Tinu Cherian - 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding banner and categories

I've come to a problem which will increase as Wikipedia continues to grow. Categorising species articles with every country they are found in means articles clogged with categories (there are many examples);this has been discussed before extensively. The same goes for the banner, if we add the BGBI banner to every species and every other Country WikiProject did the same, the talk page would become cluttered with banners. Maybe if we keep it to categorisation of lists and overviews of biota rather than individual species (at least for the moment)? Jack (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Others responding to my query have been in favour of tagging individual species with Category:Fauna of Great Britain, etc. so that's what we shall do. Any animal species native to Great Britain or Ireland should be placed in Category:Fauna of Great Britain unless it has a sub-category such as Category:Lists of insects of Great Britain. The talk pages should also be tagged with the BGBI banner: {{Biota of Great Britain and Ireland|class=|importance=}}. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves that may interest project members

A number of related articles, some of which are tagged as being within the remit of this project, have been nominated for a name change which involves changing the capitalization scheme used. They are:

• Special Protection Area,
• Area of Conservation,
• Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
• Site of Special Scientific Interest, and
• Special Area of Conservation

(the links point to the discussion of the requested moves.) Members may wish to comment on the requests both for and against the proposed moves. I'm not sure where else notices could be posted to get as wide a discussion as possible, both for and against the requests), and so would appreciate people identifying appropriate projects and posting similar messages there.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Start-class, high importance

I see by the rating table that we have one start-class, high importance article, and one similar list. Which articles are these? I think they should be a priority for this project. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rummage through categories and ye shall find: They're Conservation in the United Kingdom and List of endangered species in the British Isles. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's always the best place to start with projects. There's a lot more tagging of articles that needs to be done, for example the whole plant side of the project which hasn't been recognised yet. When I've got a bit of time after my exams I'll get some more tagged so we can work out a more clear system of rating articles by importance (which I've started a section below). Oh and: Welcome to the project! If you know any others who might be interested in this WikiProject don't hesitate to invite them, I'm sure we need all the help we can get! Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How to determine importance of articles

This is a suggestion how we rate the importance of articles, feel free to comment and make suggestions on improvements.

• Top importance: Fauna of Great Britain, Fauna of Ireland, Flora of Great Britain, Flora of Ireland
• High importance: Overviews of topics e.g. Conservation in the United Kingdom
• Mid importance: Species lists
• Low importance: Organisations, species articles, SSSIs and alike

I've probably left out some groups of articles, but this is just a rough guide. Maybe something from low importance should be upgraded? I think this project should mainly concentrate on the organisation and ensure a wide coverage, rather than spend time improving (for example) the European Badger article. There are other WikiProjects dedicated to that purpose. Jack (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands & others

Great Britain presents a slightly bigger problem other than just eliminating Ireland from "British and Irish" or Northern Ireland from UK, and that is some of the outlying islands. Clearly (to me at least), the Channel Islands do not fit into any definition of GB. Technically, the Isle of Man also presents a problem. I assume that the definition of GB that we are using for fauna and flora is the political one (given that the 1000+ small islands are otherwise going to slip through the net), which therefore precludes the IoM. Then again, IoM is so close to the British coast as to make splitting if potentially nonsensical. So, do we include the Isle of Man in our definition of GB or not? And, what do we do about the Channel Islands (ideally, I guess someone would do separate lists for them)? Cheers—GRM (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include the Channel Islands - while they have a distinct political status, this isn't a politics wikiproject. They are considered more British than any other-ish, and it does no harm to include them. The very few life forms that occur there but not the "main" British Isles aren't really going to strain our limits. What do other people here think? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with including the Channel Islands - see Flora Europaea for a list of two letter region codes and the Channel Islands are considered part of France (code GA). I agree with keeping the politics out of this, but since the Channel Islands are not part of the same geographic land structure, it doesn't make sense to include them. The Isle of Man is considered part of Britain (code BR), so no problems there. --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if we use Flora Europaea's coding (which I didn't know about) we have a defined region to refer to if anyone else brings this up - so let's go with that. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree with HighKing. However, it is obviously still a contentious issue and I doubt everyone will be satisfied with the definitions of what this WikiProject covers. I find the problem arises that flora and fauna are generally covered by geographical boundaries and that Great Britain in species lists often seems to include the outlying islands (though not the Channel Islands). Jack (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so IoM in, Channel Islands out. Thanks—GRM (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No Parking Whitebeam

...is a new article. The only info I can find so far is a couple of news websites. Can anyone find more, eg the paper that identifies it as a species? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This paper mentions the species, though I don't have access to it. Also not sure if it's the describing paper, in not it may mention the authors in the references. Jack (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The paper decsribing it is in the current issue of Watsonia - see the BSBI website for details. SP-KP (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The parts of Watsonia that are online don't mention it, but I found the title in an online article. I'm not going to use the original paper as a citation though, as I haven't seen it - just the title. Looks like we're stuck with news reports, unless anyone has any better ideas. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the website is just lagging behind the published version. You could always email them and ask them when it'll be there. I've got a copy of the paper if there's anything you particularly needed to check. SP-KP (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to get it done quickly so i coul DYK it. It still needs one or two hundred characters of content (refs don't count as content) to qualify on length grounds, and the deadline is Monday. If you could add more on the technical distinction between this and other Whitebeams that'd be grand. I must say I'm rather amazed that this little crowded island can still turn up 14 new species of tree, and all from one genus. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's some info from the paper:

• the holotype is a large tree above scree at Watersmeet in Vice-county 4, North Devon, Grid Ref SS744490, material collected on 10 Oct 2007 and stored in the National Museum of Wales

• It is a member of the Sorbus latifolia group

• Description: similar to Sorbus devoniensis, but differing in having leaves more deppely lobed, 10-23% of the way to the midrib at the centre of the lamina - not 6-18% as in devoniensis; the leaves of admonitor are also glossier than those of devoniensis

• It's endemic to the Watersmeet area, where there are at least 108 trees in the East Lyn Valley and two trees nearby above Sillery Sands, Lynmouth.

• Sorbus devoniensis doesn't grow in the East Lyn valley and the two taxa have not been confirmed as growing together

• The name "admonitor" was first coined by E.F. Warburg

• It has an IUCN conservation assessment of Endangered

Hope that helps SP-KP (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

that's great, thanks! Totnesmartin (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds People

I have created Category:Royal Society for the Protection of Birds People. Please fell free to apply it where appropriate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rare Breeding Birds Panel

Please help to expand the new article, Rare Breeding Birds Panel. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Beetle bug?

I took this picture

But I don't know what the bug/beetle is, does anyone know what it is so I can update the information on wikicommons, then maybe I can also add it to the wikipedia page if no image exists. cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is a species of bush-cricket, but I don't know which one. Try BugClub Yahoo! Group or search the web for identification images (there is a site somewhere)—GRM (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mammals of the UK

Someone has recently move the list of GB mammals to list of UK mammals, claiming that lists should be by state rather than by island. I'm sure we had similar discussion when most of the fauna lists were moved from "British" to GB. It does seem to me that most fauna lists are officially maintained on an island or "British Isles" (GB + Ireland) basis. Is there therefore good grounds for reverting the move?—GRM (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Vipera berus GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Vipera berus for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Biota of Great Britain and Ireland articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Biota of Great Britain and Ireland articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland versus British Isles

Is there anyone in this project with actual real world expertise in the field that can explain why and when the term "Great Britain and Ireland" versus "British Isles" was first chosen?

The complications are obvious and well trodden. It is clear than none of the principles intended to exclude the Isle of Man and Channel Islands and that properly they are not. My reading at present suggests that it was first used back in the Victorian Period and has since stuck. Either it was not a conscious decision, or it was a chauvinist decision born of the days of the British/English Empire and when the two were one. Can anyone say how and when it first entered common use, what the general opinion about their use in academia is, if the British/Irish politics arises and how they are dealt with? Thank you.--LevenBoy (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the original proposal page for this WikiProject which talked about its naming. It's obviously a difficult issue for us, especially as the references we need to use to make the list pages will take different classification depending on whether it's flora or fauna. I'm afraid I have no knowledge on the historical usage. Cheers, Jack (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. I had no idea HighKing was involved in this Britain and Ireland versus British Isles thing back as far as March/August 2008. It is still going on over at WP:BISE

If there is anyone else with real world expertise in these fields, I would be very interested in reading their comments.--LevenBoy (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy why do you continue to make comments about other editor and what difference does it make about when anyone got involved in this or any other subject on Wikipedia? Please stick to content. Bjmullan (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about UK wildlife. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Name for article on vice-counties

See Talk:Watsonian_vice-counties#Article_name. Opinions sought! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on Vice-counties, at least for the present. See also below. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Current "administrative units" and the vice-counties of Ireland

In the article Vice-counties, which is currently being revised and expanded, there is a brief discussion and a table describing the relationship between the current "administrative units" (counties, unitary authorities, etc.) in Great Britain (=England, Wales and Scotland) and the vice-counties used for biological recording.

There should be something similar for Ireland, both the Republic and Northern Ireland, so that someone who knows only the modern "administrative units" (counties, districts, or whatever) can relate them to the vice-counties as set up by Praeger in 1901. Is anyone here able to add such a section? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - I've added a table broken into county, province and country based on the vice-counties of Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but of course that's the easy bit (and the bit that doesn't arouse passions!). The difficult bit is relating the VCs to the current "administrative units" (and yes, I have seen the very long discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#New_county_intros). This hasn't been done properly yet for England (I added the West Midlands). I'm sure that there are many English readers (and editors) who feel equally strongly about the abolition/alteration of the historic English counties; however we need to serve those who do want to know about the relationship between VCs and current administrative authorities (not least because the latter are often where there is some money to pay for biological recording). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Local Nature Reserves

There are differences of opinion on whether we should refer to LNRs as Local Nature Reserves or local nature reserves. This seems like the sensible place to establish consensus on the topic. Any views? SP-KP (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Watson-Praeger vice-counties

I have just created an entry for each Watson-Praeger vice-county in the UK, Ireland and the Isle of Man, in Wikidata.

See list of IDs at:

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist2.php?language=en&project=wikipedia&category=&depth=12&wdq=claim[31%3A7925010]&mode=undefined&statementlist=&run=Run&label_contains=&label_contains_not=&chunk_size=10000

(slow to load)

or at:

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Q7925010&namespace=0

(may include other items linking to the parent item, later)

For example, VC39, Staffordshire, is Q17581852:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17581852

While they don't have individual Wikipedia articles, those of you who edit Wikidata can use them as a property for nature reserves, etc, which fall within a single VC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

List of local nature reserves in Somerset at FLC

List of local nature reserves in Somerset, which is tagged as being of interest to this project, is currently nominated for featured list status at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of local nature reserves in Somerset/archive1. It would be great if you could comment on whether it meets the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.— Rod ^talk 08:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of United Kingdom bird clubs and ornithological societies

The article List of United Kingdom bird clubs and ornithological societies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication as to how this article satisfies WP:SAL. The vast majority of the entries are red links which seem to have little chance of ever becoming viable stand-alone articles. Removing them with leave only a few entries, whose Wikipedia notability also appears questionable at best. Primary purpose of the article seems to have been to create a online directory of these organizations which is not really what Wikipedia is about.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was referring to List of mammals of Great Britain to convert zoological names to vernacular ones. In the process I discovered it was vandalised on the 8th February and misfixed on the 15th February. I thought I'd let you know that this vandalism had got through the defenses. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Just saw a contest going on. Check it out if you’re interested: Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon. --Nessie (📥) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)