Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

Hi Arachno0, do you have a link to an article for me, about Talk:Araneae. The problem is that if Opisthothelae is named as superordo, than what is the name of Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae. Will they be named Infraordo, something else? Also this change will affect the whole Arachnid tree, so we need to make sure, this is more than just a suggestion. Send me a link, and I will try to work things out.

Thx for all your work. --Kempm 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kempm, I am coocking only in the same boyl :))) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araneae#Taxonomy I think, it was more older subdivision: Mesothelae and Opisthothelae are SUBordines (thay sound similar, You agree?), so Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae are INFRAordines. For me, it's no sense to add Opisthothelae like a "real" taxon. Let's just refer on it, for more comfort of "old" user, who reed book yet.

I have changed the Araneae page, and added a synonymy section for now. --Kempm 11:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excel edit

Hi and belated welcome. Have look at taxa.zip for formatting. It contains a general formatting file and a bulk input example (with custom functions). Lycaon 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oops sorry, now it should be working ;-) Lycaon 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diplura edit

Hi Arachn0, you have the possibility to do something with Diplurata? Your changes made the Diplura (Hexapoda) an orphan. This needs to be resolved, or you can't walk do the tree anymore and get to Diplura. --Kempm 14:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kempm. I made a changes. All correct ? --Arachn0 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will start working down the tree though. Lower taxons still show the old Diplura links, but I'm glad the old situation is getting resolved. :) Changing a name high up the tree affects the whole tree, that's why noone didn't want to change it like you did. But thanks to you're actions we're forced to make it better ;-) --Kempm 20:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

formatting edit

Hi. Please don't add colons (:) after Name or References headers. Thanks. Lycaon 05:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thx for clean looking. Could you tell me, on what pages I mistaken? It may be from Excel - I still revize formulae.

Linyphiidae edit

You can add such a list, but it would probably mean it points to genera that are already somewhere else in the tree? The idea is a taxon has only one parent. Perhaps you better discuss your idea with User:Lycaon first. He is more knowledgeable than I am --Kempm 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been done before, so go ahead. Make sure however that the Genera point to the respective subfamilies. Lycaon 07:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For long elaborate lists, it is better to develop it offline (Word, Notepad, Excel, etc.) and then put it on Wikispecies when it is finished. Every edit is kept in the history of the article and this puts extra load on the servers. Thanks Lycaon 08:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Хороший, Спасибо. :-) Lycaon 08:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx for attention and heroic :))) efforts to use Russian

Species edit

Hi Arachn0. Well done with the Araneae.
I few remarks on species pages: Species is both singular and plural, so please add the 's' (NOT specie). Distribution data is best left for the respective wikipedias, so only give taxonavigation, name, wikilinks and reference. The latter is very important: do mention the source of your information or the publication of the species. Keep up the good work. Thanks Lycaon 09:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liphistius bristowei edit

Доброе утро Arachn0,

If you look at the history of the page, you will see the small changes I did. It's all a matter of details, really, to make all the pages conform to a standard layout.
E.g. if the TOC reaches >=4 items, you should use a __NOTOC__ to remove the TOC. Also look at other things like plural/singular of taxon names (see here), spacing after colons, etc.
Do not add number of species between brackets as on Plagiogramma, just leave that line blank. Someone (mayb you?) will eventually fill this.

Lycaon 07:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The __NOTOC__ instructions above are obsolete, since __NOTOC__ has been added to the parent templates at the tops of taxonavigation the trees, there is no need to add them to pages. --Georgeryp 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

araneae tree edit

hi Arachno0,

thanks for your efforts to build the tree on WikiSpecies :) You mentioned you could need an Excel table of the taxa. I'm on Linux, so I could give you a CSV (comma-separated values) list. But it would be best if you told me what values you need, so I could build this list especially for your needs. Please answer me on my en.wiki Talk page, for I don't visit WSpecies very often (yet :) -- 09:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) en:User:Sarefo

synonym confusion edit

hi, just noticed a problem you could run into from time to time:

you linked the en.wiki page en:Lycosa aspersa to Lycosa implacida. The problem is that, yes, L. implacida was once named L. aspersa; but because a different species (the "real" L. aspersa) already had that name, it was renamed (to L. joerandae). So if you link from the en.wiki L. aspersa to the WSpecies L. implacida, you're really linking to different species. On another note, I moved L. aspersa to Hogna aspersa, because that is the new (since 1990) name of that species, and added a complete lits of synonyms. I will send you a table of spider species in a few moments, hopefully it will be of use to you.

and, it's really 'species' in singular, not 'specie' :) (found this on your recent posting, but also on L. implacida)

cheers --Sarefo 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: tell me if you need a table with synonyms, i have this here. --Sarefo 10:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synonyms edit

hi, yes, as a matter of fact, the tables i sent to you were extracted from WSC 7.0 directly. Of course there may be slight errors in parsing, but i did not find any. I don't think there are good sources on common spider names out there. you could just link the taxa as interwiki, at last there should be redirects in the corresponding wikis to the common name. i think that would be much less work than finding a common name in half a dozen languages for every of the 40,000 species out there (and most don't even have a common name). in fact, i guess the linking to taxa could be done (semi-) automatically, via a bot. cheers --Sarefo 10:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

almost forgot: please don't forget to sign your postings (eg. on my Talk page) :) this way it's much easier to find out who wrote what.

Coleoptera edit

hi, i wish there *was* something like WSC for beetles. but the taxonomy seems to be totally split up in this regard, it's even very hard to get complete catalogs for single beetle *families* (in fact i could not even find out the exact number of families...). I love beetles as much as spiders, and the main reason i did the spider pages in en.wiki is that there is the WSC. There are rather few insect orders with complete online catalogs, iirc phasmids, ants and some others. maybe, when some people with the power to do such things see what we did on wiki with the spiders (in some years time ;), thanks to the WSC, get envious and provide catalogs of similar quality for other animal groups ;) cheers --Sarefo 11:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bots edit

Hi, there's some information about autobots on the English wikipedia [1], maybe on the russian wikipedia as well, but I don't know how to search on the russian site. [User:Ucucha] has a little experience with using bots on Wikispecies, if you want to use one, you best talk with him. --Kempm 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spider genera edit

I just created this table, and will send it to you. Took me twenty seconds to create it, thank you Linux :)

I sorted them alphabetically, tell me if it's better for you to have them in order of families. cheers --Sarefo 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

species-link + taxobox edit

hi Arachn0,

I moved the species-box out of the taxobox in en:Liphistiidae. I did this because I think that this box was not designed to be placed into the taxobox, eg. it is placed to the right, while it would better be centered. But I do think that it would be a nice idea to have a link to wikispecies integrated into the taxobox. maybe we should contact one of the maintainers of the taxobox template to implement this. Meanwhile, I will place the species-boxes directly below the taxobox. cheers + thanks again for the work on wspecies (i once thought about doing this myself :) --Sarefo 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

check this thread about linking WikiSpecies from the taxobox. --Sarefo 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nitpicking edit

Good morning, could you please correct your recent additions according to : this entry? Thanks. Lycaon 10:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arachn0, there's still an error in your excel. You copy Inrerwiki instead of Interwiki :) --Kempm 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morning edit

Wikispecies is introducing a new taxonavigation system. So you might see weird things going on in the next few days. If you add new ranks, can you from now on ommit all the colons (':')? You don't have the revise the whole tree, just the new ranks you add. See also: Kempm/Help:Contents rev1 --Kempm 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See what it will look like when we're finished: Glomus_przelewicense. It's only temporarily that it will look bad. We're working hard to remove all ':' because its a necessary change. Without doing this we will be unable to make easy transitions. :) --Kempm 13:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siebold edit

In Siebold you say that it is the official abbreviation for Karl_Theodor_Ernst_von_Siebold. What are you using as the official list? For botanists, we are using IPNI and IPNI lists Siebold as the official abbreviation for Philipp Franz von Siebold and C.Siebold as the official abbreviation for Karl_Theodor_Ernst_von_Siebold.Open2universe 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spider common names edit

hi Arachn0,

you were searching for a list of common names of spiders recently; look what i've found: Common and Scientific Names of Arachnids (PDF). :) cheers --Sarefo 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism edit

Thanks he's blocked, and I think everything is back in place now! Cheers. --Kempm 09:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx a lot !! --Arachn0 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chrysomelids edit

Hi, Arachn0, I've made small adjustements to the chrysomelid genera Chrysomela and Cassida. Could you do the same for the others? Thanks. (If you are not able, tell me, and I will do it later. Especially the templates are important) Lycaon 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi edit

Hi...I want to know if u r on line to ask u something.--Proud Muslim 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listen to U--Arachn0 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTOC not needed edit

Please note these changes to Attagenus obtusus. As said above, __NOTOC__ is unnecessary. Also, the formatting guidelines for Taxonavigation are here: Help:Project Templates. --Georgeryp 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protaetia edit


I see you have the same troubles as I have. You add the species Protaetia (Liocola) marmorata. But the page is Protaetia marmorata and NOT Protaetia (Liocola) marmorata. Do you know how this come?


PeterR 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think. It's not trouble. Species jumps through subgenera like flees. "Linnean" names (Genus + species) of a pages are better, I think. Than You may establish link from adequate subgeneus--Arachn0 11:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template sgsp edit

You shouldn't have changed the template sgsp! It causes now a lot of confusion, and a lot of errors over many pages. This type of template should never be changed without first discussing it with the community!

Mariusm 12:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry. So let's start discussion. I think, it's not big trouble. Species jumps through subgenera like flees. "Linneyan" names (Genus + species) of a pages are better, I think. Than You may establish link from adequate subgeneus--Arachn0 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but meanwhile there are perhaps hundreds of species pages with broken links! what are we going to do about this? No one has the time to search for them, and repair them! I suggest you restore the template to its original code, and then we'll see what to do next. Mariusm 05:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible, but I've seen duplicate pages - with and without subgenus name. Forgot the name, but it was pares of different pages (not redirects)! I think, we need some preventing measures before I turn template back?

And, maybe You will transfer our discussion in common access (I don't know how)--Arachn0 14:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. There is a discussion going-on on this issue at the village pump Wikispecies:Village_Pump
  2. This change of yours affected more then 2000 pages, and made them un-linkable!
  3. I think you made more harm then good with this change. Why not leave the sgsp template as it was, and create a brand new template for the new method?
  4. Scientifically speaking the format you adhere to isn't correct. The correct format all scietists use is Genus (Subgenus) species.
  5. Are you prepared to correct all the 2000 affected pages?

Mariusm 05:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Happy now? :))) --Arachn0 08:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Добрый день edit

Добрый день, Arachn0. Это ГФ100. Я смотрел историю статьи "Швейцарский поход", вижу, что Вы сделали правку. Если Вы проявляете внимание к статье, будьте добры, уберите из раздела о Муттенской долине фразу ряд французских историков считает, что русские потерпели сокрушительное поражение. Это, конечно, чепуха - трудно распознаваемый вид вандализма, по-сути. Я её специально добавил давным-давно, когда уходил из Википедии. Думаю, лучше всё же убрать. Да там тупые запросы на источники, снижающие качество статьи - их тоже стоит убрать.

Не желаете ли работать в энциклопедии "Традиция"? Там куда лучше, на мой взгляд. Если статья хорошая - попадает на первые места в поисковиках (я там например написал про битву при Треббии, Ушакова - они на первых позициях). Так что статьи будут читаться так же часто, как и википедийные. Между прочим полезно для контроля качества своей работы: простая статья на первую страницу не вылезет, в отличие от википедийной, где любой стаб - впереди статьи БСЭ. Т.е., работая в Традиции, именно автор добивается выдвижения своей статьи на первый план, а в Википедии это само собой происходит.

Сейчас пишу о Бородинском сражении в авторском пространстве.

Всего хорошего. С уважением

Спасибо за внимание. Не считаю себя достаточно компетентным в данном вопросе. --Arachn0 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subgenera edit

Who have given permission for not using subgenera any more? I see you book official species with subgenera to species without subgenera.

PeterR (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) I think, it's not big trouble. Species jumps through subgenera like flees. "Linneyan" names (Genus + species) of a pages are better, I think. Than You may establish link from adequate subgeneus;
2) Sometimes, species page was maked before than subgenera one. If You will use only "official" link (with subgenera), You may loose link to real good page;
3) It's only redirect, if "official" link exists, it's continue working --Arachn0 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We only add in Wiki the official names with subgenera. It is not neccessary to make a link to species without subgenera if you add the species without subgenera in === Synonyms ===. species.Wikipedia is a side for professionals. So use the professional names. For more detail you need the official books or bulletins.

PeterR (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, professionals! You really change all professional names when new genera revisions issued? I'm not sure. And, in this Internet version of a very good work only genus-species distribution --Arachn0 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop edit

There is no consensus on whether we're switching the templates to wikitable collapsible. Please cease such actions until community agrees on what to do with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy --Arachn0 (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? edit

please don't put ??? in front of species I have listed! You seem to be using a Palearctic checklist to add species, but my species are from New Zealand! Stho002 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, OK. Please, sort full list in alphabet order. My ??? putting cause I didn't seen source of New Zealand species list in References --Arachn0 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Metophthalmus AND Lithostygnus belong in family Latridiidae (as maybe synonyms or not)! You are using badly outdated sources if they say the genus belongs in Colydiinae! Stho002 (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Joel Hallan's Biology Catalog isn't completely reliable, and he has got it way wrong in this case ... Stho002 (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Tribolium edit

Yes, I know - I am the one who created the Tribolium Macleay disambiguation and REMOVED some beetle names from the plant page! Stho002 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

>So, wouldn't You delete Coleoptera species from Plantae page?
I don't understand you. I DID remove the Coleoptera names I put in by mistake. I don't know if the ones that were there before are Coleoptera or plant ... feel free to fix it yourself ... Stho002 (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be careful - you added a whole lot of Gonocephalum names but removed the one that was imaged! Stho002 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry!--Arachn0 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonav edit

Please use Taxonav, and ONLY on family-level templates. Thanks Stho002 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, agree. --Arachn0 (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please AT FAMILY LEVEL ONLY - you just used it on Staphylinoidea (I have reverted it) ! Stho002 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry !!! No more! --Arachn0 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calathus (Neocalathus) anistschenkoi edit

You have to move Calathus anistschenkoi to Calathus (Neocalathus) anistschenkoi and NOT Calathus (Neocalathus) anistschenkoi to Calathus anistschenkoi.


PeterR (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect still be. See discussion below --Arachn0 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled edit

Autopatrolled rights edit


Dear Arachn0, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page Patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

  This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Would you even be willing to patrol unpatrolled articles yourself? If so, please indicate here, and your account will be upgraded to Patroller.

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patroller? edit


Dear, Arachn0! Would you accept to be a Patroller on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Patrollers and presently there is only 17 out of 150 active users.
Please see Patrollers for information about patrollers rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for patroller rights on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Join discussions edit

At the water pump is presently discussed two topics;

1.) is to follow a previous consensus and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]], something which already has started.

2.) is what to do with the Category: <<taxon name>> (<<any country>>) files created by Stephen Thorpe. Some 5 000 have so far been moved together at Candidates for speedy deletion, but concearn has been objected, that some of those files may be useful, in all, or that parts should be transfered somewhere, before a major mass delete. Please join the discussion at pump and take part in shaping a consensus.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Application for Checkuser edit

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another application for Check User edit

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Checkuser Application edit

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standing for role of checkUser edit

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on Checkusers edit

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME edit

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies Oversighter edit

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oversight nomination edit

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]