Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

hi, i've been working on spider systematics for a while, although at the moment i'm not very active. I created the page Spider families as a (temporary?) entry point, and worked on getting the 111 families up to a certain standard. My favorites are jumping spiders, where I created a page for every described recent genus. I also created and maintain Category:Lists of spider species to help people get an overview of what's still to do ;)


Workspace

edit
edit

Todo

edit
  • todo ;)
  • list of fossil spiders (from joel hallan's biology catalog)
  • list of termite species, + pages [2]
  • mine Psyche for texts and pictures.
  • done: Araneae 1957-1967
  • todo: Araneae up to 1956, 1968-2000, other animals ;)
  • upload pictures from Lindsey + Starr.
  • add contact info to lindsey pics up to lichen.
  • suggestions for range maps
  • hard edges -> easier to re-color
pages needed
pages needing extension
created/ significantly expanded pages
edit

Users

edit

Taxonomy pages

edit

Nice stuff

edit
  The Fauna Barnstar
There you go. Greater love for spiders hath no man... except Marshal Hedin maybe. Dysmorodrepanis 04:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  The Special Barnstar
Thanks for answering my question on where to find spider information. VegitaU 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A thought on grading categorisation

edit

Hi Sarefo. You were suggested as someone to contact regarding the I'm a fellow contributor to WikiProjects Arthropods. I was wondering if it would be possible to modify the statistics script so that the statistics table includes links within cells, allowing one to select articles of a given quality and importance (to make it easier to prioritise articles to work on). Asking around elsewhere pointed me to the Geology version. It seems they have additional categories - so an article wouldn't be "Category:FA-Quality Arthropods articles" and "Category: Low-Importance Arthropods arcticles", but rather (or as well) be "Category:FA-Quality Low-Importance Arthropods arcticles".

I don't want to create too much work, but this seems to me to possibly be a better approach, allowing users to go straight to high importance stubs to work on, for example, rather than getting a list of all the stubs and manually looking for high importance ones of them (based on a view that importance should prioritise activity).

Grateful for your thoughts. Heds (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)