Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Wellington/2016 Edit-a-thon

New Zealand Project‑class

	New Zealand portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

A list of species on naturewatch.org.nz which have no corresponding articles on wikipedia, but which are often observed (in descending order of number of observations)

Solanum laciniatum - Common name for this plant appears to be Kangaroo apple which is also the common name for Solanum aviculare so a disambiguation page would have to be created. Also a synonym for this species is Solanum aviculare var. laciniatum (Aiton) Domin which may lead to confusion with the Solanum article in Wikipedia Solanum aviculare. In fact having read that article it appears this may be one for an experienced botanist to handle as a result of all the synonyms and the confusion between these two species. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The common name for both is Poroporo for a NZ centric view of this native species, unless perhaps you are Australian --Tony Wills (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piper excelsum This is in Wikipedia under Macropiper excelsum. If confirmation of the name change has been accepted by the source Wikipedia relies upon (check Wikiproject:plants for that) then this article can be moved to the newly accepted name. If not possibly a redirect created so that NaturewatchNZ and other sites can link to the article? Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ileostylus micranthus - The Plant List suggests that this is an unresolved name but NZOR has it listed here as does NZflora database by Landcare Research. It's got a red link in the genus article, and although neither the species nor the genus are listed in Wikispecies, the species is listed in Wikidata. It also has a category and an image in Wikicommons. It should therefore be relatively straightforward to do a stub article on this species so long as the article is referenced appropriately. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leucopogon fraseri Checked Wikipedia, Wikispecies and NZOR and it has a red link and name confirmed. It seems a relatively straightforwarded needed article. However there are mentions in Wikipedia under its synonyms so would pay to double check those and add links to any new article created. There is an image in Wikicommons but the plant in the middle of the frame isn't L. fraseri. There are some CC BY images in Naturewatch NZ though. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lobelia angulata There are red links in Wikipedia for both Lobelia angulata and Pratia angulata its supposed synonym. I think an experienced botanist may be needed for this article to sort out which as precedence as I'm unsure of the current stated of the accepted name status of this species. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemideina crassidens - Should probably have an article under its more common name of Wellington tree weta. There are a few red links in Wikipedia but no article under either its scientific nor common name. I know that Wetas in general are being researched at present but there doesn't seem to be any reason an article can't be written on this species. Information on it exists in Wikidata, Wikispecies and Wikicommons. Ambrosia10 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senecio quadridentatus

Phlegmariurus varius

Caedicia simplex

Kunzea robusta - Not listed in NZOR as its relatively newly described but it is in EOL.org. I can't find any article on this species in Wikipedia nor any image in Wikicommons but the species is listed in Wikispecies and Wikidata. This paper is CC BY 4.0 and therefore has images that can be downloaded and then uploaded into Wikicommons to be used in Wikipedia. It is full of information on this species. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asplenium gracillimum

Lycopodium volubile

Melicytus alpinus

Carmichaelia australis

Agrocybe parasitica - checked NZOR & Wikipedia, has red link and name confirmed via NZOR. Seems a relatively straightforward needed article. Issues are that there is only genus information in Wikispecies and no images in Wikicommons. There is a nice CC BY image in NaturewatchNZ tho so good opportunity to teach a new editor how to download and then upload image into Wikicommons for use in article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raukaua simplex - checked NZOR & Wikipedia, appears to be listed in Wikipedia as Pseudopanax simplex but this needs confirmation. Also came across another mention in Wikipedia under another of its possible synonyms Panax simplex. Think this one should be left to a more experienced editor or alternatively teaching a new editor about redirects and moving articles, if, after research, the name change can be confirmed via sources required by Wikiproject:Plants. Wikicommons images could also do with being updated (and possibly Wikidata & Wikispecies) if name change has been confirmed. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asplenium hookerianum - checked taxonomy & Wikipedia, seems straightforward & just needs article. Is in Wikispecies (no references tho), and although no images in Wikicommons there are CC BY images in NaturewatchNZ that have been confirmed by Leon Perrie. Also a scientific drawing by Matilda Smith in BHL Flickr that can used to teach new editor how to upload into Wikicommons. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lophomyrtus obcordata

Lastreopsis glabella

Anaphalioides bellidioides

Thelymitra longifolia

Helpis minitabunda

Notogrammitis heterophylla

Badumna longinqua

Pteris macilenta

Hymenophyllum dilatatum

Polystichum oculatum

Chiloglottis cornuta

Prasophyllum colensoi

Raoulia australis

Olearia avicenniifolia

There might of course be entries under another name, so a redirect might be needed instead. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Macropiper excelsum for instance does exist, under its old name; so in that case the page would need to be moved (renamed) and all the references to it checked – P. excelsum isn't even mentioned in the List of Piper species, so that needs fixing too. But there are plenty of contenders here. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rush to rename existing articles as it is probably best to be consistent about which authoritative sources wikipedia and inaturalist/naturewatch go by, ie checkout what sources wikipedia uses (I expect there is a page somewhere), and just make a redirect when there is a difference. I seem to remember some species going from one name to another then back again already in the few years I've been using naturewatch. (NB my list of names above was from March, names and article existence may have changed since then!) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony -- redirects from these redlinks to the existing pages would be a better way to go than moving pages. Although, some may take some deconvoluting, e.g. Solanum aviculare discusses Solanum laciniatum. Paul (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable photos from naturewatch[edit]

Some of the photos on naturewatch are suitably licensed for wikipedia, here is a link to a search-page that will find all observations with CC0 (public domain), CC-BY (attribution), CC-BY-SA (attribution, share alike) licenses : CC-BY,CC0,CC-BY-SA just enter the species you are looking for and select the appropriate taxon entry that pops up. You can enter a location, or even more options in the "filter" box.

Click on the photos and select 'original' for the best image. Double check photo licenses are appropriate. Let the user know you are using their images (probably have to create an account there before posting them a message though).

Most users there are approachable, if you do other searches and find an image with restrictive licenses just politely ask and most will provide a suitably licensed image. Also note that the naturewatch site chops images down to a max of 2048 pixels, so it might be worth asking people to send their originals direct to you, or better yet see if they want to create a wiki account and upload some onto Wikimedia Commons.

--Tony Wills (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's so helpful, Tony: thanks very much. I agree, I've found most Naturewatchers are perfectly happy to donate photos to Wikimedia Commons if asked; indeed, most aren't aware that sharing a photo CC-NC stops their pic being used on Wikipedia. It would be nice if there was a wee note on the Settings page where they picked their default license that mentioned this. Anyway, that search string will be very useful. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion above about species names reminds me that I usually upload photographs with a descriptive title or use a common name, rather than using the current scientific name - the filename on wikimedia is irrelevant and might be in any language, no great need for it to be the current scientific name. Otherwise we seem to have ongoing churn as files are renamed back and forth following the latest scientific re-designation - just ensure all the right categories and description are on the file where they can be updated easily without disruption and risk of breaking links (this is my personal preference, others may have other ideas ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point! I'm a beginner at Commons, and still feel like I'm figuring most of this stuff out. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly observed naturewatch species with only stub articles[edit]

As mentioned when talking to @Ambrosia10: here is a list of wikipedia articles about species that have been commonly observed on naturewatch.org.nz, but which have only short articles - short defined by me as meaning having no 'contents' section. So they are probably all stub articles, but may not be marked as such. Again this data is from March this year, so may be slightly out of date.

Adiantum cunninghamii

Alectryon excelsus

Apodasmia similis

Asplenium bulbiferum

Asplenium flabellifolium

Asplenium flaccidum

Asplenium oblongifolium

Blechnum novae-zelandiae

Blechnum procerum

Brachyglottis repanda

Carex secta

Clematis paniculata

Coccinella undecimpunctata

Coprosma acerosa

Coprosma areolata

Coprosma crassifolia

Coprosma foetidissima

Coprosma rotundifolia

Dacrycarpus dacrydioides

Dicksonia squarrosa

Discaria toumatou

Dracophyllum longifolium

Elaeocarpus hookerianus

Griselinia littoralis

Hymenophyllum demissum

Knightia excelsa

Leontodon taraxacoides

Leucopogon fasciculatus

Metrosideros perforata

Microsorum pustulatum

Microsorum scandens

Microtis unifolia

Muehlenbeckia axillaris

Muehlenbeckia complexa

Ozothamnus leptophyllus

Paesia scaberula

Parsonsia heterophylla

Pennantia corymbosa

Philesturnus carunculatus

Phyllocladus alpinus

Pittosporum crassifolium

Pittosporum eugenioides

Pittosporum tenuifolium

Plagianthus regius

Pneumatopteris pennigera

Prumnopitys ferruginea

Pseudopanax arboreus

Pseudopanax crassifolius

Pteridium esculentum

Pyrrosia eleagnifolia

Sticherus cunninghamii

Streblus heterophyllus

Tetragonia implexicoma

Typha orientalis

Xanthocnemis zealandica

--Tony Wills (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threatened but without articles ?[edit]

What's with all the lists, enough already you cry? How about just one more? :

From http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/nztcs4entire.pdf

Nationally Critical without apparent article:

Charadrius obscurus obscurus (subspecies hasn't a separate page)

Diomedea antipodensis antipodensis (subspecies hasn't a separate page)

Gygis alba candida (subspecies hasn't a separate page)

Pelagodroma albiclunis

Stictocarbo featherstoni

Nationally Endangered without apparent article:

Apteryx australis lawryi (subspecies hasn't a separate page)

Gallirallus australis scotti (subspecies hasn't a separate page)

Pealeornis maoriana

Nationally Vulnerable sub-species without apparent article although there is one for the parent species:

Apteryx australis australis

Bowdleria punctata stewartiana

Charadrius obscurus aquilonius

Gallirallus australis greyi

Hemiphaga chathamensi

Nestor meridionalis meridionalis

Phalacrocorax varius varius

Podiceps cristatus australis

Sterna striata aucklandorna

Check whether sub species is dealt with in parent species article, and again there might be an article under a synonym, in which case a redirect page would help (If you rename the article, then you really need to create a redirect from the old name anyway).

--Tony Wills (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]