User talk:Kheller

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome to Wikispecies! [edit]

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 useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Corynoptera images [edit]

I saw that you're a taxon expert in Corynoptera. Are you interested in providing images for Wikispecies? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we prefer the image of the whole organism as opposed to a close-up view of the organ that differentiate a species commonly required in a journal. Even if a paper is open access (e.g. Zootaxa), the journal *might* retain the copyright of these images used in papers submitted. Some journals such as ZooKeys are not only open access, but explicitly stated that their papers are licensed under Creative Commons license (a circle with "CC" in it) then all contents like text, images, and tables are reusable in Wikispecies or Wikipedia as long as attribution is provided. If you see the traditional "copyright logo" or "all rights reserved" in the journal paper, then it's safe to assume that you cannot use those images even it is from your own paper. Nonetheless, if you have images that are not used/submitted to a journal, you can upload them. Please let me know if you need help while uploading those images. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
How about both an overall photo and a photo that distinguishes the species? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms [edit]

Hi, it makes far more sense to have pages for synonyms, not just because it makes it easier to shift pages, but also because:

  1. For most taxa, which are unrevised, we are effectively just dealing with names anyway
  2. we need to be able to enter a name from its primary reference, and worry about placement as synonym or otherwise later
  3. it is often good to add an image (or link to an image) of the holotype of a synonym, even if we already have another image more representative of the species
  4. having synonyms just listed on the one page makes it more complex to highlight primary references

it is not compulsory for you to follow this, but neither do I consider that there is anything to be gained from complaining about it, thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Subgenera [edit]

The way that subgenera have been treated on Wikispecies is not so good. We need to make it easy for external sites to link to species pages using http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Genus_species, but this doesn't work if a subgenus is part of the page name. So, we can still use subgenera, as before, except that they are not part of the page name Stho002 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you were not doing anything wrong by putting subgenera in page titles, but I am just advising you not to do so. We are in an experimental phase to see what works best. The "rules" are really just there to keep newbies from flying off on tangents of their own ... Stho002 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:BHL [edit]

I am working on the problem and hopefully it will be fixed soon. Koumz (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have solved this problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Koumz (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ZooBank reference templates [edit]

Although it may be a bit unwieldly, I prefer to use the "all citations" format that I have been using, as it needs to be obvious to the user, but they could easily overlook it on your format. Also, there is no real need to add Internet Archive links as well as BHL links. BHL is basically the same thing as IA, but taylored more for biology. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Homonym page names [edit]

Doesn't it make more sense to use the author's name (which will not change) in the page name rather than the family name (which could change) for homonym pages? Koumz (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That´s what I thought at first. Then I noticed, that the standard discriminator for most other homonym genus names is the family name. For species disambiguations I observed, that the author name is used. I don´t have any preferences, but I like to have things treated consistently. A convention to use the author´s name would be ok for me. Well, in theory even author or family might also be the same. Kheller (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
consistency is hard to get, and not necessarily a good thing anyway! Sometimes we need to diambiguate a genus name from an author name, sometimes a genus of plant from a genus of animal, sometimes two genera of animals, etc., etc. In the latter case, I recommend using author's name (possibly with date if there is still ambiguity) to disambiguate ... Stho002 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The standard had been the family name, but then sometimes people were using subfamily or tribe names, etc. resulting in duplicate entries for the same taxon. I use only author names for these cases (for taxa family-level and below), because I think it is the most unambiguous way and the one least likely to change. Koumz (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine, then I will use author names as disambiguation in the following cases. But It is not worth while changing existing entries like Chorizomma unless there would be a bot doing that work. Kheller (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You are right that changing them over is a VERY low-priority project. I do it, but only a little at a time as part of other work. Koumz (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Faunaeur [edit]

I've adjusted this template so that the name displayed in the link can be easily italicized (for genus and species names) by just using "i" as the second parameter. Koumz (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Works fine! Could the addition of "|i" be done automatically for genera and below? A manual correction would be very tedious. By the way, Why "Taxon Details" and not "Taxon details". English is not my first language, but I thought upper-case letters are mainly a German speciality. Kheller (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
When you are talking about the addition of i, did you mean for pages that have already been created? If so, I can edit the "|i" onto all those pages quickly using AWB. For future pages, it is simpler to add the i manually, because otherwise I would have to add a parameter to the template to tell it whether the taxon is genus or lower, and typing that parameter would take just as long as typing the "|i" does or longer. In the case of "Taxon Details", you are right that if it was a full English sentence, it would definitely be "Taxon details". In this case, where it's just a short link name (a fragment) it's OK either way. Koumz (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the existing entries. An automatic correction would be perfect. Kheller (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am in process on that now. Koumz (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Corrections complete. Koumz (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference templates [edit]

Yes, this job can be automated fairly easily, and I think you could learn to do it yourself with a relatively small amount of effort. I use AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) for these kinds of jobs, since I don't yet have the programming skill to do a fully automated script for it. AWB's Find and Replace functions are rather easy to learn if you are familiar with the similar functions in word processors or spreadsheets (that's how I thought of getting into it in the first place). Beyond that, it's just a question of how to easily create a list of the pages that need the change, since one doesn't want to waste time searching all 300,000 pages. In the Tuomikoski 1960 case, I can make such a list by just using Wikispecies' search function and searching for the full name of that journal, since almost all pages relating to that journal contain the Tuomikoski 1960 reference. There are other tactics that can be used in other cases. Koumz (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for fixing Template:BHL so that the direct primary reference links work again. Koumz (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)