User talk:Brya

Archive01

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Category:Papilionoideae, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.  --

Okay, it is not the correct reason for the deletion request, but it is closer than the other ones. The problem that made this category be made has been handled in a template Template:Fabaceae -- carol (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Strasburger

I was told that Strasburger is not an actual classification system. I think that you are the person who introduced this here.

Is it possible for you to perhaps work on deleting all instances of that Strasburger option being used in the taxonomy template before making other changes?

The new templates are representing classifications from 1980 until now.

I will thank you for asking about that when you do.

I am curious about that Stasburger stuff and perhaps a date when you will have it cleaned up. -- carol (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, well it is an actual classifaction system, in as far that it is contained in an actual book. Personally I have not much need for it, but it is the basis for what the German Wikipedia uses (the book combined with the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website) and there are many German users here. So, I have long since given up trying to remove it from the categories (it kept coming back) and I was happy enough to see it made explicit in the taxonav templates, so that at least it is clear what is being used. I would be happy enough to go by just APG II (2003) added with very little improvisation, but I have no objection in principle to the present four-way taxonav (it looks impractical to me and very labor-intensive, but it can be made to work). - Brya (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:CarolSpears/2009-02#Systematik_Strasburger is where I got my information from about de.wikipedia and Strasburger. They can say whatever they want about de.wikipedia taxonomy but the hundreds of family articles I looked at there, 98 of them were scooped from GRIN.

Three classification systems being represented here was several magnitudes more interesting than 1)just one and 2)any discussion about which one. Okay, several magnitudes of a fractional value is not that great -- meaning, it still wasn't that interesting compared to millions of other things I have done. But the categories look good and the information is not inaccurate and the avoided discussions are thankfully avoided.

One of the things that encouraged me to continue was that there is no other web site which offers such comprehensive and non-side taking information about taxonomy. I thought that was kind of cool for commons. I still think it is.

--carol (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, thank you, that is very illuminating! As a minor point the ARS-GRIN website is a nomenclatural website, rather than a taxonomic one, and as far as I understand it they keep in tune with the APWebsite for their taxonomy. The http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/ you refer to also does not appear to be a real taxonomic resource, and it apparently is doing the same thing as NCBI does, which is more or less following the APWebsite, at a remove.

        The APWebsite is indeed hampered as resource by the fact that it is not stable, and subject to change without notice. I very much prefer a stable publication. Also it is incomplete (especially as to genera, sometimes referring to a conflicting database). However, it is amazing achievement and an unparallelled resource (much better than the uniprot site). For the French Wikipedia I have kept to Cronquist (1981) and APG II (2003), with additional notes when the APWebsite differed, and in at least one case this meant inclusions of differing, evolving points of view from the APWebsite at different points in time. For the Dutch Wikipedia I have kept to the Heukels, which is the Dutch standard flora, and which uses a slightly evolved version of APG II.

        If the German Wikipedia switched to following the APWebsite, then this is good news indeed. If this is so I will gladly cooperate in removing every vestige of their previous system (which just gave me a headache) from Commons. - Brya (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the German Wikipedia show that there is no sign of any change. For example here is a uniquely German Wikipedia taxon, that links up with a Commons page that exists here exclusively for the German Wikipedia, so it does not look hopeful? - Brya (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

tribe

Hello my friend,
Do you know the latin singular and plural or "tribe" ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I see you have been very industrious here! Good work!

The Latin singular for tribe is "tribus" (see Art 4), and I guess the plural should be "tribus" (see here, here, here or here). It is used thus in Art 33.12, so that should be allright. - Brya (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Me, industrious? never ! ;-)

Thanks for the latin, I was using tribus in both cases and was wondering if that was correct.

Thanks again and good work. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thank you! - Brya (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitaceae

Hello, Brya, sorry, but I did'nt know the different between an "obsolete spelling" of a name and a synonym. Here is made no differrence [1].

(In orchids sometimes we find "orth. var." Then KEW says "synonym" also.)

Later I will ask you, whether the use of sorting with "@ - & - etc." in the categories is a good way. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orchi,

Yes, "synonyms" is an awkward topic, because the word means something different in taxonomy. The NCBI site is not particularly accurate in such matters; note the "Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information."

        Other spellings are not synonyms but other spellings. Indeed, "orth. var." indicates another spelling. The difference is that "orth. var." is used for names at the rank of genus and below (Hyeronima is an "orth. var." of Hieronyma); this is because the spelling of such names are determined by the original spelling (by the original author in the original publication). Names above the rank of genus are a different matter; a family name like Vitaceae is formed from the generic name Vitis, which means that different spellings happen because different authors have different opinions about how the name is to be formed. In this case the name could be based on vitis or vitidis depending on linguistic views (the question of what is proper Latin in this case). To avoid confusion the ICBN has set the spelling at Vitaceae (instead of Vitidacae). But it is one and the same name. Similarly, in 19th Century literature there were differing views about ending so it is possible to find Ampelideae for this family instead of Ampelidaceae, another disallowed spelling variation. - Brya (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brya, thanks for your infos. Always I'm glad to learn. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orchi, glad to help. Greetings - Brya (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

template decision making

Mis-spelled genus names (common and accepted) and shared genus names are managed with the same template operation {{#ifeq}}. an example:

{{#ifeq:{{{genus}}}|Orthosia|Orthosia (Apocynaceae)|{{{genus}}}}}

With the way this template has been authored, applying it with:

{{Asclepiadeae
| genus= Orthosia
| auth=
}}

Orthosia will automatically be given the category Orthosia (Apocynaceae) and this will be put into the navigation portion of the stuff on the category page. Common and accepted mis-spellings can be managed the same way. -- carol (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This is indeed very useful for shared genus names, but I am not sure if and how this will work for misspellings in general. It looks to me that usually a redirect category will work better for misspellings. - Brya (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sorting keys

Even though there was a discussion of this at an area which was not a single users talk page, lately a few are deciding that the sort keys are not to be used the way I have been using them -- the only reason being cited is tradition which (the way I understand things) is to not use the software in helpful way.

The community discussion was about using the sort keys (like a space or a non-botanical character like &) to separate the taxonomy categories from the others in the listing. It was decided to forget the not thoughtout tradition and to use the software to keep, for instance, category and gallery names like Crabapple and Custard Apple separate from the listing of the latinish genus and species names. -- carol (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

it looks to me that this use of 'sorting keys' can be very helpful to the user, in the cases where more than one taxonomy is in use. I have long supported their use in separating scientific names from common names, where this occurs. - Brya (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

authoring templates and knowing the state of the "science"

At one point, I made the templates for the magnolia genus. The web site I was using had different genus names for some species than GRIN was using. Without any discussion with me or with any one else as far as I know of, those changes were reverted and the GRIN names were re-instated here.

I honestly do not understand enough of the classification of species to argue this. I do understand enough to know that there is conflicting information online about this. I also understand that I liked the two genus names instead of a single genus name because, simply, the single genus was so very populated. That made it a point I was not able to argue for, very simply.

I do know, however, that the template could have been used to manage both genus names and at that time, it would have been for me, an interesting template to author.

I mention this all now because I believe that it is a wrong situation of people not working together for the stated goal. I could perhaps rant for days about the stupidity of some of the things I write here and how they are reflected in what the locals present as a real life here -- but I won't.

I did what I thought was good research for these classifications and I tried to communicate with people who were active before changing anything which hadn't been abandoned in less than a year. That being said, I always looked first at a web site which was set up to be easily used for researching this stuff -- I opted for ease and their promise of sequencing (which I honestly think is just going to be the same stuff -- arguable circumscription; just with a smaller look at that piece of the world which is being divided).

Summary: I think that the template authoring is interesting and I have or had a feeling for the ways it can be used to document the different classifications -- including the shared names and the contended names. The template authoring is far more interesting to me than the taxonomy it displays. The fact that I enjoy this and find it easy and interesting is an example of the diversity of my species. Given the amount of time we have spent communicating about this, you could have learned how to author them yourself. I assume that it is not interesting to you. It is a diversity of interests which perhaps makes this one species stand out from all of the others.

For personal reasons, I would like to add "a willingness to communicate" by those traditional communication techniques and not these semi-anonymous, often abusive user instances I have often encountered here. -- carol (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The change to a single genus Magnolia is a very recent one (2004) and the bulk of the literature has the other names, so for the purpose of accessibility it would be good to have the other names as well. I don't know what happened here (at Commons), but there are a number of users who are very aggressive in having their own point of view as being the only 'Truth'. Obviously this is directly counter to the general policy of Wikimedia and Wikipedia (information rather than truth), but actually it is worse than that. Not only do they hold by a single point of view, but often it proved to be a unique and self-formulated point of view, not backed by any reference (literally Original Research in its purest form). It is not much different from a commercial company that wants to promote its commercial products, a practice that also is not rare in Wikipedia. In theory such usage should be stopped by other users, but in practice (all too often) this does not happen. It becomes a matter of politics instead (intra-species interaction). - Brya (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

stupid bots

The categories in the last few months to a year know how many files, subcategories and galleries appear within them. The stupid bot that plastered that message at english wikipedia is perhaps an example of putting a poster/framed image onto a wall that is yet to be built.

It is too many years now that I cannot shake this feeling that I am being observed for software to author instead of communicated with. The bot author who made the wrong message pasting bot started working on categories here at the same time I did. At that time, we were able to communicate and the user had access to some good sense. I was categorizing uncategorized images here and at the same time, learning about the structure. The images that I looked at -- some were easy to categorize but most weren't. I had to research them and even then it was impossible for some of those images. I have a feeling for what software can be relied on to accomplish and not. Me and that bot author both agreed that software could not be authored to know what category an image belonged in based on the uploader and the information given with its upload.

As it stands right now, that bot author should be stopped. Unable to communicate with others would be a good reason. Presenting the wrong character for a person from that nation would be another good reason. It is not the same person who started here attempting to author software to determine categories.

Observation will never replace actual communication -- I have several years of experience with this; having come from a world where communication combined with honest observation accomplished great (and on task) things. All that this probable but not admitted to observation (without the communication and the confession that the observation has been occuring) has done is make a person who at one time really enjoyed people, loathe them and the memory of them and not care if they all ceased to exist or better, to want them all to exist in the same conditions I have been given for a time equal to the value they assigned themselves -- like, a child who took the stance of being a superior to me (a stance I rarely take because depending on what is needed the owner of this temporary title changes) and assigned himself 5-8 times my income should spend 5-8 times the amount of time with the same given conditions.

When my species was working with me, we accomplished at least what the stated goal was. Occasionally this happened when I was the person who was responsible -- the boss, the person who set up the evenings work, the person who assigned the tasks. I don't like the word "boss" as the person who makes the assignments is one part of a team of people who each have individual strengths and skills. I have more often been part of a team and using my individual strengths and skills and doing what another person assigned me to do. Those were very happy and contented days for me. Unlike the last 5 to 6 years have been.

Summary: It got a little personal which was unnecessary with the exception of the kind of world I am accustomed to and happy with and how inhuman these last few years have been for me. My dislike of the anonymous internet and how much it is not my species and the species that I belong to. I look forward to the anonymous internet dying a slow and painful death and this is a very large thought I have to try to communicate around every time I try to explain nice and simple and doable things like the taxonomy templates.

The bot that pasted that message at english wikipedia and for all I know, the situation that caused it and the author should be stopped. Made to cease. Caused to revert many many things it has done.

There should be a way to use the templates here to let the wikipedias know when an image is available here. The templates can know if the category is populated or not here -- mediawiki should either already be able to share this information from commons to the sites it serves or it should just be a little addition to the software there. I think that displaying a whole image is more complicated than sending a single number.

Summary summary: Mediawiki should either already be able to share this information from commons to the sites it serves or it should just be a little addition to the software there. That bot was authored prematurely by a user who should be stopped here or at least not allowed to continue until reverted many things that his bots have done. -- carol (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We live in a imperfect world where companies succeed by making every effort to ensure that the costs of their products are not expressed in the price of their products, devolving said costs on others, on general society or on future generations. Executives get paid for their success in making sure that their employees get paid as little as possible, in some cases stopping just short of the point where said employees actually lynch them.

        A project such as this runs by grace of voluntary contributions of users, who in practice will have very different reasons to contribute, very different things to contribute and very different sets of skills. This makes for a complicated working environment. Not everything that some individual user can 'contribute' will actually help the project. We can only hope that most users know the difference between which of the things they could do will actually help the project and which will just hinder it.

        I agree that it should be possible to arrange recognition of what categories are empty (or so close to being empty that it makes no difference). Occasionally there is talk of having a central depository of interwiki's, which would be one way of solving this, but this appears unlikely to happen in the short term. - Brya (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

        

probably unfounded explanations based on limited knowlege and sightlines

Let me begin this with an explanation aimed at an open and understanding mind. For the last several years I have had what is often an overwhelming sense that I am being tested by individuals or (worse) groups of individuals who do not understand the test material as well as I do. It is a feeling not based the idea that my knowledge of any subject is so great and big and all encompassing as a reader of that statement I might think is being said. Instead, it is more a feeling of relativity -- where, in many situations in the last few years, my knowledge is greater than the person or group that is doing the testing. If this feeling is without foundation here, please forgive me -- it is easy for me to blame the ongoing-ness of the situation -- perhaps it can be easy for you to understand that also.

I acquired this feeling when I tidied up Category:Boraginaceae and specifically here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ANonnea&diff=26874139&oldid=21896634 Part of our talk page exchange about the taxonomy here included a claim I made that the templates could handle what I called "common misspellings". Perhaps I used this phrase "common misspellings" wrongly and there might be a more specific technical word for the situation I was talking about.

There are a few misspellings from published works. The cases I (somewhat) remember are from old texts and "botanists" who were on expeditions who misspelled genus or species names when identifying them. A few of these misspelled names were published and then picked up and used in other publications Most of these recognized misspellings seem to have occurred before (I am just pulling this year out of a summary which lives in my mind and is not at all reliable; in the United States, I might say "Pulling it out of my ass") 1950.

It was not my intention to manage misspellings from casual (or even from those relatively not as knowledgeable) uploaders (testers) via templates. To me, that is just silly, somewhat dangerous due to the possible presence of gameplayers and ultimately a great waste of time due to the implied suggestion that uploaders of images here are as stupid or having no access to the correct information as those people who were on wind- & foot-powered vehicles and far away from reference resources who accidentally made those misspellings I was referring to.

If I am correct and I have been the victim of a flawed testing apparatus, then at least this one thing has been properly demonstrated -- at least to me. That to demonstrate the performance of a good contributor, the people managing the demonstration should be at least that good. Quite possibly, any person who is at least that good would have the good sense and the actual real confidence to not become involved on the delivery end of such a flawed system to begin with. So, perhaps, the existence of such a testing situation is an implication that the people conducting such tests are in need of greater education and lessons that develop real self-esteem -- not the voted on kind.

If I am incorrect about this situation, perhaps you can overlook any hurt feelings & learn from it yourself so that in your future you can avoid being on either end of such a farce. -- carol (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Amborella_buds_h.jpg

File:Amborella_buds_h.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)