User talk:Curtis Clark
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Contents |
[edit] Image:Hordeum murinum callus at tip of spikelet cluster SEM.jpg
Wow. Nice photo. :) --Maveric149 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dicentra chrysostoma 2004-05-17.jpg
Hi Curtis,
Dicentra chrysostoma is not listed at www.itis.usda.gov, www.efloras.org or www.ars-grin.gov. Also google returns just your upload. Could you please enlighten me?
tia,
TeunSpaans 06:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, that's what I get for relying on memory. It should be Dicentra chrysantha.--Curtis Clark 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- How does one move or rename an image?--Curtis Clark 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind; I looked it up.--Curtis Clark 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- How does one move or rename an image?--Curtis Clark 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kind request
Hi Curtis,
I usually seem to upload yourt photos with a family category. If everyopne did, thiw would create very large categories - some families like en:compositae have over 10.000 species. It would be great if you could take the trouble to create pages for them, when people write articles on a wikipedia they generally browse through the article names, not through all the images. For an example, see Emmenanthe penduliflora.
tia, TeunSpaans 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've always realized that leaving it in a family category is not a good long-term solution, but the idea of a species article as a desired resting place is one that seems only now to be gaining wide support. I'll certainly do this in the future.--Curtis Clark 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
Hi again,
you might be interested in Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life
TeunSpaans 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very interesting; thanks for the link. I'll look into this more when I have time.--Curtis Clark 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding links to species articles
I don't see the point to adding a link to a species article to an image of that species. If it is in the article, the article will appear in the list of the pages that link the image. If it's not in the article, the link is somewhat misleading.--Curtis Clark 13:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well that is easy to explain, it seems most of the photos that I have been looking at are in the Category page. The one's that are duplicated in the article page I am deleting the duplicate off the Category page, also, many do not have an article page SO in order for me to create a new article page I have to put the link on the photo (as you mentioned) in order to use the information and cut and past the Horticultural and Botanical headers from the existing articles to create a complete, new species article. Does this make sense. Let me know if this is what you are talking about. WayneRay 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
- No, sorry, it still doesn't make sense. If I type a nonexistant name into the search box and hit "Go", one of the options is "There is no page titled "Nonexistant name". You can create this page." Then I can add anything to it that I want. Removing the cat from the image makes sense, but I don't see the reason for the other changes.--Curtis Clark 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that is what I meant in a long about way, apologies. I guess it was just for me as a back up, I can go and remove the links, I have only done a 100 or so corrections so it won't be hard. Thanks for contacting me. I am presently scanning hundreds of my Botanical photographs and will have to watch what I do from now on. WayneRay 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
- No, sorry, it still doesn't make sense. If I type a nonexistant name into the search box and hit "Go", one of the options is "There is no page titled "Nonexistant name". You can create this page." Then I can add anything to it that I want. Removing the cat from the image makes sense, but I don't see the reason for the other changes.--Curtis Clark 13:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(Just noticed this.) There is another reason to have the links, which is vandalism backup. If the species article is blanked, then the combination of link *to*, but no link *from*, tells you something is wrong, in fact sufficiently precisely to automate. Stan Shebs 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Curtis,
I added some categories, Flora of California, the plant's family and genus, when it exists already, to some of your photographs (with some help), to try to make Wikimedia a more useful tool for free-to-use California natives. KP Botany 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad dreams, comedy or what
I am being blocked on english wikipedia and unable to write there except to my talk page. I have some idea about physics teachers and mathematics teachers -- my favorite two physics teachers -- one was two years older than me and had a degree from an ivy league college and the other, I can show you a somewhat current photograph of him and his lego dulcimer. To say that it is the real people that I like the most in my studies is to make a huge understatement.
I found a stash of photographs that included some interesting images from B.Nord.!! That was similar to finding your name there also, but different as he seems to be both a character and a parenthesis in a lot of renaming. Perhaps a statement which is more about how the years and experience grows....
In that stash are where the bad dreams or the comedy were/are. One of the images was probably taken in Chile and there is a sign over it with a social security number (one of the numbers is out of the view). Another one has a wrapped package behind it. I left a snarky message at the gallery for that abbreviate (what is the word for an honor like that?) on an image which seems to be mislabeled that is in the collection. I haven't had javascript enabled to see if the botanist has gotten back to answering it.
In the end, I believe that I will still love the little plants that grow naturally above all the rest. I understand that the 'growing naturally' idea will be disputed until that end also, but that is not really what I meant by the statement.
Mostly, a sincere thank you, especially for that TWDG thing. -- carol (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The bot on English wikipedia with the spelling problems -- the bot can be told that if a taxonomy box exists on the page to not correct anything in italics very simply. -- carol (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
I have been working embarrassingly diligently on making it easy to add species categories and get them into a somewhat uniform presence here. With all of the software writers here, it should be interesting to see if a bot is written who will generate the missing genera pages and the associated talk pages with the instructions. Yesterday, I got the Euasterids I families ready for the bot. The templates make some interesting (in a database kind of interesting) categories. Category:Genera of Asteraceae is one of those, if the templates are used, that gets filled automatically.
One of the problems with not having even empty genera categories is that the upload software will not suggest it. So when the empty ones exist, they might get populated.
I have been much more enthusiastic about accomplishing this, which is perhaps 90% a task that a software can do just as well or better -- but that 10% where it can't be scripted. Like when the genus name is an existing category for something else. Making it work for the three different systems that are used right now on the wiki is also kind of interesting -- more interesting than 99% of television and even more interesting than that much of what they call "life" here in California (especially when compared with what I had seen/wanted for myself).
Interesting templates {{Stifftioideae}} splits into tribes and genera. The templates work with just the genera name even when it is shared by another category Wilsonia is from the tribe Cresseae is an example of this. Here, the category already exists for a bird. For plants both in the {{genus}} templated listing there and in the {{Cresseae}} template the addition of the family name is just managed.
Just the clean up alone has been good for things here, in my opinion. User:Rocket000/Sandbox has a list, all of the red links there used to be redundant categories that were combined. There is another list User:Multichill/Sort categories awaiting the bot that will take the gallery name and make it into a category (further clean up from the combining of the redundant categories). All plant categories who have shared names now use the family name in parenthesis to separate them from whatever else has the category name.
The bot I am waiting to see written or (to me the sad part a sadness which is due to all of the people here who write software) I can write this: Commons:COMBotBot which has the list of categories with lists of genera whose categories can be created using existing templates.
I am a little concerned about the integrity of the information I have access to, although the same thing can be said about text books and other books with that kind of information. I am trying to use "sorting characters" like a space for APG II family, subfamily, tribe and a @ for antiquated family names and > for genera which is in the family but not in a subfamily in Cronquist. Using the templates makes it all uniform that way.
Oh, and Category:Species needing images is a category that I am using when I need to make a category to make sure the template works. Category:Genera needing images is also being used, it just isn't created yet -- if you click through, there are genera there and that should be filled when the bot makes the genus categories -- okay, I haven't been as consistent in using that one but there are so many hollyhock and rose photographs and a list of images that are missing is in many ways, a good list to have until all of the species have images....
I do not know how many others share my idea that commons can also be managed like a database, I think it makes more sense for the image area than it does for the article areas (commons or wikipedia's). It would be nice if someone with some experience were to look at this stuff. -- carol (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Although I'm happy to see people tackling taxonomic categories, and I agree that content can be managed like a database, I know from experience that databasing taxa is complex. I've been following the discussion here, and I agree that multiple systems of categories are problematic. The issue is deep-seated: Every taxon can have multiple circumscriptions, leading to an effectively infinite number of possible trees. By restricting it to a small number of systems, one might think that you'd avoid such issues as including Cronquist's Papaveraceae in APGII's Ranunculales, but no single system includes all levels from domain to species, so there's always some synthesis going on. I think Hesperian's point about either picking a system or having separate categories for each circumscription sums up all the reasonable possibilities, and I concur that picking a system (or even a synthesis of systems, since no one system covers all levels) is the most useful solution.
- Nevertheless, it's wonderful to see the broader need for categories being tackled.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] File:Eschscholzia californica Goldmohn.jpg
Hi, bitte noch die Bildbeschreibung und Kategorisierung berichtigen, umbenannt ist das Bild bereits. --Martin H. (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Getan, danke.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
