User talk:Mcitsci

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mcitsci!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Hypnales}}, {{Brachytheciaceae}} and {{Agaricaceae}}[edit]

Hello Mcitsci,
I discovered your {{Hypnales}}, {{Brachytheciaceae}} and {{Agaricaceae}}
They are perfectly defined, but I am asking myself the righfullness of these templates.
Currently, there are such templates for:

  • all classes (even if they have few subcategories)
  • all insect orders (they have a lot of subcategories)
  • all angiospermes families (they have a lot of subcategories).
    Warning: as these families template follow APGIII, they are named <familyName> (APG) and contain classification=APGIII

As you can see we have limited the creation of those templates to:

  • big taxon categories
  • easy to memorize '3 lines rules'
  • all 3 rules are fully implemented (really all classes, all insect orders, all angiospermes families)
  • I ran a bot to ensure that all Taxonavigation that could use those templates do use those templates.

Do you really want to keep your 3 templates ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liné1
  • I'm not sure. I've been learning about such templates but due to template loops they don't seem ideal. Maintainability is so important for volunteer projects. Ideally you would have templates for every class down to genus so that when a taxon gets moved it is trivial to fix, plus there are nice automatic category advantages in TaxonavigationIncluded.
  • But if we can only have, say 2 TaxonavigationIncluded templates in a tree then the question is which taxons are the best. To me, it would save more work if the taxons were further down the tree at family and genus level because rearrangements are more likely at that level and the number of those taxons is much higher than at higher levels.
  • That said, I'm new here and have done little work and will be happy to simply be told how it shall be done :) So tell me what you want and I'll help do it your way! Mcitsci (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again
Mcitsci (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mcitsci,
You seem quite familiar with templates ;-) (You discovered the loop issue and the {{TaxonavigationIncluded2}} small solution)

In fact, the purpose is not to reproduce the technic used by en.wikipedia where all the taxonomy is defined in templates (See en:Asterales using en:Template:Automatic taxobox and en:Template:Taxonomy/Asterales)
This technic is very powerfull but too complex for commons small group of contributors.

The purpose of our taxonavigation-include-templates is to separate the responsability/knowledge between higher ranks (regnum,phlyum) specialists and the lower .
For example, ornithologs know about everything (order, family, genus) under Aves but not much above: regnum,subregnum... => We wanted to provide automatic Taxonavigation above Aves => include=Aves
So the question was for what rank should taxonavigation-include-templates be provided:
  • classes in most cases (like Aves) because most biologist have a speciality limitied to a class (reptils,amphibians,birds,fishes)
  • order for orders (the insect specialists know much under the 29 orders not above)
  • families for angiospermes. This is due to something else: APGIII describes the classes-orders-families but does not provide the list of genus. On the contrary the botanic websites provide genus lists for each families but rely on APG for classification from classis to families.

About {{Brachytheciaceae}} and {{Agaricaceae}}, APGIII is really (sadly ;-)) limited to Category:Angiospermes.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so, since Angiosperms are finished, should we start in on Fungi and Mosses? The Orders are done so there's the pattern (e.g. classification=Goffinet et al. for Bryophyta. I think Familia is a good taxon to pick for the same reasons as for Angiosperms. Should this discussion go to the Village pump? Or bring more people in here? Mcitsci (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Village pump is too technical, because this is about taxonomy.
About more people, I am working about that with my gourou User:Rocket000.
Until now, we have limited the template to fully accepted taxonomy. 100% of the botanists recognize APGIII. 100% of the entomologists recognoze the 27 insect orders.
Your 2 propositions (Fungi and Mosses) are not in the same stability.

If you want to work on this, you could prepare the templates for Category:Aves which fully follow IOC classification 3.1
I have prepared {{Diomedeidae (IOC)}} as a sample in Category:Aves Templates to include in Taxonavigation.
Once all the 248 templates are finished, I will run the bot.
In fact, your questions has motivated me to kill some remaining bugs in the templates.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I agree after thinking about it yesterday. Since fungi and mosses are the poor sisters of biology, they'll be last to get the resources to do the molecular work needed. But by the time the better funded areas are completed in wikimedia, fungi and mosses will be better studied. In the meantime, I'll remove the two templates so they don't keep making linebot throw errors when you run it. I'll have a look at Aves tonight. I've been looking at page histories to see which other users to talk to but all I see is you :) I guess it's thanks to you that the commons pages look better than wikispecies or wikipedia, and more up to date! Mcitsci (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome ;-)
I see that you begun. Cool. Excellent work!
  1. You can limitate your usage of your include templates to the first level (the familia). My bot will do the rest.
  2. I have changed the content of the template to add a detector ([1]). classification= should not be provided. I like detectors ;-)
  3. I have changed the content of the Category:Species of ([2]). This is my fault, you simply copied the documented code {{TaxonavigationAutoCategory|Apterygidae}}. Sadly my auto documentation is not capable of providing the |includename=Apterygidae (IOC) part. Sorry. Good news there was already a detector.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I ran the bot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You can follow my progress at my ToDo List. Mcitsci (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent job!
My bot is currently running.
There is still some work to do:
  • determine why there are 254 families in Category:Families of Aves and 229 in Category:Aves Templates to include in Taxonavigation.
    Maybee create a category Category:Non IOC Families of Aves to reference the fossils families not yet managed by IOC
  • go through all your template and find out if there are subfamilies, in which case we could add categorizeGeneraIn= to your template
  • go through all your template and find out if there only one genus, in which case we should study for the need of the generated category "Species of XXXX". This because all the species are in the genus. The only reason I see to keep the generated category would be to be homogeneous.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
There would be fossil families, no longer recognised families, etc. There have been a number of new families created under IOC so those numbers probably underestimate the problem. Since I have just visited all the IOC familia, it's easy to see the rest now - unvisited vs visited links. The creation of the family pages and templates are only a start. The next step would be to make current Genera lists and work down and get all the genera into the correct families without orphaning any media - there may be feathers ruffled if experts disagree :)
Sorry, I did not get this part. Bird genera fully follow IOC classification 3.1 as I did migrated commons to IOC some times ago and I apply the differences any time there is an IOC update (like here the difference between 2.11 and 3.1). You will see some species list with old versions displayed but this is due to the fact that the list has not change from that version to 3.1
Oh I see :) I saw the IOC 2.xx.
There's also work to do with the parents of families. For instance, the Parvordo Corvida was previously deleted because it was found to be paraphyletic but with the removal of the offending clades, it has returned to acceptance and is needed to contain the superfamilia found to be sisters to Corvoidea.
Totally agree with you. Thanks to our template, the work will be much easier.
With regard to SpeciesIn and GeneraIn, I would be inclined to make them standard or not use them at all. Since this is Wikimedia, I think the main use of these pages should be to showcase, help find, and help categorize media, old or new. The SpeciesIn categories seem like an excellent way to find media so I would leave them all in place, even if there's only one species in the family.
Ok, categorizeSpeciesIn can be a standard. But categorizeGeneraIn should be rare. As IOC does not work with subfamilies (yet) there are very few families in commons with subfamilies.
Mcitsci (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I just saw your last contributions. I forgot to mention what you discovered: When I go through a group to update the classification (Like I currently do on Category:Amphibia) I never go down to the species.
Except when a species is moved from a genus to another, which I discover when I update the {{Species}} in the genus.
Sorry for being lazy ;-)
So it is an excellent idea to go through the pages referencing obsolete families
I hope you don't mind if I give you some tricks:
If you want to get rid of a category, you can
  1. put {{speedy|a good reason to suppress it}}, then later an admin will suppress it (It did it here)
Or even better
  1. Transform the content of the category by a {{Category redirect}} (like here)
We need a taxonote template to make an intrusive box - something like:
'This taxon is not currently accepted.'
This family is not recognized by IOC classification 3.1 which places Oxyruncus in family Tityridae
I think it would be more informative than a redirect. Often families, etc get split up with some children going to one family and others elsewhere. And other projects often still use the obsolete name so they can find those links. Mcitsci (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Use the gadget cat-a-lot (activate it in your preferences) to move all the pictures to the destination category in 1 click. It is better to do it after the previous step because that way cat-a-lot propose automatically the destination category in his menu.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent idea the template.
Wouldn't you like a template that gave the explaination (taxonomy oriented) + did the same as {{Category redirect}} ??
{{Category redirect}} is very powerfull: if someont puts a media in your deprecated category, it is moved by a bot into the correct category.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The case that troubles me is when a family has, for instance, 4 genera and 2 are sent to one family and the other 2 to another family. Which one do you redirect to?
Redirect to the order (more generaly the common parent taxon)?
I am working on our problem:
I am modifying {{Category redirect}} to allow to provide a reason parameter. With that I will create 2 other templates like {{Invalid taxon category redirect}} and {{Monotypic taxon category redirect}} that would use {{Category redirect}} and provide an internationalized reason
I am also working on a parameter to {{Taxanavigation}} so that I will not add categories (mainly for invalid taxon)
Liné1 (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WikipediaBioReferences[edit]

I also wanted to talk to you of my software fr:Utilisateur:Liné1/WikipediaBioReferences. It free of course and easy to install.
You simply type a taxon name and it returns wikicommons syntax: {{VN}} + list of subtaxa + interwiki...
Try it will love it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice! I'll definitely use it :) Mcitsci (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The taxonav is a bit buggy for birds - only the lines after the include= line are printed. For example
Genus|Sterna|
Species|Sterna forsteri|
authority=Nuttall, 1834}}
Also if under Options you select only one of Wiki Fr, Wiki Commons, or Wiki Species then no result is given and I see this error in the console (maybe the results window doesn't like to have only one tab?)

Exception in thread "Interwiki" java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 1, Tab count: 1

       at javax.swing.JTabbedPane.checkIndex(JTabbedPane.java:1758)
       at javax.swing.JTabbedPane.setSelectedIndex(JTabbedPane.java:589)
       at fr.wbr.ResultDialog.<init>(ResultDialog.java:78)
       at fr.wbr.MainDialog.requestFinished(MainDialog.java:325)
       at fr.wbr.Request.requestFinished(Request.java:623)
       at fr.wbr.SiteThread.run(SiteThread.java:172)
Cool, you tested it.
About the taxonav, it is the way I implemented it: I just add Genus,Species,authority= because I will in the future have to open the parent page or category (not always easy to determine) to get the first part of the Taxonavigation. (let us call it feature 1)
Next step for me is to generate {{Taxonavigation|include=<familyName> (IOC)|... for birds only, thanks to your work ;-). (let us call it feature 2) Sadly it will not be able to contain subfamilies until I implement 'feature 1'
About the selection Exception, it is a bug that I never care to correct (let us call it bug 1)
I will implement 'feature 1' and correct 'bug 1' as soon as possible.
Until then, I recommend: 'Options'->'Select All Commons' + 'Wiki France'=no + 'Wiki Commons'=yes + 'Wiki Species'=no + restart WikipediaBioReferences (last part is the workarround for bug 1)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I just uploaded version 401 of WikipediaBioReferences:
  • bug 1 is corrected: you can select only "Wiki Commons'
  • feature 1 is implemented: for species and genus, a full Taxonavigation is generated (without subfamilies ;-()
Tell me what you think of it.
Did you try different groups, like:
  • Mammals - Genus - Panthera
  • Birds - Genus - Xenicus
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll get the new version and give it a try. I'm using it routinely now :) Haven't tried any mammals yet but lots of birds and plants. I hope you like getting bug reports. I've been involved in a few free software projects doing stuff like packaging, testing, desktop integration - any of the boring stuff so that the programmers can code more and the software I use gets better. Anyway I feel a responsibility to do bug reports :)
I noticed that Allium species are blank - maybe 300 or so species is too much for WikipediaBioReferences?
Cool, I like bugs.
About Allium, I have species like from ITIS,Kew and NCBI. Did you select Plant+Genus?
Liné1 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the page that has something wrong, not WikipediaBioReferences. I see the list in the source but not the page. "Currently takes up to 1600 names (use {{species}} for less than 300 and you don't want it inside a collapsible table)." But I don't see a collapsible table. There's some line breaks at hyphenated species names that might be breaking something. Oops I figured it out - not very intuitive :) Mcitsci (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Trijnsteltalk 10:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)