Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gregor Hagedorn"
From Species-ID
(→PlaziBot) |
m (→PlaziBot) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
: PS: the main problem is probably that the [[Hypoponera jeanneli (Bolton, B. & Fisher, B. L. 2011)]] is a sensu citation, citing the publication, not the taxonomic author. This should indeed be clear. The problem is that plazi will have NEW descriptions of OLD species, and sometimes 2. What would you recommend the page titles to be? [[User:Gregor Hagedorn|Gregor Hagedorn]] 12:02, 24 August 2011 (CEST) | : PS: the main problem is probably that the [[Hypoponera jeanneli (Bolton, B. & Fisher, B. L. 2011)]] is a sensu citation, citing the publication, not the taxonomic author. This should indeed be clear. The problem is that plazi will have NEW descriptions of OLD species, and sometimes 2. What would you recommend the page titles to be? [[User:Gregor Hagedorn|Gregor Hagedorn]] 12:02, 24 August 2011 (CEST) | ||
| − | :: Yes, but these "sensu citations" (="chresonyms") are very misleading, as they don't indicate what they are. Another one is [[Conoppia palmicinctum (Luxton, M. 1990)]]. They should not put the author of the publication in the page title, or under taxon authority in the article. Alternatively, they could do what ZooBank does, and say, for example Conoppia palmicinctum sec Luxton, 1990 ... [[User:Stephen Thorpe|Stephen Thorpe]] 10:13, 25 August 2011 (CEST) | + | :: Yes, but these "sensu citations" (="chresonyms") are very misleading, as they don't indicate what they are. Another one is [[Conoppia palmicinctum (Luxton, M. 1990)]]. They should not put the author of the publication in the page title, or under taxon authority in the article. Alternatively, they could do what ZooBank does, and say, for example ''Conoppia palmicinctum sec'' Luxton, 1990 ... [[User:Stephen Thorpe|Stephen Thorpe]] 10:13, 25 August 2011 (CEST) |
Revision as of 09:13, 25 August 2011
Feedback on Main Page
>Species-ID is dedicated to publish and integrate open species descriptions and identification tools. The ultimate goal is to enable the identification of all living organisms on earth.<
I wonder if we can make the scope a bit more general to include other types of information in addition to strictly descriptive/diagnostic, e.g. faunistic, bionomic, etc? Also, I'm not sure it is good to have something unattainable as an ultimate goal?
Suggested rewording:
The goal of Species-ID is to offer a dynamic and authoritative open access resource for biodiversity information, with an emphasis on descriptive/diagnostic tools to facilitate identification.
Stephen Thorpe 03:58, 21 March 2011 (CET)
- I have thought about the unattainable as well. I like your rewording and largely accepted it. Thanks a lot for your collaboration and contributions to the platform! I appreciate your feedback on the changed version! --Gregor Hagedorn 08:57, 21 March 2011 (CET)
- >of the living organisms on earth< ... this sounds like it excludes extinct/fossil species, which we don't want to exclude! This is why I shifted to talking about "biodiversity information" ... Stephen Thorpe 23:59, 22 March 2011 (CET)
- good point. On the other side, the biodiversity information sounded too abstract to me. "of the organisms on earth" - leaving away the living - or does that sound odd to you? Or: "of species on earth"? I tried the latter for the moment, but look forward to your feedback. --Gregor Hagedorn 00:05, 23 March 2011 (CET)
- the only problem with "species on Earth" is that "species" is a general term, also used elsewhere, so "biological species" is better, but I figure everyone understands what "biodiversity information" means Stephen Thorpe 00:15, 23 March 2011 (CET)
- Not everyone understands biodiversity, still not, but I hope in combination it is clear now. Thank you! --Gregor Hagedorn 01:01, 24 March 2011 (CET)
- the only problem with "species on Earth" is that "species" is a general term, also used elsewhere, so "biological species" is better, but I figure everyone understands what "biodiversity information" means Stephen Thorpe 00:15, 23 March 2011 (CET)
- good point. On the other side, the biodiversity information sounded too abstract to me. "of the organisms on earth" - leaving away the living - or does that sound odd to you? Or: "of species on earth"? I tried the latter for the moment, but look forward to your feedback. --Gregor Hagedorn 00:05, 23 March 2011 (CET)
- >of the living organisms on earth< ... this sounds like it excludes extinct/fossil species, which we don't want to exclude! This is why I shifted to talking about "biodiversity information" ... Stephen Thorpe 23:59, 22 March 2011 (CET)
PlaziBot
PlaziBot is creating misleading chresonym pages, with authorship not attributed to the original author, and other related problems!! Stephen Thorpe 03:59, 24 August 2011 (CEST)
- Thanks Stephen. I appreciate your help with this! We are talking about several issues, but we may not be aware of the problems you see. Can you describe an example pages and how things could be fixed? Plazi cannot do the whole job, it can only provide materials to help doing the job. However, this should of course not hinder others and be transparent. What needs to be done? Gregor Hagedorn 11:26, 24 August 2011 (CEST)
- PS: the main problem is probably that the Hypoponera jeanneli (Bolton, B. & Fisher, B. L. 2011) is a sensu citation, citing the publication, not the taxonomic author. This should indeed be clear. The problem is that plazi will have NEW descriptions of OLD species, and sometimes 2. What would you recommend the page titles to be? Gregor Hagedorn 12:02, 24 August 2011 (CEST)
- Yes, but these "sensu citations" (="chresonyms") are very misleading, as they don't indicate what they are. Another one is Conoppia palmicinctum (Luxton, M. 1990). They should not put the author of the publication in the page title, or under taxon authority in the article. Alternatively, they could do what ZooBank does, and say, for example Conoppia palmicinctum sec Luxton, 1990 ... Stephen Thorpe 10:13, 25 August 2011 (CEST)
