Michаel Frаnkis

My activity

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Cyndy Parr: Re "we also have an admin tool that forces a search result to the best page even if the algorithms don't"
    At the monemt, invalid names frequently get listed higher than accepted names, which is misleading.
    Would it be possible to change the search results so that (a) accepted names are listed first above non-accepted names, and (b) within accepted names, genus names are listed above species names (so that in e.g. a search for "Abies", species in the genus Abies come higher than Picea abies).

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "Michael Wunderli":

    Hi Michael - only noticed your comment "Why did this photo get a bad rating? I think its good!" on http://eol.org/data_objects/5817937 just now - the reason is that it's a very poor example of the species, being a captive specimen that even at a casual glance is grossly obese, and therefore not a good representation for the species. As a general rule, I'd say it's a good practice never to give a high rating to a pic of any species outside of its natural environment. In addition to behavioural consequences like this animal's obesity, captive / cultivated individuals are also often not typical of their species in other aspects, and misidentifications or uncertain identification are far commoner than among photos of known location wild specimens. Hope this helps!

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: One could equally argue for 'Whales, dolphins and porpoises' (since porpoises are in Cetacea, and not usually called dolphins) - there may be others, where would one end? But agreed, it's a tricky one to decide.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - thanks! Looks good; I'll use the transclusion format in the future. Can I just double-check, is it {{:Category:Xxxx xxx}} or {{Category:Xxxx xxx}} (with or without a colon), please?

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Yep, that (adding by hand) was what I was thinking. I can see the risk for getting out-of-sync, but that is also the case between categories and their galleries, and it is rare (I only occasionally find cases of it). Transcluding the data is an idea I'd not thought about, certainly worth considering though I have seen cases of it causing problems elsewhere (as currently formulated, it can over-categorise pages so they appear in multiple parent categories). I'll try it on one or two subcats and see what happens. There's been little or no discussion on Commons about it (unless I've missed seeing it of course!).

    Sorry, no idea about Darwin Core, I'm not familiar with it.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - yes, a non-breaking space would be a good idea. I'd prefer a normal full width space though, as I think it looks better and is less open to misinterpretation.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - "Since you're MPF let me say thanks for all your hard work on Commons classifications. I see you have been tasking yourself with the problem of overcategorization on Commons. I was wondering if we should also try harvesting from child categories of taxonomic entries on Commons"

    Thanks! ;-)
    Harvesting from subcategories ('child categories') is something I've actually been meaning to raise here for a while; yes, I think we should do it, but should be selective in what we do it for. The obvious solution is to add taxonav templates to the categories desired. I've already done so for a few, such as behavioural-based Milvus milvus in flight (170 pics), a species far more often seen in flight than on the ground (Milvus milvus: 16 pics), and location-based Pelecanus onocrotalus in Tanzania (adds an extra 22 pics of natural individuals). It's in my plans to step up the number of such subcategories I add taxonav boxes to. Conversely, I think we should not do it for subcategories like Category:XXX_in_zoos, Category:XXX_(captive), Category:XXX_(cultivated), and similar, as captive / cultivated specimens are (a) much more often misidentified than those in their native habitat, and (b) often atypical in morphology and / or behaviour. With many of such subcategories too, it brings us back to EoL's policy of not wanting to be swamped in photos of pets (a policy with which I agree strongly).

    Adding taxonav templates to suitable subcategories is obviously time-consuming, but is I reckon better (and faster) than selecting pics to add to galleries; and, as you suspect, there are many on Wiki Commons who favour abandoning galleries altogether.

    Hope this helps!

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - "Are we OK with removing the space between the × and the following genus or species name? I gather that's what's recommended by ICBN" - I'd say, definitely not. This is what used to be recommended by ICBN in the 1999 and earlier versions, but was probably also the most widely ignored specification in the ICBN. A while back I did a casual survey of botanical journals and textbooks, and found about 80% of sources checked did use a space after the hybrid symbol. This is now reflected in the changes in newer versions of ICBN (2005 & 2011), which now read:

    "H.3A.1. In named hybrids, the multiplication sign × belongs with the name or epithet but is not actually part of it, and its placement should reflect that relation. The exact amount of space, if any, between the multiplication sign and the initial letter of the name or epithet should depend on what best serves readability."

    A space on both sides of the hybrid symbol definitely serves readability best; if not included, consider e.g. the risk of confusion between the species Rosa xanthina, and the hypothetical hybrid "Rosa ×anthina"; spacing this as Rosa × anthina greatly reduces this risk. It is for this reason that Wiki Commons (and en:wikipedia) include a space after the hybrid symbol.

    7 months ago • edited: 7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - "(I see someone's changed it, are you MPF :)" - yep, that's me! I took the taxonav out of the page, as of course cultivars are not biological taxa, so shouldn't have any taxonav. I don't know how many other cultivar pages / categories will have been given taxonavs; fortunately probably not very many.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan - re "How are these distinguished in wikimedia Taxonavigation boxes? Do people put Subspecies | salzmannii, Variatas | mongolica, etc...." - sorry, missed this one! Yes, the template inserts the "subsp." and "var.". And yes, species can have both subspecies and varieties; e.g. Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii var. corsicana for the Corsican Pine.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Hi Yan, That one is a cultivar; very low priority for EoL (much like we ask people not to add photos of their pets), I'd not bother with any harvesting criteria for picking them up.

    7 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Thanks! Unfortunately I don't understand all the computer coding (not my thing, I fear), but if it works, good. The difference between zoology and botany is that zoology only has one infraspecific rank (subspecies), so a subspecific name doesn't need any clarification other than having three names; thus e.g. Dendrocopos major pinetorum. Conversely, in botany, there are three infraspecific ranks, in order of decreasing distinction: subspecies (subsp.; for major differences in a species), varietas (var.; for medium differences), forma (f.; very small differences); of these the first two are widely used, forma rather less so. Because of the different ranks, it is essential to state which rank is being used, thus e.g. Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii; Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica; Abies veitchii f. chlorocarpa. For definitions of the ranks, see e.g. definitions in Table 12.1 in Stuessy (2009), Principles of Plant Taxonomy (p. 158, available on google books).

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    @Yan Wong: Thanks! I fear the github code means nothing to me :-( but if it can be adapted to add subspecies (used in both botany and zoology, but formatted differently in the two groups) and varietas (used in botany only), that would be a great help. Hybrids are less important, and I'd not bother to add cultivars (very few have commons pages with taxonav., and they are also of very minor significance for EoL).

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    Odd, as the taxonavigation is correctly formatted in both the category and gallery. Perhaps something else on the pages is blocking the harvest? Maybe Yan can sort it?

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on Michаel Frаnkis's newsfeed:

    This comment was deleted.

    8 months ago • deleted: 8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    Just checked up, Wiki Commons does, treating it as Felis silvestris catus. I'm not sure that's taxonomically valid (as domesticated cats aren't a seperate genetic group from other Felis silvestris subspp), but it is nomenclaturally valid.

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "EOL Curators":

    Why are there two separate pages for Felis silvestris and Felis catus? The two names refer to the same species; if I recall the ICZN correctly, names based on domesticated type specimens, even if older, are treated as synonyms of names based on type specimens of the same taxon of natural wild origin. On this basis, Felis catus should be merged into Felis silvestris. I see the Felis silvestris page already has a few domesticated cats in its images section.

    8 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "Image of Abies concolor":

    See comments below

    9 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "Image of Abies concolor":

    Yes, could very well be A. grandis, though A. c. subsp. lowiana is possible too (though this is much less common in cultivation than A. grandis). It is a cultivated specimen of unknown / undocumented origin, so of little value; I'll mark it hidden.

    9 months ago

  • Profile picture of Michаel Frаnkis who took this action.

    Michаel Frаnkis commented on "File:Abies concolor 08114.jpg":

    This one is as labelled, Abies concolor subsp. lowiana; it is shaded lower-crown foliage, which is flatter than foliage in the upper crown. The specimen is verified wild origin, from the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park.

    9 months ago