Add a new comment
-
Corvi Zeman commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Katja Schulz: Thank you, I will add шилийн савгадай to Dipus sagitta. There's no way to add "Dipus halli" or send people to Dipus sagitta if they search for Dipus halli, correct?
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Corvi Zeman: Thanks for adding all those Mongolian names. This is really valuable. Wilson & Reeder, the standard reference for mammals, have only one species, Dipus sagitta, for this genus. They list D. halli as a synonym.
-
Corvi Zeman commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
Please excuse me if this is the wrong place for this question. I have been adding Mongolian-language common names to EOL species. A Mongolian-language source gives the scientific name of шилийн савгадай ("rock-crest jerboa") as Dipus halli (source: Sowerby 1920). Dipus halli does not seem to be in EOL. I found a "Dipus sagitta halli" in some other online sources, but it is also not listed in EOL. Am I overlooking something?
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: The Wikimedia import sometimes fails in mysterious ways. It could be that {{PD-self}} is not on our license whitelist. I'll file a ticket to check for this.
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
I can't quite see why this image: from the commons gallery http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trichechus_inunguis isn't being harvested (the other two pictures in the gallery have been). It seems to be tagged with {{PD-self}}, which should be enough, I would have thought
-
Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: Patrick has been away but now he's back and might want to talk about this -- perhaps move discussion to http://eol.org/forums?
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Cyndy Parr: Thanks. I've had a look at the codebase on github - I guess I could probably figure out a patch, but best left to people who really know how the system works (seems like Patrick Leary from looking at the code :). Shout if you want me to have a go.
-
Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: Thanks for explaining that the rotation is saved in the EXIF metadata. As Katja says, we'll put in the request. I'm a bit more hopeful -- this doesn't seem like it would be too hard to address.
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Katja Schulz: Yes, of course. I can see this is quite low priority. Lots of other important stuff to do. Good luck!
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add it to our list of feature request, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for this to get addressed anytime soon. There are too many more urgent requests in the pipeline.
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Katja Schulz: Thanks. I've just checked and the original images were rotated correctly, but the rotation was done by setting the EXIF rotation metadata (see e.g. http://www.daveperrett.com/articles/2012/07/28/exif-orientation-handling-is-a-ghetto/). This metadata seems to be stripped out by EoL, not by Flickr. You can check because the original image on Flickr contains the correct rotation information (download if from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3757/8812291168_ce56ecf228_o.jpg and have a look). I can re-upload my images on Flickr so that they are rotated without using the EXIF rotation hints, but I guess other people might get bitten by this too, as many cameras seem to use this way of rotating pictures. Maybe it should be on the (long) to-do list to get the image import routines in EoL to save a fully rotated image (as specified in the metadata) as the local EoL copy?
-
Katja Schulz commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: The original images you uploaded were probably incorrectly rotated, and they got auto-rotated by Flickr. However, we download the originals from Flickr, so we get the incorrectly rotated ones. Unfortunately we don't have a solution for this problem right now, so we have to ask our contributors to upload correctly rotated images to Flickr.
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
I've just tried posting some old pictures of mine to the EoL Flickr group. On Flickr the images appear in the correct orientation, but on EoL the imported images are sometimes rotated incorrectly. See for instance http://www.flickr.com/photos/96340474@N07/8812291168/ and its imported version http://eol.org/data_objects/24774483 I guess this should be a relatively simple bug to iron out. My suspicion is that it to do with the way image rotation is stored in jpegs by Mac OS X preview, but it could be a flickr auto-rotation thing.
-
Cyndy Parr commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
@Yan Wong: We reharvest from Wikimedia Commons about once a week, so the change should eventually propagate to us. If it doesn't, let us know.
-
Yan Wong commented on "EOL Discussion Group":
Does the EoL wikipedia scraping code revise currently existing EoL content depending on changes to wikipedia? I've just found this photo: http://eol.org/data_objects/17272302 which is the result of an accidental inclusion of the wrong species into the Wikipedia image gallery for Tremarctos ornatus. I've removed it from the gallery on wikipedia, but I don't know if I need to flag it up as misidentified on EoL too, or if my changes to wikipedia will propagate down to EoL.
-
C. Michael Hogan marked the classification from "Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: April 2013" as preferred for "Neomys fodiens (Pennant, 1771)".
-
C. Michael Hogan commented on "Brief Summary":
See other text objects for better picture of global range.
-
-
C. Michael Hogan marked the classification from "Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: April 2013" as preferred for "Sorex araneus Linnaeus, 1758".
-
George Sims joined the community "EOL Discussion Group".
