Last modified on 17 March 2008, at 00:13

User talk:DCDuring/Taxonomic entries

Return to the user page of "DCDuring/Taxonomic entries".

Not countedEdit

Extracted material re: WikiSpecies/taxonomic names

I've gotten interested in getting more translingual-derived Latin entries (botany, zoology). Do we need any cooperation from Wikispecies to get an XML dump from them? What I am thinking of is using the words they use as a source of entries. Also the entries with English vernacular names would be useful (via transwiki) for English entries, the initial definition of which could be the species name. Together with WP and WSp links and any photos they had, it would make a respectable entry. I'm not sure that it is a good idea to import all of their two-part names, partially because it might piss them off. I would also like to make sure that all of our taxonomic name entries have links to them. And also that all of our existing animal and plant (also mold, virus, fungus) entries have links to them. It beats the hell out of all those redlinks under the genus names as "Derived terms". Thoughts? DCDuring TALK 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Species is dumped like all the other projects: [1] presently 11 MB compressed, so not hard to deal with. A spork-bot is a fine idea. Lots of details. (not sure about the transwiki process itself, are there entries we want to copy or just information to steal?) Images? Ah good, they always upload to commons! Panthera leo, Species:Panthera leo ... interesting idea. Robert Ullmann 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Their format is built around the taxonomic hierarchy at present, with some vernacular names and some pictures. For one-word entries we would want the next higher and lower taxons and any vernacular names in languages we support and links to pictures and wikipedia. For two-part names, I think we want the vernacular name (to be our entry name) and the two-part name to be our definition as well as the other info. We would also want a list of all of the second words in the two-part names, which are fairly useful New Latin entries. We might want to limit ourselves to those that are used in more than 1 or 2 two-part names to avoid being overrun with New Latin names that are the adjectival form of not-so-well known naturalists.
Honestly I think WikiSpecies plays an icredibly useful role in collecting and organizing txonomic information and that we should utilize as much as possible of what they have done and will be doing. How do you think we should play nice with them? I thought that the links to WikiSpecies may draw people to their wiki. Is there someplace where we could express our appreciation for what they have produced that we have used? They also might like any work that we can do in providing vernacular names, especially multiple ones.
What is a spork-bot? What's good software to decompress the bz2 files? Is this kind of thing that I could use my own PC to create files to upload? What format does a file have to have for efficient importing of new entries? I assume that importing would not overwrite an existing entry and that I could get a file of both successful and unsuccessful imports. If I am just adding material to an entry, is there a way to automate that? DCDuring TALK 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline links to WikispeciesEdit

As it happens I created a template for this purpose some time ago, {{spelink}}, which checks whether a term has a local entry and, iff it does not, links to Wikispecies instead. Of course there's no way for the template to check whether the Wisp entry exists, so that has to be done by hand. I stopped using {{spelink}} a while back, as I had some qualms about whether it was appropriate to blue-ify links that arguably should be red (if you accept that we should in principle have local entries for all taxonomic names). Anyway, feel free to use or improve it. -- Visviva 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the template info. I will check it out. The species area is one of those for which I would argue that we should use the sister project. I would think that we could serve them by actually having all the scientific Latin etymologies, even exempting scientific latin used on their wiki from RfV and they would serve us by maintaining that hierarchy. We haven't even been doing our part of that and we are certainly far behind them in populating and maintaining the taxonomic hierarchy and nomenclature changes. I should think that:
  1. all taxonomic entries should have the wikispecies sister project box.
  2. all the two-part names that are embedded in any of our entries should automatically be linked to them
  3. all one-part names or parts of names that are undefined by us should link to them
  4. we should have periodic updates of those that do not have corresponding entries in their wiki for us to make entries
  5. we should provide them with our list of taxonomic entires.
  6. we should use their list of words used as a list for missing entries
  7. we should extract from them all English "vernacular" names they have any other languages for which we have admin volunteer support.

I think that the taxonomic hierarchy has its own complexities, special structure, sources, etc. and is best handled by specialists. I'd be surprised if many of them had the patience to learn our procedures. Our RfV procedure is largely irrelevant for taxonomic names and would be counter-productive. As much of an inclusionist as I am, I am not a Wikitonary imperialist. I suppose I think that whichever WMF project can be most inclusive of entries of a given type should win our support for that area. If someone wanted to start a "Fictionary" for characters from fiction, drama, games, movies, radio shows, etc. then I would think we would encourage that. Similarly for place names, trademarks, product names, corporate entities etc. I really like Conrad.Irwin's recent initiative in this general direction. Some rant, eh? How do you recommend I procede? Convince our Latinists to get busy on defining taxonomic name elements? Changing RfV for taxonomics? Winning support of some techs? DCDuring TALK 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiChemipediaEdit

Hmmm, interesting, but then I am a chemist. ;-) Jcwf 152.1.38.46 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a chemist but have come to question some of the "all words in all languages" ambitions of Wiktionary. Scientific language has a number of special features: translingual, special structure, special graphics needs (esp. chemistry), special syntax/morphology; a normative, rather than descriptive approach; special sources of information, often open. I'm sure there are others. Although there are many species names and chemical names or abbreviations that Wiktionary should have, there are many, many more that we will never be able to enter and manintain. I am beginning to try to see whether we can work out some meaningful cooperation with Wikispecies, which seems to be struggling a bit, but has amassed a much, much more complete database than Wiktionary has of species names. WikiChemipedia or WiChemictionary (WiCheMixtunary?) is just a thought. It came to me only because of looking at hypo- and reading IUPAC's Principles of Chemical Nomenclature. I wonder whether there any folks at de.wikipedia or en.wikipedia that have seriously considered this.
In the meantime, I am looking through the IUPAC booklet for lists of basic chem words that are not yet in WT. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikispeciesEdit

We can't be the only people wondering about this - perhaps we ought to set-up a project page somewhere on WT and let the Wikispecies people know about it? Maybe there will be some people on Meta interested in cross-project stuff? Thryduulf 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be, but I'm interested in the specific way that we could get some content and get some impossible stuff off our plate. I think everything really constructive tends to be bottom-up rather than top-down in Wikiworld. We can offer WSP traffic and etymology on taxonomic words. We can get a little traffic and perhaps a lot of words (many thousands?), mostly Translinguals and Latins. We'd probably get some (hundreds, thousands?) additional vernacular names. We might be able to get many entries we don't have, blue some links and not embarass ourselves with amateur handling of taxonomy. IF you can find somebody at Meta for support that would be great too. I'm thinking about working on our classicists. EPetey, and Ataeles, HarrisMorgan because the offer of ety help (if WSp even cares) would depend a bit on them. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy levelsEdit

| Phylum phylum || Phyla |- | Classis classis Classes |- | Ordo ordo Ordines]] |- | Familia familia Familiae |- | Divisio divisio Divisiones |- | Cohors cohors Cohortes |- | Sectio sectio Sectiones |- | Tribus tribus Tribus |- | Genus genus Genera |- | Species species |- | Forma forma Formae

carolinianaEdit

Trnaslingual? Yes it is used as an epithet in species names, and the species names are translingual, but it does not follow that the epithet alone is translingual. This is New Latin. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. And it doesn't belong in the taxonomic anmes category either. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ironwoodEdit

I'm starting to think the best option might be to take the list at wp: and use it in a synonym box titled "species called ironwood", what do you think? My main annoyance is not at including any specific name, but including only one, which is at best misleading. Circeus 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you had a reason. I'm glad I've developed the AGF habit and (mostly) practice it.
I've just inserted the species list from WP under the Hyponyms heading, but that might not be correct, let alone appropriate for a work used by the general public (What's a hyponym, again?). Our headings shouldn't need to be linked! "See also"? I'm really open to suggestions and to looking at examples. I am trying to explore the role of Wiktionary relative to WikiSpecies and WP. In the areas of vernacular terms, etymology and definitions of the component terms, which ought to be our strength and contribution, we aren't holding up our end, IMHO. I'm beginning to wonder whether we should waste too much time on two-part species names as entries, instead using the two-part names as definitions with in-line links to wikispecies and wikipedia. Part of the problem is that there is a case for linking to 3 projects, internally to any WT entry, and externally to WSp and WP. A long three-link-pre-row table seems excessive, but might be useful. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

pantherinusEdit

You were missing a macron, but I added it. Also note two other changes I made: (1) It's easier for people to read the {{term}} syntax if lang=la is placed last, since that template really does need you to count the position of the arguments. (2) The Latin inflection tables will link words, but you need to incluse the macron-free stem before any macron-bearing one. I have made these changes, so you can see exactly what I mean. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm cutting my teeth on taxonomic names. I'm going to work over some of our entries before getting into wholesale importing from WikiSpecies. I'll probably need some consultation on that. There might be thousands of new entries, many of New Latin, but some from Pliny that we don't have, as well as whatever vernacular names they have that we don't but want. I think New Latin is highly regular so automatic entry creation should be feasible. Elsewhere, here, and here on this page are some of my thoughts on this, which I will soon consolidate in a subpage. I would welcome any thoughts, even negative ones, though contructive criticism is my favorite kind of criticism. OTOH, if there are any problems or likely opposition, I'd much rather hear about them now. Whom would you advise that I consult with? I have borrowed a copy of Stearn's Botanical Latin, which has very helpful lists (e.g., of suffixes and prefixes). I have more personal interest and knowledge in botany than in zoology, let alone microbiology, phycology, etc. DCDuring TALK 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll help as much as I can. Harris Morgan has proven to be really good with Latin entries as well, so he might help at times when I'm not around, too busy, or just can't. It would be very exciting to move Latin up put 6000 entries (currently we have about 5760). Latin has long been bottom on the list of much-edited languages here, at least in terms of numbers of entries. HM and I (and a few others) have also been working to make the average Latin entry better than the average entry for most other languages and cleaning up early Latin contributions. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll consult with him too. He was high on my listlet of possibles. Thanks. Any animal, fish, insect, and plant entries are of high interest to me. I think I would like to have ideal models of entries of different kinds of entries: Translingual one-part names, Translingual two-part names (lower priority), New Latin words, pre-New Latin ancestors of Translingual names and New Latin words. Wikispecies now has 130,000k entries. We should be able to get. I'm sure that we could get many hundreds, even low thousands of New Latin adjectives, even excluding adjectives based on the names of naturalists. I'd like to make sure that the relationships among these are correct and can be done automagically. Separately, but somewhat relatedly, there may be importing of vernacular names linked to the two-part and some one-part taxonomic names.
A micro-cluster of such names: Betula, *Carpinus, *Carpinus caroliniana, *Carpinus betulus; *betula, *carpinus, *betulus, *carolinianus, *carolinus, *carolinensis; birch, hornbeam, American hornbeam, *European hornbeam, *musclewood, and ironwood. Entering two species and following up led to 11 new entries(*), 3 Translingual, 2 Classical Latin, 4 New Latin, 2 English and more meat and links on the 5 exisitng entries. Obviously the ratio of new words to new species entries would diminish as more of the adjectives and nouns had been encountered with previous entries. Even if we didn't enter the 2 two-part names, we would still have 9 new entries for the two species. Even a yield of 1 new word for each Wikispecies entry would be huge. Even getting a complete set of pre-New Latin animal, plant, insect, and fish names should yield hundreds of words, some of them root words. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
One tidbit of guidance I can give: adjecitve forms ending in -us or -is are the lemma forms. Those ending in -a, -um, or -e are non-lemma. That will work for about 99% of the epithet adjectives you'll come across. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)