User talk:Loopy30
|
|
Drosera albonotata
[edit]Hi Loopy30, thanks for the work you do finding and adding suitable images to articles. I wondered if you have some sort of slick tooling setup for bringing images across to Commons or whether you do it manually? If the former, could I ask you to work your magic on this image please for the above article? It does a really good job of illustrating the main distinguishing characteristics of this species. If it's a manual job for you too, please don't go to any trouble; let me know and I'll do it myself :) Thank you! YFB ¿ 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi YFB, while automated processes to upload files from Flickr do exist (eg. see Commons:Flickr2Commons), I choose to manually upload images from iNaturalist so that I can search for the authors name in my "Files uploaded". This helps me when I send them a thank you note after I use one of their images on Wikipedia. The problem with this particular image set is that it is hosted with an older license (CC-BY-2.0) that is not compatible with the Commons Upload Wizard. The file I used on the article was cropped from an existing Commons file that had already passed the licence review in 2022. Loopy30 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aahh, OK - that's a helpful explanation. Thank you. YFB ¿ 20:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Taxonomic vandals
[edit]Related to this comment, would you please write an essay with some advice about how Wikipedia should respond to Wikipedia:Taxonomic vandalism (or perhaps User:Loopy30/Taxonomic vandalism if you prefer the Wikipedia:User essay model)? I think it would be helpful for future editors if we had some more information on this subject.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, it is a non-issue for Wikipedia. Our editors will continue to treat those taxa described by "taxonomic vandals" just as they would for any other taxon. To be correct, it is all about the reliability of the secondary or tertiary source that recognizes or accepts the taxon, not the primary source that merely first describes it that matters most to us. After all, even Ray Hoser has described a few (three) species that are recognised as accepted by a reliable source. Even the definition of a "validly published name" is a red herring with no real bearing on whether a species is accepted, or if Wikipedia chooses to have an article on the subject.
- Editors have no need to make any assessment on whether an author is a "vandal" or not. Even if they are writing a BLP on the author, it is what the reliable source says about the author that matters. What is needed by taxon editors (as with all other editors) is the ability to gauge the validity and accuracy of the secondary source and its degree of authority within that taxonomic field. This comes with actually reading up on what the relevant WikiProjects have already discussed and decided upon in regards to preferred (or deprecated) sources. Although it is not hard to do, it may take some time to be adequately prepared and a minimal level of competency is still required. Loopy30 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm mostly interested in writing down some of this stuff, in the hope that it will be convenient and easily findable for future editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
[edit]Hi Loopy30. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Hope that works. Nice meeting you at WikiConference North America last year. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2025
[edit]
| ||||||
"Cephalobaenida" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Cephalobaenida has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 17 § Cephalobaenida until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 17:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)