Wikipedia

Vitalfranz

20 mei 2015 lid geworden
Laatste reactie: 7 jaar geleden door Vitalfranz in het onderwerp New combinations
Hallo Vitalfranz, en welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!
Vlag van Verenigd Koninkrijk Welcome message in English

Hartelijk dank voor je belangstelling voor Wikipedia! We werken hier aan het ideaal van een vrij beschikbare, vrij bewerkbare, volledige en neutrale gemeenschapsencyclopedie. We waarderen het enorm als ook jij hieraan wilt bijdragen!

De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is sinds 19 juni 2001 online en telt inmiddels 2.157.370 artikelen. In de loop van de jaren zijn er voor het schrijven of bewerken van artikelen en voor de onderlinge samenwerking een aantal uitgangspunten en richtlijnen geformuleerd. Neem die als nieuwkomer ter harte. Lees ook eerst even de informatie in dit venster voordat je aan de slag gaat. Geen van de richtlijnen heeft kracht van wet, want Wikipedia is en blijft vóór alles vrij bewerkbaar, maar een beetje houvast voordat je in het diepe springt kan nooit kwaad.

Deze pagina, die nu op je scherm staat, is trouwens je persoonlijke overlegpagina, de plaats waar je berichten van andere Wikipedianen ontvangt en ze kunt beantwoorden. Iedere gebruiker heeft zo'n pagina. Wil je een nieuw overleg met iemand anders beginnen, dan kan dat dus op zijn of haar overlegpagina. Sluit je bijdragen op overlegpagina's altijd af met vier tildes, dus zo: ~~~~. Een druk op de handtekeningknop (zie afbeelding) heeft hetzelfde effect: je bericht wordt automatisch ondertekend met je gebruikersnaam en de datum en tijd waarop je je boodschap voltooide. Versturen doe je met de knop "Wijzigingen publiceren".

Bedankt voor uw bijdragen aan keversoorten. Cyrusoverleg 1 jul 2015 20:27 (CEST)Reageren

New combinations bewerken

Laatste bericht: 7 jaar geleden6 berichten2 personen in discussie

Hi Francesco Vitali, and thank you for your contributions on Cerambycidae (that's what the previous message also said: thanks for your contributions on beetle species). There are, however one or two points of concern.

The majority of your contributions deals with transferring a species to another genus. You do not, however, explain the transfer nor do you give a reliable source, let alone a valid reference to the publication wherein the transfer was published. You create a link to BioLib, which is just one database, not specifically a very reliable one. In the cases I saw so far, the source that was originally consulted by the editor of the Wikipedia article in order to create the lists of species, still has the old combination, so the content of the article is in conflict with the cited source, after you made your changes. It is really necessary to make a reference to the taxonomic literature when you change these things. If you don't, someone who checks the source that's listed under the article, may just not trust your edit, and reverse it. That's a proper thing to do when sources are in conflict, and you did not give any proof.

Second, it appears that you are inserting the results of your own work in the encyclopedia. Most of the changes were proposed very recently, some even this year. By incorporating them in the encyclopedia, you present them as facts. In general, it's a good thing to let others decide whether the proposed changes you published in the scientific literature, should be accepted, and only after that should they be incorporated in Wikipedia. After all, you just propose the transfers, and the new combinations. It's up to reviewers of your work to accept the changes or not. Generally, proposed changes are only accepted after a major revision of a taxon is made, and your colleagues approved of the results you published.

Last thing is that you edit a Wikipedia version of which you don't understand the language. For the kind of edits you do, that's usually not a problem. But when the original text of Pseudopachydissus said: "Pseudopachydissus is monotypisch en omvat slechts de volgende soort", this meant: Pseudopachydissus is monotypic and contains only the next species". You did not understand the meaning of "slechts" and left the word where it was, so after your edit, this line didn't make sense any more. I think the wise thing to do here is to propose your changes on the talk page of the article. In that case you can write in English, French or German because most editors that are busy with taxonomy are able to read the languages of the scientific literature. I'm afraid Italian is not considered a lingua franca, so should be avoided.

Best regards, WIKIKLAAS overleg 17 jul 2015 12:11 (CEST)Reageren


Dear Wikiklaas, I hope you can read my answer since I do not use wikipedia for a longtime and I do not remember all functions. I have modified nl.wikipedia since it is seems to me the basis of pages with similar setting. However, I am sorry for some linguistic errors: I tried to avoid this problem next time.

The quantity of described species is so huge that all databases are incomplete. It seems to me that you principally use Titan base, which, nonetheless, does not include fossil species. Nothorhna granulicollis was described in 1905! I suggest you to check BioLib or other database including fossil species. Moreover, the taxonomy of Titan is sometimes wrong (e.g. the genus Grammographus Chevrolat, 1863, whose type-species is included in Demonax) or does not respect the ICZN (e.g. Glenea voeti).

Naturally, all new combinations I have inserted have been regularly published! I must add the reference but, firstly, I have to understand your bibliographic setting. Concerning Samolethrius, it has been described in 2008 (!) and present in other specialized sites, e.g. prioninae.org (http://prioninae.org/Remphanini.html). In the same paper, a new species Olethrius laevipennis and a new subspecies (O. tyrannus salomunum) has been described and officially present in the site of the IRSN Bruxelles (http://virtualcollections.naturalsciences.be/virtual-collections/entomology/coleoptera/cerambycidae/prioninae#c4=O&b_start=0). Titan base is outdated concerning this publication, which, however, is perfectly valid.

Pseudopachydyssus have been revised very recently, true, and you wrote "proposed changes are only accepted after a major revision of a taxon"... but these are all major revisions! Otherwise, we should wait for agreement for any revision that specialists made (e.g. these by Adlbauer on Cerambycini or by African Callichromatini made by Juhel). Moreover, there is no "agreement of colleagues" concerning the description of new taxa. This is a fact and must be referred in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is full of errors concerning the taxonomy of numerous taxa (e.g. all African Callichromatini, see BioLib) and this deserves many months of works. I have changed "my taxa", yes, but not only them. And I have not changed recent new species yet, but only a genus described 7 years ago! It is time to update wikipedia and respect the serious work of people. Vitalfranz (overleg) 17 jul 2015 13:09 (CEST)Reageren

Thanks for your quick response. And yes, I can read everyting.
I fully agree that Wikipedia is full of errors. I'm working on it at a nearly daily basis, checking classification against modern literature. I'm aware of the problem of outdated databases. Many of the problems I encounter in the classification of butterflies and moths on this language version, can be traced back to LepIndex, the database of published names of the British Museum. Over half of these names were later used in new combinations, and have been accepted as such long since. The database has been the main source for double articles on the same taxon.
The point I made is that you insert the results of your own work in Wikipedia as if these are facts. Firstly, it's advised not to incorporate your own work in the encyclopedia, secondly, not a single classification can be regarded as a fact. The only fact is the publication itself. It's no fact that some species of Olethrius have to be placed in the new genus Samolethrius. It's the result of a single study, done by you and published in 2008 (I've seen the abstract on Research Gate). I'm fully prepared to believe this was some solid work, but whether or not your views are accepted is a matter of reception of your views by your very knowlegeable colleagues. It's not up to you to say Wikipedia should use the new names just because they have been published. If taxonomy would only be a matter of the valid publication of names, then I guess the number of taxon articles in the encyclopedia would at least be trippled. Taxonomy is for the most part a matter of the acceptance of proposed classifications and names.
One of the benefits of proposing changes to articles on the talk page, is that you don not have to format the links to your sources. If a source is available online, you can just place a plain link, like http://www.researchgate.net/publication/267052754_Taxonomic_and_faunistic_notes_about_the_genus_Olethrius_Thomson_1860_%28Coleoptera_Cerambycidae%29 . Otherwise you could cite a source like you would do in a scientific paper. It's then up to local editors to check whether your view was accepted in the general literature, and revise the Wikipedia article accordingly, or to make a remark in the article that some author has proposed a change of name, or position, or rank, or found a name to be synonymous with another. I've placed these remarks in quite a number of articles on butterflies, when the evidence was unclear. Best regards, WIKIKLAAS overleg 17 jul 2015 14:29 (CEST)Reageren

Hi, what are you writing is false and easily demonstrable.

Firstly, Wikipedia advise to not to incorporate his own work, if it is a non-published autonomous research. The case is well different.

Secondly, you accepted Pseudopolyzonus n. comb. proposed by Bentanachs and only published by himself (you can check TitanBase). It is a result of a single study; nonetheless, it has been inserted in Wikipedia. Must I consider LymaBot as "a very knowledgeable colleague" in order to accept this name?

The fact that "a view was accepted in the general literature" depends only on the fact if that topic was treated again. Otherwise, the condition is specious.

I do not want waste my time to search other names. I think you should be grateful that peoples of my level wast his own time to correct a so large number of bullshits. Evidently, it is only wasted time.Vitalfranz (overleg) 17 jul 2015 15:19 (CEST)Reageren

Well, sorry you feel so strongly about this. You even sound angry. Pitty. I really appreciate you contributing to this project. But then, you do not seem very realistic with respect to the value of recently published papers in taxonomy. Very often, a certain view is later overthrown by some other work. It's how science works. I know because I'm a scientist and I have published too.
I suggested a workaround to you: state your views on the talk page if it concerns your own and very recent work.
And no: Lymabot is not the knowlegeable colleague. I'm not talking about Wikipedians when I refer to colleagues, but about scientists who publish too. Lymabot provided part of the crude material that this Wikipedia works on. Indeed it is full of errors, because it took the information from databases. But an error is not the same as a taxonomic view. WIKIKLAAS overleg 17 jul 2015 16:35 (CEST)Reageren

After more than one year, I see that you let the Olthrius-names unchanged. You speak without knowing: no further work contradicts my article. Moreover, the reference to your faith-website is patently outdated since Titan Base is located at http://lis-02.snv.jussieu.fr/titan/index.html since more than one year. Please, correct your errors immediately and think twice before edit my corrections.Vitalfranz (overleg) 29 jun 2016 08:02 (CEST)Reageren

Onderwerp toevoegen
Overgenomen van "https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Vitalfranz&oldid=47004137"