User talk:Jaap Winius

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Sarah Tuttle 12:08, 23 November 2006 (CST)

Scientific names vs. Common names

In the time that I've been busy at Wikipedia, I managed to get myself into many arguments on the issue of whether scientific or common names should be used for article titles. Wikipedia's official policy is to use common names for this purpose whenever available -- preferably the "most popular" common name -- purely for reasons of presentation. However, IMHO there are too many problems with this approach:

• Articles names at Wikipedia have to be unique anyway, so why not use the only ones that are always unambiguous?
• Scientific names avoid conflicts, since many common names often apply to different species. In such cases, one article gets the "good" name and the others have to be, um, different. How is this good for presentation?
• Choosing between two or more more common names only on the basis of which one shows up more often in Google is arbitrary and unscientific.
• Selecting one common name for a species over all the others gives people the impression that it's more importance or more official than the others, even though that's not the case. An exception might be the AOU where they've tried to make certain common names for birds "official", but that's only for American species and even Wikipedia aren't following their lead.
• Using scientific names avoids petty conflicts between editors: no more fights about Siberian Tiger vs. Amur Tiger or Puma vs. Cougar.
• Common name tiles make category overviews pretty useless: just compare Category:True vipers with Category:Sharks at Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
• Using scientific names for article titles can teach readers more about how organisms are related: "These names are weird, but look how the first names are all the same... maybe they're all related!"
• Scientific names are universal while common names are not; people in one (English speaking) country may not be familiar with the common names in another.
• Using scientific names for article titles promotes better continuity when linking with other articles inside and outside of Citizendium.

Unfortunately, this is a minority position at Wikipedia, although I feel very strongly about it. As you can image, I'm very much hoping that the folks here at Citizendium, in all their wisdom, will do the right thing before it's once again too late.

Obviously, not everyone is familiar with these names, but that doesn't mean an article has to be inaccessible to the uninitiated. For example, in Vipera berus, the common names for this species are listed just below the title and there are redirects for all of them. Within the article itself, I try to use the title name as little as possible and prefer to use more general terms instead. All of the articles that I've worked on and copied here from WP are written this way. Notice also this category for common name redirects: Category:True vipers - Common names. Take a look around and tell me what you think.

---

Jaap, thanks for joining us! First, the above really belongs on your talk page, or even better, on the Forums. We would like to keep user pages focused on only certain information. Second, excellent work in putting together the case for that side of this issue. I'd love to talk more about it--if only I could find time--perhaps on the Forums. I want to keep an open mind about it, and you've certainly got some good arguments. I would like to see your replies, however, to arguments on the other side, which are also powerful.

Also, regarding your work on the vipers (excellent from what I can tell), if you do intend to maintain these articles here on CZ, then do, please, add the [[Category:CZ Live]] to them.

Thanks again for joining us. Making a better place for hard-headed, serious hobbyists like yourself is one of the animating motives behind this project. --Larry Sanger 16:44, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Larry! The sci. names v common names section that was on my user page has been moved to my talk page as per your suggestion. Last Sunday I started up a discussion on this subject (here) in the CZ Biology Forum and there there have so far been mostly positive responses to my position, but somehow I don't think we're done with it yet. ;-)

All of my articles now have [[Category:CZ Live]] tags (thanks!) and, yes, my intention is to maintain these articles here. On the one hand, I'm sick and tired of constantly having to remove unreferenced nonsense put there by anyone with an IP address and a sense of humor, while on the other I'm looking forward to working together with, or at least getting some serious feedback from, people who know more about this stuff than I do. Cheers, --Jaap Winius 14:14, 8 December 2006 (CST)

Hello Jaap, I briefly skimmed your note about scientific names and as a medical student and after studying organic chemistry and biochemistry at Boston College, I couldn't agree more that scientific names are extremely important. why not put the common name in parenthesis? or what about under the title of the article, the common name(s) could be listed. Scientific names should be first, but common names are important too. If someone searches a common name, the correct article should appear, even if it has the scientific name in the title. -Tom

Hi Tom! Thanks, but if you really want to support this idea, I believe the right place to say so at the moment is here in the CZ Forum. I put a lot of thought into an article format that I believe most people would be satisfied with. In Vipera berus, for example, the common names for this species are listed just below the title and there are redirects for all of them. Within the article itself, I try to use the title name as little as possible and prefer to use more general terms instead. All of the articles that I've worked on and copied here from WP are written this way. Notice also this category for common name redirects: Category:True vipers - Common names. Take a look around and tell me what you think. --Jaap Winius 15:59, 8 December 2006 (CST)

I have commenting on the biology forum about the name policy--and advocated exactly the opposite of what you are doing. The only justification I can think of might be the multiple common names--but of course if you did a full synonymy you would also find a variety of scientific names. I think it might be wise to wait for consensus on this matter. We are likely to get into a situation where some editors will not approve an article that starts with a common name, and some do just the opposite. At the least you should add the best-known common name in parenthesis DavidGoodman 17:20, 10 December 2006 (CST)

I've corrected the above--I see you do have a proper synonym list.DavidGoodman 17:23, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Herpetologist recruitment?

Hi Jaap, I am amazed at the amount of work you've done so far. Thanks very much and well done (as far as I can tell)! It seems to me that since you are putting this amount of commitment into the project, and since it will be expert-led, it would be a good idea if you could try to recruit a herpetologist, or several, to the project and have them look over your work on the vipers. Alternatively, give me the name and address of someone and I'll write. --Larry Sanger 12:43, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Larry, I very much hope that a herpetologist will eventually show up to help out with this project, or at least critique my work. Unfortunately, I'm not affiliated with any universities so I don't really know any herpetologists. At least, not well enough to impose on them. Actually, I do know of one over at WP, although he's more into amphibians than reptiles: Dfcisneros. I don't think he's seen anything I've been doing, but he did mention that I was on the right track as far as the taxonomy is concerned (ITIS used together with McDiarmid et al. 1999). --Jaap Winius 08:00, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Another suggestion

The main (strong) argument, as I see it, in favor of using scientific names for various snakes (and other animals) is that they are precise. But the main (and perhaps even stronger) argument against using them is that the very people who want articles about these various snakes know them by their common names, not by their scientific names.

I'm inclined to suggest, therefore, that we rename, for example, Vipera berus to Common European adder (Vipera berus) (if according to scientific majority opinion "common European adder" is the most usual English name). This would be harder to link to, but quite frankly, particularly when we are talking about thousands and thousands of species, hardly any articles will be linking to these article titles anyway. --Larry Sanger 12:50, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Most scientific names are strange to most people. In fact, I'm not even familiar with the scientific names of most snakes (there are some 2700 species). However, I'm not familiar with the common names of most plants and animals either (including snakes) either, so what's the difference? The point is that using common names for article titles causes more problems than it solves (see my list above). Besides, if the articles are written likeVipera ammodytes, with all of the common names listed clearly at the top of the page, and there is even a picture of a specimen, how can there be any doubt what the article is about?

Using names like Common European adder (Vipera berus) addresses only a few of the issues I mentioned. It would still require you to select one common name over any others available, which makes it arbitrary, it would do nothing to avoid petty conflicts like Puma vs. Cougar, categories containing such articles would still not be sorted according to the scientific names, and internal/external continuity would not be served. What's more, such titles can easily become too long and unwieldy and would not be intuitive to anyone. It's kind of like the design for the space shuttle: originally meant to appease all sides, but in the end satisfying no one.

On the other hand, allow me to demonstrate one of the practical advantage of using scientific names. Recently, I finished adding category tags to all of the common name redirects, as well as the synonym redirects for the true vipers group. Here are the three main categories:

1. Category:True vipers - Valid scientific names

2. Category:True vipers - Common names

3. Category:True vipers - Synonymy

1. is a list of the current valid scientific names according to the taxonomy I'm using. Most of these names are the article themselves, but a few (17%) are redirects for cases involving monotypic taxa and nominate subspecies. Except for those redirects, this is the shortest of the three lists and it's complete. It is also a well ordered list that specialists can use to tell what's here and -- more importantly -- what isn't.

2. is a list of all the common name redirects for the articles in the first category. Even though many of the species and subspecies in the fist category do not have common names, this list is much longer (over 200 entries), but is never really complete. I've included all of the names that I know of that are used in the English language for the taxa in the first category. Mostly, this list is only of use to people who want to browse a list of common names, but at least at least it's relatively complete.

3. is a list of all the synonym redirects -- invalid scientific names according to the taxonomy I've used here -- for the articles in the first category. With over 500 entries, this list is nearly complete according to McDiarmid et al. (1999), missing only a few upper and lower case variants. If someone goes looking for a scientific name in the first list and sees that it is not there, they'll probably find it in this list (if not, it's probably very new, but may still be mentioned in a taxonomy subsection for one of the generic names). For people who are already familiar with many of the current scientific names, this list is kind of like a window into the past, showing the results of previous taxonomies as well as some proposals that may eventually be accepted.

If I were to use common names (where possible) for these articles instead, parts of the first and second categories would be mixed in with each another. To make the list complete, you'd really have to merge those two categories, but then you'd have a single main category with almost 350 entries (and probably more common names to be added later on). I cannot image that most people, given the choice, would want to see these lists merged. Of course, this wouldn't be an issue with your suggestion (i.e. Common European adder (Vipera berus)), but then it would be necessary to create four categories -- not very efficient. --Jaap Winius 10:22, 13 December 2006 (CST)

No matter how exact we may get in the text, at least the titles of articles at least should be immediately comprehensible to the layman--when possible.DavidGoodman 23:40, 19 December 2006 (CST)

You've got it the wrong way around: that certain parts of the text should remain accessible to the layman is far more important than the title. In wiki systems like CZ and WP, there is unfortunately only one title for every article, so in this case logically speaking (see my list of arguments) there can only be one choice. And what's so incomprehensible about an article format such as that of Bitis gabonica? Mind you, this article has GA status over at WP despite being different, so it must not be that bad. --Jaap Winius 10:17, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Your message

My problems were:

1. To place a "common names" line before the article rather than in the article looks very odd.
2. To use abbreviations rather than full names of unites is less clear for potential users (as is omitting a link to the relevant article).
3. To leave in Wikipedia templates that simply show up as red "template" signs is surely undesirable.
4. Why have something in "see also" which is already in the article? --Peter J. King 09:49, 13 February 2007 (CST)

See my answer on your talk page. --Jaap Winius 12:22, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Have you checked out the new use of categories with Wkgroup?

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Biology_Workgroup

Check out the cool new stuff we have in the works on the workgroup page! You can now monitor recent changes of biology articles more effeciently! Make sure they get the proper workgroup category tag and it will make monitoring recent changes a cinch! -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:25, 17 February 2007 (CST)

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ABiology_Workgroup -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (CST)

You should add [ [Category:Biology Workgroup]] to your snake articles! -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:27, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Snake pictures

Hey, do you have any snake pictures for your articles? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Lots. Check out the same series of articles on WP. However, most all of those images are on the Wikimedia server, which I was hoping CZ would eventually gain access to it, or else copy over to their own media server. I'm still waiting for them to do something because first, I don't feel like uploading all those images all over again, and second, if I did have to upload them again I'd rather save them on CZ's own media server (they're so much easier to organize that way). --Jaap Winius 21:12, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Your snake articles

Hello Jaap. There is nothing wrong with your snake articles. In fact they are great work - keep it up. We are doing some housecleaning and taking out some of the Wikipedia articles and Gareth Leng made us aware that you had some snake articles that we don;t want to delete. If you find that we have, please identify them for us, or feel free to bring them back from WP. If you like you can keep an eye on this list - Category:Speedy Deletion Requests to see if any of yours are on it. Thanks Matt Innis (Talk) 22:11, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Jaap. The logic behind the deletion was that some people were deterred fromwriting fresh articles because of an apparently pre-existing article. Accordingly we set about getting rid of articles which were basically just the WP articles with effectively no change. We remembered you (just in time) as someone who,s systematically imported the snake articles for very good reason... so absolutely no problem; we only wanted to get rid of the strays from WP that were not being actively upgraded. As for asp, keep or add anything you want; I recommended it for deletion just because it seemed to only redirect to non existent articles so for now seemed redundant.

All the very best, we really want you to thrive here, what you want countsGareth Leng 12:37, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Viper articles

(continued from Simen Rustad's talk page)

Jaap, the reason they're a special case is that few if any changes seem to have been made from the Wikipedia versions. For these articles, it looks like we're just mirroring the Wikipedia content, but CZ isn't a WP mirror. Therefore I have a special request: what can you add to the CZ articles that makes them significantly more valuable than the WP versions? Then there would be no question at all. --Larry Sanger 10:30, 20 February 2007 (CST)

That's a pretty tall order. It took me about 3-4 months of solid work to produce those articles. To make them "significantly more valuable", I imagine I'd have to increase them in size by, what, 30-50%? I guess you'd want images too (even though CZ doesn't have its own Commons server yet). I'm wondering where I'm going to get the motivation from to put in so much extra work. What doesn't make me any happier is the fact that there's been no sign of movement in the scientific names vs. common names debate, which means there's still the possibility that you'll eventually ask me to rename all of my articles, and the fact that I still seem to be CZ's only "snake expert", which means that my articles will probably not be approved any time soon either. To have watched all those dangling wikilinks appear in the articles didn't help either.

Perhaps my ideas are too radical and I'm just too specialized to be of any use to CZ at this stage in its development. Maybe I should just step back and let the generalists run the show for now (logical, actually), as well as work out the necessary policies, and come back again in a year or two to see if I can be of any use. --Jaap Winius 17:38, 2 March 2007 (CST)

NO, NO Jaap don't say that. Your articles here represent our only in depth subject. What you are doing is what we need to aspire to and represents an important set of articles to set a precedent. I assume you did most of this work on wikipedia, so to mirror it here seems fine to me. I think steady improvement is all that can be asked. A picture here and there would be fine. These articles are especially valuable with regard to the naming conventions and that is a debate that should be reinitiated.

The only reason there are generalists here now is that there are just too many red links. I see no reason why your articles cannot be approved based on them being interesting and articulate. A none expert biologist should be able to fact check a referenced article. Chris Day (Talk) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Thanks for your support, Chris, but it looks I've been given an ultimatum. It's just that I don't feel like adding significantly to so many articles in the short term as long as CZ can't even decide on a proper naming convention. Besides, I've stated my case on this issue clearly enough in the forum; if not enough people are willing to openly support my proposal to change what amounts to a de facto policy in favor of common names, then for now that's that. At least my way of doing things is tolerated over at WP. --Jaap Winius 13:26, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Images

Jaap, please, will you upload the images that are in red links in vipers articles? Or may the red links be removed? Thanks -Versuri 18:01, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

I was kind of hoping the images would all "magically reappear" once our sysadmins got InstantCommons to go. If that doesn't happen, it would be nice if CZ could at least create an virtual Commons for me to copy all my images to. I'd hate to copy them all directly to the CZ server, mixing them in with the articles, because they're harder to organize that way and I don't see it as a long-term solution. I suppose I'll have to do it, though, if there is no other way. As for the red links, removing them from 100 articles will mean loosing a lot of information that will, no doubt, have to be re-added again some later point in time. But, I suppose there's nothing to do about that now. --Jaap Winius 22:20, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Bio workgroup tag

Hi, I noticed that you removed Biology Workgroup tag from Viperinae, stating that it is enough to have "true vipers". Well, the direct Workgroup tag is needed there for an important practical reason: with the tag the article is visible via the "recent changes" link on Workgroup's home page. I think it is a great feature and see no rationale to delete the tag. Best regards, --AlekStos 09:36, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

That sounds interesting, but with 100 articles in this series, do you really want them all tagged that way? I was thinking that it would be enough to include the Biology Workgroup tag on the True vipers category page. If certain people really want to follow what I've been doing, maybe we should find a way to selectively add groups of pages (i.e. the whole True vipers category) to your watchlist. --Jaap Winius 09:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

do you really want them all tagged that way? I think it is a question for people from the Bio Workgroup. If it was in Math and (where I belong in) and I was to answer, I would clearly suggest that I do want watch all the articles. BTW, I did it on 4th biggest Wikipedia (with some "catscan" tricks). Well, some subgroups seem interesting, but without a clear project it is difficult judge.

Further, with the Big Cleanup operation, I think any decision should be taken "globally" and then publicly known. Probably, the question should be asked on the relevant talk page. By default, as far as I can tell, Bio workgroup should be added so I guess that different people passing through the serpents articles would systematically add the tag. --AlekStos 14:05, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

PS. Maybe I misunderstood something, but adding a category page to your watchlist does not make individual articles' changes visible. A solution would be - as you seem to suggest - creating some universal subcategories and then watching them separately through "related changes" links on the workgroup's page. This would however be naturally provided by sub-workgroups structure when created. Anyway, I think it should be decided on some forum (the BigCleanup page, Bio Workgroup page). --unsigned

Please check out the my user page and notice how useful "recent changes" within a workgroup is. This is only accomplished if we have every article tagged with 1 or a few general workgroup tags. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 14:34, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ABiology_Workgroup -Tom Kelly (Talk) 14:35, 18 March 2007 (CDT)