Ir al contenido

Usuario discusión:Brya

Contenido de la página no disponible en otros idiomas.
De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Hola, Brya. Te damos la bienvenida a Wikipedia en español; gracias por participar en el proyecto. Esperamos que la colaboración te resulte agradable y que aproveches tu estancia por aquí.

Puedes encontrar algunas guías útiles aquí:

Ésta es tu página de discusión, donde otros wikipedistas pueden contactarte. Si quieres saber algo más, puedes contactarme en mi página de discusión, o dirigirte a la comunidad en el Café o preguntar en nuestro canal de IRC. No temas preguntar, estamos aquí para ayudarte.

Recuerda que los artículos no se firman, pero los mensajes personales sí; para dejar tu firma, pon cuatro tildes (~~~~) o usa el botón correspondiente, el segundo desde la derecha en la botonera que hay en la parte superior de la caja de edición.

Esperamos que pases buenos momentos por aquí. Saludos y es una alegría que hayas vuelto editar desde tus inicios en mayo !!!! --Suomi 00:40 4 oct 2006 (CEST)

Hi Brya

[editar]

¿Why did you remove the interwiki links in Equisetaceae and Equisetopsida? I would like to have an explanation. —RoRo 16:10 3 feb 2007 (CET)

That is very simple: I am linking Equisetum-pages across wikipedia's. Also Equisetaceae-pages, Equisetopsida-pages, Equisetophyta-pages and Equisetum arvense-pages. In doing so I am deleting inappropriate interwikilinks (say the link of a Equisetum arvense-page on one wikipedia to the Equisetophyta-page on another wikipedia). Elementary stuff. Brya 16:52 3 feb 2007 (CET)
Of course it was a lot of work. It took me two hours to find which pages belonged together. Brya 16:54 3 feb 2007 (CET)
If you would care for a suggestion? Moving the main page from Equisetaceae to Equisetum would be more in line with usage on other wikipedia's and would make it easier to link. Brya 17:30 3 feb 2007 (CET)

Brya, ¿how much you know about what you are doing? Equisetaceae and Equisetum both refer to the same clade. Equisetophyta and Equisetopsida both refer to the same clade also. So they are synonims for an encyclopedia, that's why you had seen those interwiki links. I suggest you to ask whenever you have a doubt in the wikiproyecto:Taxonomía. Almost everybody speak english there so they will explain this better than me if you like. I really think what you are doing is not doing any good. Sorry if you think I'm not polite, it's a little difficult for me to explain things in this language. —RoRo 03:02 4 feb 2007 (CET)

Thank you. I am a pretty hard core systematic botanist, so I feel I understand this pretty well. You are right in that if extant plants are considered, the component membership of Equisetum, Equisetaceae, Equisetopsida and Equisetophyta is the same. So these pages deal with the same plants, and descriptions of the plants (if on more than one page) are the same. This does not mean that Equisetum, Equisetaceae, Equisetales, Equisetopsida and Equisetophyta are the same. They are different names, each with their own publication date and taxonomic history. For example much of the literature uses Equisetophyta but this name is not accepted in the Smith & al. reference listed here. Mabberley in his new edition of the Plant-book will use the same groups (or very close to it) as Smith & al. but will recognise Equisetaceae as the highest rank and will have them in the same order as most ferns. So each name stands on its own. Of course it is debatable if each name deserves a page of its own, or can be included in a page of a different name. This is a matter of philosophy: debating method, priorities, etc
Every wikipedia deals with this in its own way. Most deal with the Equisetum-plants on an Equisetum page, which is quite sensible. Other treat it at a different level, or not at all. Some wikipedia's have two separate pages, at different levels (this Spanish wikipedia has two separate pages: Equisetaceae and Equisetopsida). As far as I can tell, no wikipedia has more than two separate pages, but this may come. I would expect more in future.
This means that the only sensible course is to cross link at each different level. This will be robust, as wikipedia's grow.
Again, I repeat the suggestion that moving this page to Equisetum would be in line with other wikipedias, and would result in the best interwiki solution. Brya 09:18 4 feb 2007 (CET)
[editar]

Hello Brya, I'm Musicantor and Im (like RoRo) part or the Wikiproyecto:Taxonomía in WP:es. I´ll try to explain some things about this "Equisetum" issue (and similars), that concerns the policy of WP:Taxonomia in spanish wikipedia.

  • You wrote: "Every wikipedia deals with this in its own way". That´s really true, in that way, we (WP in spanish) agreed to treat taxa (the articles) in a particular way: the only genus included in a monotypic familia is redirected to the family rank article(and we explain this situation in the articles to avoid any errata in interpretation of the article content).
  • We have to clear another aspect. In WP:es, as you can see, we have two real (non-redirected) articles: Equisetaceae y Equisetopsida. As far as I can see, you dont understand spanish language as needed to know that those articles are not the same and also dont deal with the same taxa, because Equisetopsida article treats not only Equisetum, but also fossils as Calamites, etc. This is a problem of content despite the names of the articles or their taxonomic rank.
  • We have to say that your interwikilinks modifications harm the possibility of access to the same content in other wp languages, that isolates articles beyond the differents policies in other WPs. The links among different WP languages were made to "agree in the content" of no-matter-what article name, despite the classifications or other criteria used in each WP. Beause of that, it has to be possible for anyone to link the same "article content" in any language with one mouse-click.
  • For us, going back our policy to agree with other WPs means a lot of work (i.e. rearrange all articles with monotypic taxa). This is solvable with interwikilinks although we have different article names (ranks) for the same. --musicantor 17:59 5 feb 2007 (CET)
Thank you. Yes, I quite agree that Equisetaceae and Equisetopsida may well be different pages. However, potentially this is true at every rank. For Ginkgo there is only the one extant species, but the genus will contain fossil species. The only real solution that will solve this is to have all the descriptions at the lowest rank possible: the extant Ginkgo will have to be described at the species level (at Ginkgo biloba) so as to ensure that the page on the genus will not suggest things which are not true.
Basically, your comment on interwiki links is only true if the spanish wikipedia is considered in isolation. It is possible to link the description of Equisetum on the Spanish wikipedia to all the descriptions of Equisetum on all the other wikipedia. However, for all the wikipedia's together this will only work if every wikipedia has only one such page. Some wikipedias have the information on a page titled Equisophyta. The French wikipedia has both a page at that rank and an Equisetum page. So the Spanish page with the description of Equisetum (at Equisetaceae) linked to the French page at Equisophyta. There is not much difference between Equisetophyta and Equisetopsida (both may include the information on fossil plants). Your strategy means that any page may become linked to any other page, and this will get worse with every new wikipedia. I am now sorting Bombacaceae from Bombacoideae across wikipedia's, and these have become entangled, because some people fail to distinguish that these are entirely different taxa.
So there is no easy answer here. The easiest solution is for as many wikipedias as possible to have the descriptions of Equisetum on a page entitled Equisetum. Brya 12:21 7 feb 2007 (CET)

Tetracentraceae/Trochodendraceae

[editar]

Dear Brya:

The reasons for keeping Tetracentron & Trochodendron in the same family are already published in the botanical papers. You can find a pro opinion in the APG website. Multiplication of families do not help to construct a robust phylogeny. On the other hand, if you do not understand Spanish, why are you editing here? I could do it in the English Wikipedia, but I prefer not to bother English users. You are using different rulers in the Spanish and in the English Wikipedia, as when you erase authorships in the Spanish while you keep them in the English one. So please leave us alone, doing our own things in Spanish, or write articles in Spanish. This is my last message to you in English.

Adiós, --Dryas Háblame quedo al carpelo 23:35 21 abr 2007 (CEST)

Thank you.
The question is not if it is best to keep Tetracentron & Trochodendron in the same family or not: that is a taxonomic question. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, and as such is not intended to make taxonomic decisions. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a reference, and to document reality.
In reality some taxonomists prefer to put these two in two different families and others put them together in a single family. That is the reality that should be documented in Wikipedia.
As to my editing in the project, obviously it will be very limited. However, when errors here upset all the other wikipedias then I should indeed act. Brya 11:20 4 may 2007 (CEST)

Hi again

[editar]

Hi Brya. I have an incredible amount of patience and perseverance, and it looks like I will demonstrate that with you. It was already agreed in the project to keep the interwikis as they were. I will not explain that to you again (partly because I don't like your language), I'm writing to announce that I will "restore" every interwiki you destroy from now. Good bye. —RoRo (discusión) 01:13 16 nov 2009 (UTC)[responder]

Harpidium

[editar]

He observado que has eliminado Harpidium, como género, pasándolo a sinónimo. En la última actualización de The Plant List en abril del 2012, está aceptado como género independiente, asimismo en Wikispecies, en Index fungorum y Micobank. Incluso en la wiki en inglés está aceptada como género. En mi opinión deberías deshacer la redirección y establecerlo nuevamente como género, aunque con la salvedad de que algunos autores (Trópicos) no acepta el taxón. Saludos.--MILEPRI (discusión) 09:15 11 feb 2015 (UTC)[responder]

Thank you for getting back to me. This is not an issue of taxonomy, but of nomenclature. A scientific name may only be used for one particular taxon (to prevent unnecessary confusion). As you point out there does indeed exists a genus Harpidium, but it is of fungi (accepted in Wikispecies, Index Fungorum, and Mycobank): Harpidium Körb. (1855). This means that the name Harpidium may not be used again for a genus of plants. The Spanish Wikipedia page was on a genus of mosses, Harpidium (Sull.) Spruce (1867) non Körb. (1855), a non-existent genus. Thus I redirected it to the correct name (for a genus of mosses).
        This does not mean that there cannot be a page on Harpidium for the genus Harpidium Körb. (1855) of fungi (accepted in Wikispecies, Index Fungorum, and Mycobank). You are welcome to make such a page, but it will have to be built anew from the ground up (entirely different from the page on a non-existent moss genus). I hope this explains it? - Brya (discusión) 05:02 14 feb 2015 (UTC)[responder]

I don't think is correct your move.

[editar]

Asteridae is not Asteriidae --Jakeukalane (discusión) 09:25 29 jun 2015 (UTC)[responder]

No, Asteridae is a subclass of plants, containing the family Asteraceae. This is entirely different from the clade asterids of the APG, fr:Astéridées, which is the topic of this page. - Brya (discusión) 18:34 29 jun 2015 (UTC)[responder]
Obtenido de «https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_discusión:Brya&oldid=83491363»