Talk:Identification key
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
I have two questions:
- Does it make sense to put identification keys into wikipedia? They could be on a separate site like "key (ants)" or "key to ant subfamilies" or the like. Or do they already exist, and is there a convention for the naming?
- There is one on wiki-books, but it seems that it is almost never used or updated. 24.210.73.62 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- To what extent can I just copy and paste keys from books or webpages. Can they be copyrighted? I mean, in the end, it is just plane information: "Is attribute X present or not". --Chrischan 17:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The wording could in theory be copyrighted. 24.210.73.62 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The key on wikibooks is a true botanical key (i.e., meant for botanists), and not useful for the average user. SB Johnny 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] First sentence
An identification key does not need to be dichotomous, though it usually is. 24.210.73.62 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Link
The link at the bottom "Thonner's analytical key to the families of flowering plants" is broken.
- 2 links removed. SB Johnny 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Uses of Keys?
- Support (my suggestion). The information on that page would be good to have on this one. As a stand-alone article it will never attain good form. SB Johnny 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree.
User: Aozeba
OK, I did the merge. I also marked some areas where we need supporting references.Lisamh 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikibook of interest
See Dichotomous Key. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Characteristics of good keys
This section contains some definitions, but says nothing about the characteristics of good keys. Mike Dallwitz 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'Informal' and 'taxonomic' keys
I think the more usual terms are 'artificial' and 'natural'. For definitions, see, for example, 'Pankhurst, R.J. (1978). Biological identification. (Edward Arnold: London)'; and http://facstaff.unca.edu/tforrest/BIOL%20331%20Entomology/Handouts/The%20Key%20to%20a%20Useful%20Key.pdf. 'Taxonomic key' is usually used synonymously with 'identification key' - try a Google search for the former. Also, compare Google searches for "informal key" and "artificial key".
It isn't explained what use natural keys are - if any :-).
Mike Dallwitz 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted links
"14:13, 20 February 2007 Curtis Clark - External links - Restore deleted links. Do not delete information without at least an edit summary, or better, a discussion on the talk page)"
Sorry. Here are the links I deleted, and my reasons for doing so.
ActKey. This is just one example of an interactive-key program. The link that I substituted, Programs for interactive identification and information retrieval, contains links to all general-purpose interactive-key programs; ActKey is among them.
Example of a key. This contains a single example of an interactive key. The software used is particularly poor, and there is no description of the software itself (e.g., what it is called, how it works, how to apply it to other data). You can find numerous much better examples of interactive keys at most of the interactive-key sites listed in the above page. If you want to link to examples of conventional (non-interactive) keys, there are countless ones on the Web.
Mike Dallwitz 11:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification!--Curtis Clark 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
