Issue 11466

Images on Animalia page not sensible

Reporter: trobertson
Type: Improvement
Summary: Images on Animalia page not sensible
Description: Currently shows which is not a good representative image for Animalia
Priority: Critical
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2012-06-22 14:27:23.984
Updated: 2013-08-29 14:45:42.986
Resolved: 2012-10-08 15:32:50.943

Created: 2012-06-25 15:12:42.385
Updated: 2012-06-25 15:12:42.385
A solution should probably offer
a) marking an image as unsuitable so its not shown for nub records
b) allow to mark preferred images (in order?) so at least for higher taxa we can get better images over time with manual (crowd sourced?) labor

Created: 2012-06-25 15:16:01.605
Updated: 2012-06-25 15:19:54.759
This is also a case where wikipedia is not correctly interpreted:

Really this is a record about Agnotozoa, not Animalis:

Created separate issue

Comment: Until this is solved, why not simply remove that content and only include it when it is ready?
Created: 2012-06-25 17:38:54.711
Updated: 2012-06-25 17:38:54.711

Created: 2012-06-26 10:52:05.989
Updated: 2012-06-26 10:52:05.989
You mean exclude all of wikipedia from the nub? Or only the images?
There are probably other sources too that have erroneous data. Not as much as the wikipedia archive, but I had hoped for a more generic solution that can live with partly bad sources.

Also is it worth spending some time on improving the wikipedia parser? This has been done so far as a weekend hobby, but I think it is a very useful source that we should make sure is available as a dwca. 

Created: 2012-08-27 14:43:37.211
Updated: 2012-08-27 14:43:37.211
The general agreed approach to tackle this, is as follows:

a) remove the wikipedia "noise"
 > Markus
b) Approach Arkive and index their images
 > Markus
c) Wait for discover life images
 > Tim will chase up, Markus to index


Created: 2012-08-31 10:54:27.467
Updated: 2012-08-31 10:54:27.467
We have created an ARKive checklist with lots of images through a custom dwca generator.
Unfortunately the terms of use for ARKive images are too restrictive for us to use them.

Images have to be embedded via their portlet service creating the html for us.
We cannot define image sizes and only show thumbnails on our site.

David North,
We’re happy for you to use the ARKive species images using our API however you’ll need to follow the terms of how these images can be used

Due to the agreements with our media donors at this time only portlet images are allowed to be used on third party websites. These portlet images are a thumbnail size (170px wide) and ARKive branded e.g. They are also required to be linked back to the ARKive website as they are described to media donors as graphical links.

Looking at the example you sent you wouldn’t be able to use the larger image and would have to ensure the other image was a portlet image not just a standard thumbnail.

We are working on some other options for providing media to third parties which is more flexible than our current arrangement but this is unlikely to be of help to you at the moment.

Created: 2012-09-14 12:33:27.94
Updated: 2012-09-14 12:33:27.94
Animalia now shows a good image, wikipedia in general is showing much, much better content and we know we cant get ARKive but are waiting for discover for life.

Can we close this issue or is there anything that still needs to be *done* ?

Comment: As per comment
Created: 2012-10-08 15:32:50.989
Updated: 2012-10-08 15:32:50.989