Talk:Identification key

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: An identification key does not need to be dichotomous, though it usually is. 24.210.73.62 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[Uses of Keys]]? 

message: See Dichotomous Key. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibook of interest 

message: This section contains some definitions, but says nothing about the characteristics of good keys. Mike Dallwitz 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics of good keys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Informal' and 'taxonomic' keys 

message: "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)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification!--Curtis Clark 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted links 

message: I changed 'Distribution is not a character' to 'Distribution characters should be used with caution'. The place of origin of a specimen can (usually) be determined for a single specimen (unlike rarity, which is mentioned later in the section). Distribution is subject to errors, but so are all characters. Distribution is often very useful in identification. By reducing the number of other characters that need to be used, it can reduce the overall probability of error. For some references to error rates in keys, see Effectiveness of Identification Methods – References.
Mike Dallwitz 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution characters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Identification key. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629151733/http://www.eti.uva.nl/products/linnaeus.php to http://www.eti.uva.nl/products/linnaeus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721001541/http://lis-upmc.snv.jussieu.fr/lis/?q=en%2Fresources%2Fsoftware%2Fxper2 to http://lis-upmc.snv.jussieu.fr/lis/?q=en%2Fresources%2Fsoftware%2Fxper2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why Identification key is considered a "device" rather than a drawing?
And why don't we have any simple diagram showing what an Identification key may look like? --138.75.40.159 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: A device? and where are the diagrams?