User talk:Dwergenpaartje

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Dwergenpaartje!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- 16:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

topics[edit]

I have replied on my talk page. --Kevmin § 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mucrospirifer thedfordiensis[edit]

Hello my friend,
About Category:Mucrospirifer thedfordiensis, there is no need to suppress it:

  • I have transfered all its images to Category:Mucrospirifer thedfordensis using the Cat-a-lot tool
  • then I have put {{Category redirect|Mucrospirifer thedfordensis}} in the incorrect cat.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

categories[edit]

Hello my friend,
First, let me thank you for your wonderful photos. We really need trilobit specialists like you ;-)
Just a message to warn you that you create a lot of categories with incorrect categories:

  1. either with a self-pointing cat
    (Ex: Category:Dagnochonetes_supragibbosa containing [[Category:Dagnochonetes supragibbosa]])
    (Look at your cats 1 and 2)
    (These are detected by Commons:Database reports/Self-categorized categories)
  2. either with a single non existing category (appearing red)

Both cases are sad, because it means that your categories are lost because non attached to the category tree.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,
Thank you for your kind words. I was hoping I'm contributing something and to get praise from someone is great.
I'm a total wiki-dummy. So I can use some pointers to be more effective. However, I have no idea what you are talking about in your message. With my files I am trying to make categories that enable me to put files of different angles of the same specimen, and of other specimen of the same species together.
I also am trying to create categories for specific fossil locations and for specific geological periods. The fossil locations I try to do on three levels: stratum of formation, state or province and country. The periods should actually be refined to the level of stages.
Sometimes these categories have not yet been created, but I have the intention to do so within a few days. Sometimes I have only one file in a category at the moment, but more may follow, and by making 'red' categories, I need not revisit a file, after other files in that category are uploaded.
I guess the categories in the categories I have created should bring together files at one taxonomical level higher, but changes that others made to my categories go in every direction. I have seen the repetion of the species category, the genus category, the binominal divided by a vertical line (I think it is Kevmin who does it like that, and I started to copy that way of doing it, just to disencourange him to change my files), but also the family.
I am also unclear about the taxonomy. Some interventions add intermediate levels eg suborder or superfamily, while others delete them. I guess they may be avoided if the epithed is the same at het standard levels: I mean there is no added value to add Phacopina between Phacopida and Phacopidae, because it cannot be anything else. But what is the policy here?
Actually I think I would understand what you say if you would give me links to a file and a category that combines single species files, that is as it should ideally be.
Quite something else is that I would aspire to make wikipedia pages with my photos (I did so for Musculus somaliensis and Somalirhynchia africana). However, most of the time, the necessary scientific articles are not available free of charge. I am not a student, or a university professor, so I cannot make use of their facilities. Do you know if there is a project in wikipedia that would enable me to access the necessary literature free of charge, or, lets say up to 100 USD a year?
Kind regards, Ronald
Hello my wikifriend
It would be a honor to help you in our wiki labyrinth
On the point 1) I was talking of Category:Dagnochonetes supragibbosa containing [[Category:Dagnochonetes supragibbosa]]
It means that your category is placed in itself.
The solution is to add [[Category:Productida]] (I already did it ;-))
This because if you look in the taxonavigation: Dagnochonetes is red, Dagnachonetinae is red and Chonetidae is red.
Now, you may also think on creating Category:Chonetidae, Category:Dagnachonetinae and Category:Dagnochonetes:
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fossils of xxx categories[edit]

Hi, thank you for your great contributions. I would appreciate if you could use the category format "Fossils of xxx-place" as this is what the de facto standard is converging to as you can see in Category:Fossils by country. Best regards. --Foroa (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Trilobit again[edit]

Hello my wikifriend,
About your last comment on Trilobita:

  • what discussion are you talking about ?
  • You know that I know nothing about trilobits (;-)) but you modified a {{Taxa}} having source=TPDB so you need to keep what TPDB says (even if it is wrong ;-)). The solution if you follow another source is to provide one with source=TPDB and one with source=<yoursource> or ref=<anything like an url>.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Liné,
You are quite fast in responding. I was going to give an explanation on the talkpage (or discussion as it seems to be called on the commons). I have done so now. I hope it is to your satisfaction. If not, please talk to me again. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks a lot. Could you look at what I did to Trilobita. My english is not satisfying enough to go out of the talk pages ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Undo of cropping of File:Triarthrus.jpg[edit]

Hi, I thought a rotated, cropped, sharpened and color enhanced version would be an improvement to your already fine image. I think it better shows the appendages this way. I guess you disagree. -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is permissible to make a derivative work in condition of license. It is very inappropriate to edit an image with a label VI. IT is very inappropriate to edit an image that is already used in various projects. Thank you for your understanding.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am not aware of what is appropriate or not. I edited your image because I felt a need to better show the ventral aspect of Triarthrus after editing en:Triarthrus extensively. Sadly, you have reverted the edit. I do not know how to make a derivative work in condition of license. But perhaps you could be seduced to make a derived work that would meet the need I have now explained and still feel this would be an image you are proud of. Kind regards, -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

File:PSM V31 D765 Terebratula vitrea brachiapod.jpg[edit]

I have had the original name for this file restored. It is in use in the Wikisources and was named in line with how those images have been extracted from the work, hence its naming was not inaccurate for its purpose. If you stumble over more of these types of images, can you please look to retain the original text, even if it is subordinated to modern text, as that allows the retention of the (historical) contemporary information to stay with file. Thanks for your understanding on this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand. How can it be appropriate to retain a disused name. It would lead to illustrating a genus it no longer belongs to. It would however seem appropriate to reproduce the original caption of the illustration in the description. In my mind, this would better serve your intention than sticking to a wrong name, including a spelling mistake it is a brachiopoda not a brachiapoda. I'm not going to rerevert however. I will or will not have succeeded in convincing you. Kind Regard, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)