User talk:FredD

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, FredD!
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)‎ | +/−

-- 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Domaine public NOAA[edit]

Bonjour,

Plusieurs organismes détiennent des photos dans le domaine public. Or, Flickr ne permet pas d'indiquer ce statut. Ils recourent le plus souvent à la solution suivante :

  • choisir la licence CC-BY dans la configuration du compte Flickr, pour indiquer l'utilisation la plus libérale de l'image ;
  • noter explicitement le domaine public sur la page de profil du compte.

C'est le cas de la NOAA, qui comme toute agence fédérale américaine, n'a pas de droit d'auteur sur ses productions. Elle indique sur sa page de profil : “This website captures a selection of images from the 47,000 public domain images residing in the NOAA Photo Library.”.

Le modèle pour indiquer qu'une photo de la NOAA est dans le domaine public est {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. --Dereckson (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Collection musée[edit]

Rebonjour,

Je vois que tu as téléversé divers spécimens de musée, comme File:Scutella truncata.JPG.

Puis-je t'aider à les décrire ? Je propose de créer une catégorie pour chaque photo venant de ce musée, puis d'indiquer dans la description le n° de collection via les modèles d'items musée. --Dereckson (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour,
c'est très gentil à toi. J'allais justement demander à Archaeodontosaurus, qui a fait un truc super pour le Museum de Toulouse... Mais je ne suis pas une star du code, et j'ai bien l'impression d'être le seul wikipédiste du Muséum de Paris ! Donc si tu peux harmoniser les quelques photos que j'ai prises, c'est avec grand plaisir. Pour les photos NOAA, je n'ai pas compris les conséquences de ton message : tu crois qu'elles ne sont pas libres de droits comme l'affirme Flickr ? Merci et bonne année, FredD (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour à tous les deux. Nous avons un modèle pour chaque occasion, forme fossile ou forme vivant. Voici ce qui peut servir de référence file:Pseudocidaris mammosa MHNT.jpg pour les fossiles. On ne crée pas une catégorie par objet mais on s’insère dans ce qui existe. Nous l'avons fait pour la préhistoire c'est une fausse bonne idée, il faut maintenant tout reprendre. Je suis toujours là pour les problèmes n'hésitez pas à me solliciter. Par contre il est vivement recommandé de faire une catégorie pour les pièces du MNHN. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Salut, j'ai essayé d'utiliser le même code que toi Archaeodontosaurus sur la page File:Scutella truncata.JPG, mais ça n'a rien rendu à l'affichage. Tu pourrais voir ce qui cloche ? J'ai créé la catégorie Category:Collection of paleontology of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, mais peut-être y a-t-il dfe modèles à créer aussi... Désolé, je suis très mauvais en code et pas un pro de commons ! (suffit de voir le niveau de mes photos par rapport aux tiennes ; d'ailleurs si tu veux venir faire un tour au MNHN ce serait avec plaisir !). Et pour les numéros de collection, je n'y connais rien... Bien amicalement, FredD (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok pour l'oursin. Tu avais oublié de fermer les parenthèses dans la provenance, et ton modèle pour le MNHN n'était pas le bon. J'ai branché la catégorie du MHNT. On avance! Je viens parfois au MNHN, j'essai de convaincre quelques amis à vous laisser travailler et à vous aider... Mais le message ne pas pas. Pour le moment... Ne te décourage pas tu n'es pas seul! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Merci ! Mais je dois vraiment être une chèvre en code, j'ai toujours un problème : File:Micraster coranguinum 3.JPG. J'ai encore dû laisser des crochets ouverts, mais je ne vois pas où... Pourrais-tu me faire un template vide à juste compléter ? Comme ça je pourrais me débrouiller avec de simples copier-coller... Merci encore ! FredD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Effectivement tu es fâché avec les parenthèses. Pour le nom binominal n'oublie pas les italiques. Tu peux aussi afférenter les articles dans les différentes encyclopédies, regarde les modifications. On apprend sur le tas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Mozinor[edit]

Hello ! Il les pages ne semblait pas avoir de ticket Commons:OTRS du coup on a aucune trace d'autorisation écrite; à défaut de ça c'est considéré sur Commons comme une violation de droit d'auteur. De plus le terme « fr:Libre de droit » n'existe pas en France. L'auteur a un droit inaliénable sur ses œuvres. Je t'invite donc à t'engager dans la procédure OTRS. Les deux Fichiers que j'ai supprimés :

Bien cordialement, Otourly (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. En fait la 2e illustration n'est pas de moi, et tu n'as effectivement pas supprimé l'autre illustration de Mozinor que j'avais uploadée. Je ne suis pas un pro de Commons, comment puis-je légaliser la présence du fichier à partir de l'accord par mail du créateur ? Merci ! FredD (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Commence par transférer le mail de l'auteur à l'adresse indiquée sur Commons:OTRS/fr, en indiquant l'URL de l'image supprimée [1]. Ils te répondront plus en détail sur ce sujet. Otourly (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Merci, c'est fait ! FredD (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Diadema sp.[edit]

Hi FredD,

Are you sure that in this picture File:Diadema antillarum 1.jpg is not Diadema antillarum? On the label at the aquarium it was writen Diadema antillarum. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri ! I'm perfectly sure. You can see very well the 5 white dots, and above all the orange ring around the anus, which is very characteristic of this only species (cf. the articles on the english and french Wiki's). Besides, the general shape is not exactly the same, as well as the spines. By the way, I used to work on D. setosum and I know there is no possible confusion (you can find pictures of D. antillarum here). The aquarium must have done a mistake, which is sadly frequent... So yes, Wiki Commons is still looking for a good picture of D. antillarum ! Best regards, FredD (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your answer! Cheers! DenesFeri (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

new pictures[edit]

Hi again,

Could you identify this to species: File:1 - Echinoidea sp. 1.jpg and File:1 - unidentified life form 1.jpg? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. That's not easy, all the more that I don't know where they are from... And aquarium pics are often misleading (and the Blackberry quality is not a blessing !). The first one is a regular Euechinoidea (probably a Camarodonta, then maybe a Toxopneustidae or an Echinidae), and it looks like a clear Sphaerechinus granularis with very short spines, but there are lots of species looking like this... The second one belongs to the Spatangoida, but once again if I don't know where it is from I can't make any statement... And there are too much species in this group to be sure without place, depth and precise characteristics. But you can still categorize them with it, and post the pictures on species identification forums (we have some on Wiki). Cheers, FredD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you! Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Si tu t'ennuies[edit]

Bonjour. Si tu t'ennuies, peux-tu catégoriser les photos du lagon réunionnais dans les catégories mensuelles correspondantes, par exemple File:Scarus psittacus mâle.jpg dans Category:December 2011 in Réunion ? Pour l'instant ces photos échappent à toute arborescence géographique, il est donc moins facile de les retrouver pour qui chercherait à partir des catégories réunionnaises. Thierry Caro (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ! Je suis en période de rush professionnel en ce moment, donc j'uploade les photos de mon ami Philippe quand je peux quand j'ai des pauses, mais je n'aurai pas le temps de catégoriser les 500 photos de la Réunion ce mois-ci... Je garde en mémoire, n'hésite pas à me relancer ! Merci, FredD (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

redirect[edit]

Salut mon ami,
Je suis tes contributions sur commons avec la fierté d'une mère veillant sur son enfant.
J'en profite pour te montrer un détail:
J'ai transformé Stichopus_fuscus en redirect vers Isostichopus fuscus avec {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}.
J'ai aussi ajouté un {{SN}} (synonyms) à Category:Isostichopus fuscus.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, je découvre à l'instant ton message ! Merci beaucoup, je m'emmêle encore un peu les pinceaux sur Commons. Sans compter que j'enrage souvent contre ce site, car je passe mes journées à essayer de convaincre des photographes sous-marins de nous donner leurs photos, mais quand ils comprennent que cela impliue une utilisation commerciale, ils partent tous en courant. C'est pareil sur Flickr : Wikipédia serait incomparablement plus riche si on pouvait utiliser des licences non commerciales ou en fair use ! Bref, je m'énerve tout seul. Merci pour ton aide en tout cas ! A bientôt, FredD (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Microcyphus rousseaui.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Microcyphus rousseaui (Bald-patch urchin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Aplustrum amplustre[edit]

Salut Fred, j'ai fais de menues corrections sur la légende de l'image est sur la nomination. Tu regardera. Peut-on avoir un géocodage dans la légende, même assez vague, pour la bestiole? Ce serait mieux. Bonne soirée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, oui j'ai vu que tu étais passé, merci beaucoup. Pour le géocodage, à part que c'est pris dans un lagon de l'Ouest de la Réunion, je ne peux rien faire de plus... Mais ça n'ajoutera rien par rapport à la légende du coup. Dis-moi si c'est vraiment nécessaire, mais je préfère ne pas contrefaire une info à si large échelle. Bonne soirée ! FredD (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Effectivement c'est trop vague pour le géocodage. "Lagon ouest de la Réunion" pourrait être utile dans la légende. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Aplustrum amplustre.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aplustrum amplustre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Idole des Maures (Zanclus cornutus).jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Zanclus cornutus (Moorish idol).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

not Ophidiaster ophidianus?[edit]

Hi FredD,

Are you sure that this File:Ophidiaster ophidianus1.jpg is not Ophidiaster ophidianus? And why? And what else could it be? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it is definitely not an Ophidiaster ophidianus, and obviously not even a species of the Ophidiasteridae family. Ophidiaster ophidianus has rounded and flexible arms, and neither triangular nor pointed - it shares somehow the same appearance as the Linckia species. Your specimen looks very much like the "sandstars" of the Paxillosida order, with its distinct flat surface and digging ossicles (it may be an Astropecten, but I don't master this genus enough to be definitive). As it appears to be a souvenir, I think it has been dyed (like on this picture).
Here are my reasons : why did you think it was an Ophidiaster ophidianus ? Regards, FredD (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this is Ophidiaster ophidianus because of this picture File:Capo Gallo Ophidiaster ophidianus.jpg. It looked the same for me; but I'm not an expert. And thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 Biopics 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings[edit]

العربية | Català | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


Dialog-warning.svg Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page without adressing the issues you received these warnings for. If you have received them for Copyright issues, please read and understand Commons:Licensing. Note that removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history.

You're welcome to archive your talk page. You can have this done automatically for you - simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page and old messages will be archived after 1 month (see User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for more details).

 Biopics 18:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, your talk page seems to be off, how could I talk with you ? I don't really like your automatic threatening messages. All the pictures you point at just need to get the right {{own}} template instead of the explanation in French, there is no big deal. Regards, FredD (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
These are not threats, it is just commons policy. The images were uploaded as a 'gift' (don). If you are Philippe Boujon, then please say so on your user page, if not let Philippe Boujon send a general agreement to use his images to OTRS. Regards.  Biopics 07:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I already had this conversation a hundred times with other contributors, but let's have it again. I have been working with Philippe for years, and my account in then somehow shared, as I upload more pictures from him than from me. There are over 700 pictures from Philippe on Wiki Commons, and we can definiteny not list them all to send a form for each of them. Hence I am just putting the "own" template, but many Commons admins have already been in contact with him in order to verify his consent and awareness. Tell me if you have any better realistic idea... Cheers, FredD (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Then the conversation was not done properly. 700 files is not that much. A bot could change them (e.g. checking for author name). A single OTRS number could cover them all (talk to the OTRS people, they may assign a token for files by Phillippe and only when uploaded by yourself...). This would cover future uploads as well. This is not necessarily a job you would have to do all by yourself (check with bot-owners). The {{own}} template is definitely not correct. Such quality gifts of non-wiki users are of course very valuable, but the correct procedure has to be followed. Regards.  Biopics 13:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I just write to OTRS and I copy what you said ? Regards, FredD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Portunus (Xiphonectes) longispinosus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 Biopics 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Cycloachelous granulatus.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cycloachelous granulatus.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 Biopics 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Thalamita coeruleipes, de nuit, accouplement.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Thalamita coeruleipes, de nuit, accouplement.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Thalamita coeruleipes, de nuit, accouplement.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 Biopics 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

300 edits[edit]

When you get your OTRS number, if you don't want to update your own pages, contact user GreenGiant who seems to be the most savvy with bot-changes to files of the admins I've "met" so far. Sorry about the hassle. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news, the emails from your friends have been received but there is a little bit of uncertainty about copyright. I'm sure it will be resolved sometime soon. Once that is done, leave me a message on my talkpage and we will sort out the tagging, unless Mdann52 does it. Just for clarification, I am neither a bot operator nor an admin, I just happen to have clicked the right buttons on a semi-automated mechanism. Green Giant (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Green Giant. But what do you mean by "a little bit of uncertainty about copyright" ? I have not told about it... What can we do to help ? Thanks for your help, FredD (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't want to intrude on work by another OTRS agent but basically it appears there are three names claiming copyright rather than the two you mentioned. Hopefully it will be cleared up soon and don't worry if anything gets deleted - it can easily be restored. Green Giant (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Three names ? How could I see this ? Maybe Philippe sent his request twice, I'll ask him... Thanks ! FredD (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Moros y Cristianos 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Bonjour Fred. Can you please only categorize species under the Genus species category, and not also under the Genus category? That's redundant categorization and not allowed. Merci. Moros y Cristianos 13:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there is actually no redundancy : I just created the genus category after adding the picture, and forgot to remove the family category. But when I put a picture of a species I always use the lowest level of taxonomic category that does exist already on Commons (sometimes nothing lower than the phylum). Regards, FredD (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Non, non. Je pense que vous ne me comprenez pas. L'existence de catégories n'est pas pertinent. Pour une espèce, utilisez toujours la catégorie de l'espèce, rien d'autre dans l'arbre taxonomique. Si elle n'existe pas encore, et vous ne savez pas comment le faire vous-même, ne vous inquiétez pas. Un spécialiste va passer tôt ou tard et construire les pièces manquantes de l'arbre taxonomique.
Cordialement Moros y Cristianos 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Donc quand la catégorie de l'espèce n'existe pas je dois laisser la photo sans catégorie ? Et que faire quand l'identification par photo ne peut pas aller plus loin que la famille, par exemple ? FredD (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
See File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. If you are confident that it is Cymo quadrilobatus, then add category Category:Cymo quadrilobatus; but not Category:Cymo too which is redundant. If you are not sure about the species but confident on genus, then use Category:Cymo. Similarly you can use the lowermost level on which you are confident with the ID; but no need to add a higher level too which is redundant. For instructions on creating new categories, see COM:CATJee 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, my idea is that there are more chances that someone creates the genus (or family) category than the species, so this way the picture can be found by browsing the categories even if the species category does not exist (otherwise I receive automatic messages because my pictures have no valid category). Then, when I see that a lower category is created (or when I create it myself, which is far more common), I delete the upper category. Am I doing any harm ? I don't think it is very realistic to wait for people to create categories for all the species of marine worms... And even for crabs. FredD (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Categories#Why_over-categorization_is_a_problem. (BTW, creating categories and linking to parent is not so difficult. For example, I created Category:Aethaloessa calidalis and Category:Aethaloessa for this moth.) Jee 12:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends on your standards in creating categories : if you want to create proper taxonomic categories with all the useful links, it takes more time. And even more if it need to create the genus, family, ordo, class etc... (try it with worms or cyanobacteria !). There are only 3 field pictures of cyanobacteria from the Phormidiaceae family, and all three were uploaded by myself : I did not have time enough to create genus and species category for each of them (and you know as well as me that nobody else will), but I wanted people to be able to find them : with the family category, it is possible and easy. And the argument of the overfilling of parent categories is not very accurate for taxonomic groups of rare sea creatures : I think under-categorization is more often the problem (I have been categorizing hundreds of pictures of marine species that had no taxinomic mention just because the species category did not exist, including properly identified museum specimens). So every time the species category does not exist, there are little chances to overfill the genus or family : we are not dealing with cats and dogs pictures here. I have already created many hundreds categories, but I can't create them at the same time for the thousands of pictures I add (even if I do try to), all the more that they would often need to create all the upper categories as well. Creating 30 categories for 5 pictures of foraminifera or worms is quite time-eating. And obviously, it is useless to wait for somebody else to create them : I have been contributing since 2006, and I know that I am nearly alone for marine biology as soon as you move slightly away from common aquarium fish. Hence, I am sorry I really see no more satisfactory option than how I am currently doing, knowing that most of my pictures actually have only one valid category at a time, are easy to find, overfill no category and bother nobody. But if you find arguments to convince me to do it in a better way, I'm still open ; besides, feel free to create the >1000 categories that are needed to cetegorize all my pictures at the lowest taxonomic level (with all the needed scientific references), and I swear I will have them all categorized. Regards, FredD (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
See File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. It has only to cats with red links; one to species and other to genus which is not good. There is no need to populate all links by you while creating categories. Just add a link to the parent and save. If the parent doesn't exists, do the same think for it. Finally you end-up with no more red links. :) Jee 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is only because you just created these categories (just before all links but the family were red) : I fixed it now, and added the scientific references to the categories. Once you do all the other genera of the family, you can remove the useless categories from my pictures with just one click. Thanks for help on this group and cheers, FredD (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you stop whining and start doing some work here. It's because of guys like you that I stopped doing maintenance. I've created thousands of categories with my current and dito with my previous account, 99% of those in marine biology. Don't pretend to be something you are not.  Biopics 08:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Mauritia histrio Réunion.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Mauritia histrio Réunion.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 Biopics 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me Biopics ?! FredD (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dendropoma maxima Maldives.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Dendropoma maxima Maldives.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 Biopics 21:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Zoila sp..JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Zoila sp..JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 Biopics 21:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pseudoceros confusus.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Pseudoceros confusus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 Biopics 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cerithium alucastrum.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Cerithium alucastrum.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-- Tuválkin 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)