User talk:Ies/Archive

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

Euphorbia[edit]

Hallo, vielen Dank für Ihre Änderungen in Category:Euphorbia, jedoch muss ich an zweien davon Kritik üben:

  • der aktuelle Name von E. comosa ist nicht E. lupulina. Vielmehr ist E. lupulina ein Synonym für E. comosa. Sie können dies einer der taxonomischen Datenbanken entnehmen, wie z.B. der Kew Checklist. Ich habe Ihre Änderung daher reverted.
  • wenn Sie der Ansicht sind, das einzige Foto in Euphorbia caerulescens zeigt eine E. avasmontana, so ist das schön, denn endlich findet jemand die falschen Zuordnungen unter Euphorbia, danke!. Den Namen in der Galerie zu ändern, reicht aber leider nicht, denn die Galerie selbst heißt nach wie vor caerulescens. Da es aber das einzige Foto ist, bietet sich an, die Galerie einfach zu verschieben. Ich habe das dann für Sie gemacht. Gleiches gilt für E. polychroma.
  • bitte entfernen Sie niemals Fotos aus einer Galerie ohne sie einer anderen Galerie oder zumindest Kategorie zuzuordnen! Z.B. die beiden E. neriifolia Bilder, die Sie zu E. lactea zugeordnet haben, musste ich selbst in der Euphorbia lactea eintragen. Oder auch die beiden E. milii var. splendens.

Ich hoffe, Sie lassen sich von mir nicht von weiteren fachkundigen Beiträgen abhalten! Grüße -- Ayacop 09:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Ayacop, danke für die Hinweise! Da ich noch nicht alle Funktionen richtig verstand, hatte ich mich etwas ungeschickt angestellt. Zwei Dinge verstehe ich aber immer noch nicht:
  • Wieso gibt es zwei Kategorien Euphorbia, eine automatische und eine händische? Wäre es nicht sinnvoll, sich auf eine (die automatische) zu beschränken?
  • Wie kommt es bei der automatischen Kategorieseite zu der automatischen Gallerie und wie bekommt man die Fotos dort wieder weg nachdem man sie einsortiert hat?
Dass E. lupulina ein Synonym für E. comosa ist, mag richtig sein. Gehört hatte ich davon schon, doch fehlt mir immer noch die entsprechende Literaturangabe. Den Beschreibungen nach könnte es zumindest passen. Die Kompilation von Govaerts in der Kew Checklist ist allerdings umstritten und nichts, worauf ich mich ernsthaft beziehen würde. Beste Grüße, Ies 13:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Zunächst, was Sie als 'händische Kategorie' bezeichnen, ist eigentlich keine Kategorie, sondern, ganz ähnlich wie in der normalen Wikipedia, ein Artikel. Wir nennen diese hier 'Galerie', da sie dazu verwendet werden, Bilder geordnet darzustellen, im Gegensatz zur Kategorie, wo sich an der Reihenfolge der Präsentation nichts verändern lässt. Das ist auch ein Grund, warum solche parallel zu (oder sogar anstatt von) Kategorien benutzt werden, insbesondere für Spezies. Ob sie für Genus sein müssen, das entscheidet meist jemand, der für eine Wikipedia einen Genus-Artikel schreibt und dann von dort auf eine Seite mit weiteren geordneten Commons-Bildern verlinken möchte, anstatt auf die Kategorie. Der Nachteil ist natürlich, dass die Genus-Kategorie immer aktueller sein wird als die Genus-Galerie, weswegen ich persönlich das auch nicht mag.
Zu ihrer nächsten Frage: Wie kommt es bei der automatischen Kategorieseite zu der automatischen Gallerie und wie bekommt man die Fotos dort wieder weg nachdem man sie einsortiert hat? ... nehme ich an, Sie meinen die Einsortierung in Spezies-Galerien? Das wird händisch gemacht, das lässt sich ja nicht automatisieren. Was mit dem Bild in der Familien-Kategorie passieren soll, darüber scheiden sich allerdings momentan die Geister. Bisher war es jedenfalls Usus, die Familien-Kategorie aus dem Bild zu entfernen, sonst wären alle Familien ja voller Bilder, was die Arbeit damit stark erschweren würde. Aber das ist nur meine Meinung.
Ihre Anmerkungen zur Checklist finde ich interessant, Sie schreiben 'umstritten'. Wo gab/gibt es da Streitigkeiten? Nicht, dass ich jetzt daran teilnehmen möchte, ich bin als Taxo-Laie nur interessiert zu erfahren, was man daran aussetzen kann. Zumindest online ist die Checklist für mich bei vielen Pfanzenfamilien die vollständigste Informationsquelle. Eine entsprechende Bibliothek kann ich leider nicht mein eigen nennen. Grüße -- Ayacop 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Inzwischen hatte ich schon selbst herausbekommen, wie das mit der händischen Einsortierung funktioniert und die Kategorie Euphorbia etwas aufgeräumt.
Bei der Kew-Checklist hatte ich mich zu knapp ausgedrückt. Meine Skepsis bezieht sich ausschließlich auf die Gattung Euphorbia (von anderen Gattungen verstehe ich nicht genug um mir ein Urteil erlauben zu können). Obwohl als Rezensent für Euphorbia S.Carter (2000) angegeben ist, haben offensichtlich andere Einflüsse (Govaerts eigene Ideen?) eine nicht geringe Rolle gespielt. So sind beispielsweise in Urs Egglis Sukkulentenlexikon Band 2 (2002), in dem Euphorbia auch von S.Carter bearbeitet wurde, E. lupulina und E. comosa zwei verschiedene Arten. Weitere Beispiele für Diskrepanzen sind: E. aggregata var. alternicolor, E. arbuscula var. montana, E. atoto, E. atropurpurea var. modesta, E. barnhartii... In allen Fällen hat S.Carter zwei Jahre später eine andere und zwar konservative Meinung über den Status der Art oder Varietät. Dazu kommt, dass S.Carter zwar eine unübertroffene Expertin für die ostafrikanischen Arten ist, ihr Fachwissen aber bei Arten anderer Regionen schwächelt. So zeigt beispielsweise die von ihr im Sukkulentenlexikon sehr unterschiedliche Beschreibung der tatsächlich sehr gleichartigen Infloreszenzen und Cyathien von E. comosa, heterodoxa, lupulina, psammophila, rhabdodes und sogar pteroneura, dass sie diese Gruppe nicht wirklich verstanden hat. Die von ihr bei einigen dieser Arten genannten petaloiden Anhängsel der Nektardrüsen sind einfach falsch und unterstellen eine Zugehörigkeit zur (früheren) Untergattung Agaloma. Wie ein Blick durch's Mikroskop zeigt, sind die Nektardrüsen jedoch, ganz anders als in "Agaloma", lediglich verlängert und tragen bis zu deren äußersten Rand Drüsengewebe. Es gibt keine petaloiden Anhängsel! Fazit: Die Gattung Euphorbia in der Kew-Checklist solle mit einer großen Portion Vorsicht genossen werden. Beste Grüße, Ies 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die erhellenden Ausführungen! -- Ayacop 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Euphorbia milii answer[edit]

Hello Wayne, I've got pretty confused about the movement of the unknown Euphorbia milii hybrids from Euphorbia milii to Category:Unidentified Euphorbia. These plants are only not exact identified, hence their particular title, but certainly belong to Euphorbia milii where they have been placed. Hope you don't resent a reverting of your movement. Ies 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi and no problem, I probably thought they were in the wrong place and didn't realize they were millii. I am fascinated by Euphorbia and have grown exotic species over the years, especially when I ran the Estate Greenhose for E. P. Taylor in the 70's. I am grateful you have put up such a wonderful collection. WayneRay 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

invitation[edit]

Hi Ies,

welcome to commons.

Judging from your contributions, you may be interested in Commons:WikiProject Plants or Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life.

TeunSpaans 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi TeunSpaans,
thanks for inviting me. I'm of course interested in these projects and am poised to help as far as knowledge and time allow. Is there anything particular to do? Greetings, Ies 09:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cylindropuntia vs Opuntia[edit]

What's your authority for moving Cylindropuntia echinocarpa to Opuntia? Anderson is pretty definite about putting chollas in their own genus. Stan Shebs 07:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stan,

Anderson is not the only one to be of different opinion. However, if anything changes you'll always find a couple of people and even authorities who don't like the change.

Without doubt Cylindropuntia and Opuntia build two different branches in the development of the plants. Particulaly if you look at the species placed on top of the branches they seemingly represent two different genera. There are however too many species at the common base of the branches that can't be clearly allocated to one of them.

Another important matter in this context is that a genus must be monophyletic. A genus definition that sounds like "all Euphorbia species besides the soon branching ones (Chamaesyce) and the ones with fused together glands (Monadenium)..." or in the current case "all Opuntia species besides the cylindrical ones (Cylindropuntia)..." makes the genus paraphyletic and hence is doomed to failure.

To cut a long story short: The common (and I think traceable) opinion of most botanists involved is that Cylindropuntia and Opuntia can't be told apart and represent one single genus, namely Opuntia.

Wishing you a Happy New Year, Ies 14:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most botanists"? That's kind of vague. Names please, post-2001 only since that's when Pinkava's work was published. And what Cylindropuntia can't be clearly allocated anyway? Pull on a spine, the Cylindropuntia sheath pops right off, pull on an Opuntia spine, nothing happens (or it comes off entirely :-) ). I've been working on getting some closeups of how the sheaths work, quite interesting though not easy to photograph. Stan Shebs 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

OK, now you're starting to p*ss me off. Not did you ignore my last request, just above, but you're deleting English-language names from gallery pages, which is unacceptable. If you don't restore them yourself, I'm just going to start reverting en masse. Stan Shebs 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Stan, you seem right regarding Cylindropuntia. They changed their mind and again accept that genus in APG II. Will correct the names soon. No reason to get steamed up about that! Currently I'm a little confused by your excitement regarding a deleted English-language name. Why don't you simply tell me in friendly words about that mistake I made instead of threatening with an edit war? I really like your plant photos but now you behaviour disappoints me. Anyway, what name exactly are you missing? Ies 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you took it off Echinocactus grusonii, and today took the name off Opuntia littoralis. Common names in various languages are useful for two reasons: 1) internal search, especially valuable if sci names are being moved around, and 2) to get Google hits. Do you want people searching online to find your images, or somebody else's? Anyway, what's irritating is when you make these changes without talking to anybody, as if I or anybody else hadn't put any thought into how galleries should be put together. Stan Shebs 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Stan, how do you know that I did’t talk to anybody? Want you actually tell me that I didn’t talk to the right people and in particular didn’t ask you? You very well know that nobody seriously attended to the bedraggled category Cactaceae. Now when I (almost) straightened the mess up your reaction is just nagging about two mistakes that in fact is one only as the name of Opuntia littoralis is still there. Thanks! Ies 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you talked to anybody about gallery organization, it wasn't recorded on commons, as [1] and [2] show. So with O. littoralis, I see you didn't actually delete it, sorry to accuse, but why would anyone move the common name to the *end*? I don't get the reasoning behind that, and nobody else does it that I know of. Stan Shebs 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Stan, I spent days to straighten the cacti up, to correct the wrong and obolete botanical names you spread and to correct and add the authors you neglected. All you do is nagging about trifles like a common name that is not on the place you expected. Do you really think your behaviour is appropriate?
I can cite reputable authorities for all my "wrong and obsolete" names, so your criticism is completely unfounded. But whatever - anything you do I can undo, if it comes to that. Stan Shebs 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, synonyms should be redirects, not deleted. Stan Shebs 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Echinopsis subdenudata[edit]

Hallo, les, nur eine kurze Nachfrage: Du hast Echinopsis subdenudatus nach Echinopsis subdenudata verschoben. Ich hatte beim Anlgen des Artikels als Quelle einmal [3] und den "Missouri Botanical Garden" mit folgender Info:

Echinopsis subdenudatus Cárdenas Group - Dicot - Family - CACTACEAE - Cactus Family Published in: Cactus and Succulent Journal [U.S.] 28: 71, f. 43, 44. 1956. {Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) ; BPH 290.23; BPH/S 246.R14}

Gibt es unterschiedliche Schreibweisen? Nach der Nomenklaturregel ist wahrscheinlich das feminine Epitheton richtig. Viele Grüße Orchi 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, jetzt hast Du mich aber verunsichert. Bei näherer Betrachtung gibt es tatsächlich beide Schreibweisen - und jeweils die andere wird als Synonym aufgeführt. Siehe beispielsweise hier [4]. Eine Suche mir Google ergibt 358 Treffer für Echinopsis subdenudatus und mehr als 900 für Echinopsis subdenudata. Hmmmm, die Mehrheit muss nicht unbeding Recht haben, aber... Grüße, Ies 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, les, manchmal haben die Autoren auch die falsche Endung benutzt. Leider habe ich für "Deine" Pflanzengruppe nicht die erforderliche Grundlagenliteratur. Naja, wir haben ja in WP die redirects. Viele Grüße Orchi 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects bei Kategorien ...[edit]

... funktionieren ja nicht wirklich. Damit später versehentlich in solche Kategorien eingefügte Bilder nicht verschwinden sollte der folgende tag benutzt werden: {{seecat|name der neuen kat}}. Danke -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Das kannte ich noch nicht. Danke für den nützlichen Hinweis! Gruß, Ies 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Euphorbia_trichadenia.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Orgullomoore 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The description got lost by mistake. Thanks for the information. Ies 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

New pics[edit]

Sorry for interfering ;-) I didn't have the time to look up the authors. Very nice photographs!! Lycaon 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That was one nice surprise, Lycaon. Thanks for your kind cooperation! Ies 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Peperomia[edit]

Greetings! I'm a bit confused about your edits to the pages that include Peperomia species. Do we not want the taxonavigation on a species page? Why not? And why remove some of the images from Category:Peperomia? Just looking for some clarification. Thanks! --Rkitko 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko, the photos aren't lost! In order to get things clear and well arranged I only moved them from the main category to the certain species and at the same time removed doublets. Each photo is still there but just on the place it belongs to. Also, in order to get things well arranged and consistent in the whole Category:Piperaceae of which Peperomia is a part, some Peperomia species lost their taxonavigation. This taxonavigation is a useful tool down to family or even genus level and too little used there in my eyes. Hover, among the hundreds of species I edited yet it was rarely implemented and that's the reason why I deleted it in a part of Category:Piperaceae or in other words some Peperomia species. Are you missing it much? Greetings, Ies 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Please stop redirecting article pages to their category pages (eg Piper) and stop deleting all taxonomic categories from plant images. --Tony Wills 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm missing the reason why I should stop. What is that article page good for? In Piper for instance it leads to only nine of 13 species (one of the nine even leads to a synonym). The redirect I installed, however, automatically led to the complete and correct list of species without any further manual work. What's wrong with that? Please teach me why you prefer the article page nevertheless though it's nothing more than a poor, incomplete doublet that only fools users? I don't clearly understand what you mean with “deleting all taxonomic categories from plant images”. If you refer to the taxonavigation, I already explained above why I deleted it in some species pages. Is this taxonavigation now the new standard down to species level? If so I missed when and where that was stated. Currently it's hardly implemented in two or three percent of all plant species pages and hence never appeared like a standard to me. Even in Category:Piperaceae most species pages haven't had it. If you refer to taxonomic category links within the plant description pages, I deleted them due to the fact that they produce doublets, triplets and so on. Why should an image of for instance Piper chaba appear in the species page AND in the genus page AND in the family page (AND in an article page)? The species page is just the right place, more is overdone. Greetings, --Ies 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Usage of article/galleries and categories are two parallel systems used on commons.wikimedia, please do not remove images from one system or another (ref) - this is standard policy and has even had a vote to confirm it (ref).
  • Article pages are used to display a selection of images representing the topic, are arranged in some logical order and items are often grouped. The idea is to not include every image in the category, but a useful selection (of course this will vary with whoever last edited it :-). People put a lot of work into these and usually add taxonavigation, common names, and interwiki links (some want to get carried away and use taxoboxes and write whole wikipedia type articles but that's usually not appropriate). That many plants don't have this is due to the lack of people working on them, not because it's wrong. Categories are used to navigate through commons to hopefully find a range of images and are also used to classify images in what/when/who/how type groups and usually don't include any extra information which is usually left for the article pages. Every image should be in at least one category besides the licensing ones.
  • The use of taxonomic categories (as seperate from all the other categories available here as well) is a bit fraught - the general guideline is to put images into the most precise category (ie at the bottom of the tree, eg species) and not put them into higher categories (ie your 'doublets' and 'triplets') - Unfortunately some people (and projects) who create article/gallery pages believe they ought to remove images from taxonomic categories once they've added them to galleries. So many images end up completely outside the taxonomic category system! I'm not exactly sure what your approach is, but generally leaving images in just one taxonomic category (the most precise available) is good (so I may have mistaken your actions). I personally think there should be articles at each taxonomic level for which there is a category to illustrate that category (eg depending on size a genus or family page would have one image of each species from the level below) - acting as a sort of graphical navigation. Maybe this would be more appropriate for the category page, making the top of the page into a gallery but this needs discussion.
  • Sorry if my original message was a bit curt, I see you have been doing a tremendous amount of work and added a lot of good images. If articles are out of date or wrong, don't redirect them (they'll never get fixed that way and you'll really annoy the people who have put an equal amount of work into creating them). Mark them in some other way to point out that they're wrong (I'll see if there's a suitable standard template) or update them using your expertise :-)
  • I am still unclear about what standard commons wants to use for taxonomy, some pages refer to wikipedia pages others to wikispecies, other people decry both as out of date/incorrect. I don't mind what we use, but we do need to agree on a standard (maybe even two standards in parallel eg classical and DNA) so that people stop undoing each others work.
  • Sorry this is so long, I think we need to take this to a discussion page. --Tony Wills 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cactaceae[edit]

  • This revert to nothing didn't make sense, Tony. Isn't a redirect better than nothing?
It would probably have been better to not have an article/gallery page at all (searches wouldn't find it, just the category, and if someone wanted to create a gallery there'd be no confusion). With the redirect someone who goes to create a gallery there will probably end up editing the category page and things might get confused. The real solution is to create a gallery page, with content arranged in some logical order :-). Given there's a blank page there now, I suppose a redirect is useful for the time being :-) --Tony Wills 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Euphorbia helioscopia[edit]

Thank you! Great job your Euphorbia Gallery :) --Retama 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mammillaria marksiana - Desert Botanical Garden.jpg[edit]

Yes, I wondered about that one. I have a second picture from a different angle that shows the "Mammillaria marksiana" sign right in front of these cacti, but it could very well be a mistake. Given your confirmation, I'll delete this image. I'm not likely to get back to Phoenix soon, so it's not something I can re-check easily. --Davepape 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG[edit]

Thank you. I take photos of various interesting plants, but rarely do they come with labels (although I have some labelled from botanical garden in upload queue :) ). Being a complete amateur my files have descriptive names, and I only wish it would be easier to rename them on commons. Once again, thanx for identification - you may want to look at my gallery to see if there is anything else you recognize. Also, please add them to appopriate categories if you can.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a little more time when dealing with categories. Here you remove the category; if it is indentified please replace it with a better description and category. Adding the image to a gallery is no substitute for categorizing and describing the article; every image should have a category and description - being linked from a gallery page is third in importance. I am afraid I will have to revert your edits for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Pjotr, did you notice that your images are the only ones that again appear seemingly unsortet in category:Euphorbia? Well, I took a little more time... Actually it took weeks for me to clean this one as well as category:Cactaceae and some other categories in which users left their images unsortet. Each one was a true mess in which nobody could find an image of the certain species he was looking for. Now (almost) everything looks clean and user-friendly in the end. So kindly avoid the create a mess again! Categorizing is ususally the appropriate tool for sorting images until to a dozen or so of them. In case of Euphorbia which contains more than 1000 images of more than 400 species it's definately the wrong tool. Greetings, Ies 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories. Both gallery and category systems should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. I am sorry, but what you are doing - removing categories - is to me vandalism (I know you mean well but you are damaging the system). It is not my opinion - it is opinion of the community. Please spend time readding categories to other articles. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pjotr, as you seem a newby I better explain some circumstances in Commons:Categories for a better understanding. Please read the entire Commons:Categories to learn that there is NO bondage to categorize images: They CAN (not should!) be categorized or optionally can be placed in galleries. As the latter usually looks better, allows captations and a further sorting of the images it's preferred by most advanced users. You're right that there are two concurrently systems. You're not right that category links should be preferred. Please take the time to look around in other plant categories. On the one hand there are some that are looked after by experts and due to the use of only one of the systems (galleries!) look clean, proper and user-friendly (or almost so, sometimes some unidentified or doubtful plants remain). Examples are Category:Aizoaceae , Category:Cephalotaxaceae, Category:Cistaceae, Category:Euphorbiaceae, Category:Passifloraceae). On the other hand there are some neglected categories and some in which users couldn't find an agreement that look chaotic. One chaotic example is Category:Agavaceae in which for instance Image:Agave deserti flower.jpg appears in the main category and in article Agave deserti and in subcategory Category:Agave and in its article Agave and in article Agave deserti. Such unnecessary confusing things appear if users act like you in case of your images Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG and Image:Tall thin growing cacti 2.JPG. You might have overlooked the chapter Commons:Categories#Category structure in which these not wanted „red-line-links“ are explained. Think about what happened with your Euphorbia photos in chronological order:

  • I deleted the wrong Category:Unidentified cacti. No breach of the rules.
  • I placed the images in the correct gallery. No breach of the rules.
  • You set a link to Category:Euphorbia. That’s a breach of the rules. You not only ignored the preset tree structure and placed the images wrong in the main category, you also produced a „red-line-link“. So if there is any of us vandalizing (I wouldn’t have used that word) or damaging the system, it's not me but you.

My advice is to adapt your images to the system you find preset in the certain category you want to place your images in. As Wikimedia is like a living tree that grows day for day but now and then needs a correcting cut to reduce rank growth, there is no reason to get excited when one who looks after the category makes a cut and corrects or replaces given categories or changes from category links to galleries - or even revers if beneficial.

As you repeatedly categorized already identified plants as unidentifed you seem to require a second advice. First of all please notice that if such particular category link gets deleted there might be a good reason. Imagine what reason this might be before you fix the same – wrong - link again and again. If you don't know how to recognize the gallery in which an image is used go to its description (main) page and study the there listed links.

My third advice is about reasonable categories. An image of Euphorbia trigona placed in category:Tenerife doesn't make more sense than an image of a wet tomato in category:oceans. Without doubt both are there, Euphorbia trigona on Tenerife and a tomato in one of the oceans, but both don't belong to that place and are aliens there. So please take the time to opt for better suiting and more reasonable categories. If you took the photos in a botanical garden I suggest to look around at Category:Botanical gardens in Spain. If the the one you visited isn't there already, create a category for it (let me know if you need any assistance).

The forth and last advice is not to expect description changes from other users of images you took. Other users only can assist by identifying the object (plant) and moving the image to an assumedly correct gallery or category. They never know any closer conditions under which a photo was taken (exact place, date and time or whatever might be interesting in the certain case). So in the end you are responsible for the image and its description, nobody else. Greetings, Ies 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Les, the bottom line is that Commons like Wikipedia is constantly growing in detail. Category Tenerife may not be very useful, but at some points we will have category plants of tenerife and regions and so on, and it will help to identify which plants grow where. Every gallery should have a corresponding category; if it doesn't, a higher level category should be used. Removing a higher-level category because it 'clutters' a gallery is not constructive; you should simply create subcategories and populate them. I find category system, with sub and over cats, much better than galleries. If you don't want to add categories, you don't have to, but undoing works of others is indeed very unconstructive. PS. Plese explain on talk of the image you are removing a cat from why are you doing this, maybe we can reach a compromise there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotr, didn't you understand anything I patiently tried to explain? Didn't you notice that Every gallery should have a corresponding category; if it doesn't, a higher level category should be used. isn't true according to Commons:Categories? Didn't you visit other plant categories as suggested? Didn't you notice that most of them, particularly the tidy ones, are arranged like Category:Euphorbia? Didn't you see that you once again caterorized already identified Euphorbs as unidentified?. Don't you understand that more than 1000 images in one category cause a mess only that I try to avert in the beginning? Or is your intention simply to rebel against order, to swim against the stream and to get on my nerves? As long as you keep on annoying by combating order I can't see any compromise. Please remove the category links from your images before I complain about you. Ies 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Les. Read Commons:Categories. The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. Files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. Thus, simply put, every image of a plant needs to be in some plant-related category. The more detailed, the better. Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG for example is in Euphorbia trigona - great! But it also must be in a related category; Category:Euphorbia trigona would be best, but if we don't have it, than the parent Category:Euphorbia needs to be used. Removing category because an image is in a gallery is going AGAINST Commons policies. There is no policy stating that an image should not be added to a general category IF THERE IS NO BETTER SUBCATEGORY. If you don't want images cluttering up Category:Euphorbia, create relevant subcategories that can be fillied. It is as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Euphorbia helioscopia[edit]

Thank you! Great job your Euphorbia Gallery :) --Retama 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mammillaria marksiana - Desert Botanical Garden.jpg[edit]

Yes, I wondered about that one. I have a second picture from a different angle that shows the "Mammillaria marksiana" sign right in front of these cacti, but it could very well be a mistake. Given your confirmation, I'll delete this image. I'm not likely to get back to Phoenix soon, so it's not something I can re-check easily. --Davepape 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG[edit]

Thank you. I take photos of various interesting plants, but rarely do they come with labels (although I have some labelled from botanical garden in upload queue :) ). Being a complete amateur my files have descriptive names, and I only wish it would be easier to rename them on commons. Once again, thanx for identification - you may want to look at my gallery to see if there is anything else you recognize. Also, please add them to appopriate categories if you can.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a little more time when dealing with categories. Here you remove the category; if it is indentified please replace it with a better description and category. Adding the image to a gallery is no substitute for categorizing and describing the article; every image should have a category and description - being linked from a gallery page is third in importance. I am afraid I will have to revert your edits for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Pjotr, did you notice that your images are the only ones that again appear seemingly unsortet in category:Euphorbia? Well, I took a little more time... Actually it took weeks for me to clean this one as well as category:Cactaceae and some other categories in which users left their images unsortet. Each one was a true mess in which nobody could find an image of the certain species he was looking for. Now (almost) everything looks clean and user-friendly in the end. So kindly avoid the create a mess again! Categorizing is ususally the appropriate tool for sorting images until to a dozen or so of them. In case of Euphorbia which contains more than 1000 images of more than 400 species it's definately the wrong tool. Greetings, Ies 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories. Both gallery and category systems should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. I am sorry, but what you are doing - removing categories - is to me vandalism (I know you mean well but you are damaging the system). It is not my opinion - it is opinion of the community. Please spend time readding categories to other articles. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pjotr, as you seem a newby I better explain some circumstances in Commons:Categories for a better understanding. Please read the entire Commons:Categories to learn that there is NO bondage to categorize images: They CAN (not should!) be categorized or optionally can be placed in galleries. As the latter usually looks better, allows captations and a further sorting of the images it's preferred by most advanced users. You're right that there are two concurrently systems. You're not right that category links should be preferred. Please take the time to look around in other plant categories. On the one hand there are some that are looked after by experts and due to the use of only one of the systems (galleries!) look clean, proper and user-friendly (or almost so, sometimes some unidentified or doubtful plants remain). Examples are Category:Aizoaceae , Category:Cephalotaxaceae, Category:Cistaceae, Category:Euphorbiaceae, Category:Passifloraceae). On the other hand there are some neglected categories and some in which users couldn't find an agreement that look chaotic. One chaotic example is Category:Agavaceae in which for instance Image:Agave deserti flower.jpg appears in the main category and in article Agave deserti and in subcategory Category:Agave and in its article Agave and in article Agave deserti. Such unnecessary confusing things appear if users act like you in case of your images Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG and Image:Tall thin growing cacti 2.JPG. You might have overlooked the chapter Commons:Categories#Category structure in which these not wanted „red-line-links“ are explained. Think about what happened with your Euphorbia photos in chronological order:

  • I deleted the wrong Category:Unidentified cacti. No breach of the rules.
  • I placed the images in the correct gallery. No breach of the rules.
  • You set a link to Category:Euphorbia. That’s a breach of the rules. You not only ignored the preset tree structure and placed the images wrong in the main category, you also produced a „red-line-link“. So if there is any of us vandalizing (I wouldn’t have used that word) or damaging the system, it's not me but you.

My advice is to adapt your images to the system you find preset in the certain category you want to place your images in. As Wikimedia is like a living tree that grows day for day but now and then needs a correcting cut to reduce rank growth, there is no reason to get excited when one who looks after the category makes a cut and corrects or replaces given categories or changes from category links to galleries - or even revers if beneficial.

As you repeatedly categorized already identified plants as unidentifed you seem to require a second advice. First of all please notice that if such particular category link gets deleted there might be a good reason. Imagine what reason this might be before you fix the same – wrong - link again and again. If you don't know how to recognize the gallery in which an image is used go to its description (main) page and study the there listed links.

My third advice is about reasonable categories. An image of Euphorbia trigona placed in category:Tenerife doesn't make more sense than an image of a wet tomato in category:oceans. Without doubt both are there, Euphorbia trigona on Tenerife and a tomato in one of the oceans, but both don't belong to that place and are aliens there. So please take the time to opt for better suiting and more reasonable categories. If you took the photos in a botanical garden I suggest to look around at Category:Botanical gardens in Spain. If the the one you visited isn't there already, create a category for it (let me know if you need any assistance).

The forth and last advice is not to expect description changes from other users of images you took. Other users only can assist by identifying the object (plant) and moving the image to an assumedly correct gallery or category. They never know any closer conditions under which a photo was taken (exact place, date and time or whatever might be interesting in the certain case). So in the end you are responsible for the image and its description, nobody else. Greetings, Ies 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Les, the bottom line is that Commons like Wikipedia is constantly growing in detail. Category Tenerife may not be very useful, but at some points we will have category plants of tenerife and regions and so on, and it will help to identify which plants grow where. Every gallery should have a corresponding category; if it doesn't, a higher level category should be used. Removing a higher-level category because it 'clutters' a gallery is not constructive; you should simply create subcategories and populate them. I find category system, with sub and over cats, much better than galleries. If you don't want to add categories, you don't have to, but undoing works of others is indeed very unconstructive. PS. Plese explain on talk of the image you are removing a cat from why are you doing this, maybe we can reach a compromise there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Piotr, didn't you understand anything I patiently tried to explain? Didn't you notice that Every gallery should have a corresponding category; if it doesn't, a higher level category should be used. isn't true according to Commons:Categories? Didn't you visit other plant categories as suggested? Didn't you notice that most of them, particularly the tidy ones, are arranged like Category:Euphorbia? Didn't you see that you once again caterorized already identified Euphorbs as unidentified?. Don't you understand that more than 1000 images in one category cause a mess only that I try to avert in the beginning? Or is your intention simply to rebel against order, to swim against the stream and to get on my nerves? As long as you keep on annoying by combating order I can't see any compromise. Please remove the category links from your images before I complain about you. Ies 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Les. Read Commons:Categories. The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. Files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. Thus, simply put, every image of a plant needs to be in some plant-related category. The more detailed, the better. Image:Tall cacti Tenerife.JPG for example is in Euphorbia trigona - great! But it also must be in a related category; Category:Euphorbia trigona would be best, but if we don't have it, than the parent Category:Euphorbia needs to be used. Removing category because an image is in a gallery is going AGAINST Commons policies. There is no policy stating that an image should not be added to a general category IF THERE IS NO BETTER SUBCATEGORY. If you don't want images cluttering up Category:Euphorbia, create relevant subcategories that can be fillied. It is as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

transfer to commons[edit]

Hey! Commons helper is a nice tool to automate image transfer – give it a try. Regards, --Polarlys 12:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use this tool, simply copying the template from de.wp doens’t work, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Bild_097_Affenberg_Salem.jpg&action=history regards, --Polarlys 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There must have been a malefuction (locked database or so) in this certain case. Simply copying the template from xx.wp worked properly in many, many cases so far. Nevertheless I'll give the mentioned tool a try. Greetings, Ies 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sunset flower2.jpg[edit]

Yes! That is it! I wonder why I get these questions all the time from a florist in wikipedia id, he kept saying, what are the leaves and the branches looks like? But I keep telling him that I gave him the flower image, why is he keep asking more. Now I know why :D -- thanks for looking at it Serenity 01:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh additional, they were fruitless, see picture
Sunset flower1.jpg
. Or at least when I saw them. The thing is it is sold in flower vendor.. Serenity 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Wasabipdr.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wasabipdr.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Oxam Hartog 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlloroFogliePart010010001.png[edit]

Image:AlloroFogliePart010010001.png has an Italian license on it, and is here listed under the "no license" category. This means it can be considered for deletion. Can you add in a license recognised on commons? For info, check Commons:Licensing. Regards, Deadstar 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Deadstar. The license is already corrected. Ies 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: STOP DELETING CATEGORIES User Tano is not right[edit]

May be you find usefull to read this instructions. --Tano4595 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. (cur) (last) 22:27, 28 January 2006 Ranveig (Talk | contribs) m (+category:reproduction)
  1. (cur) (last) 17:04, 31 December 2005 Rickjpelleg (Talk | contribs) m (+cat:Botany)
  2. (cur) (last) 19:51, 27 June 2005 Quadell (Talk | contribs) (Category:Plant parts)
I DID NOT PUT IN THE CATEGORIES Tano KEEPs DELETING, THEY WERE IN OVER A YEAR AGO AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE HISTORY. LEAVE IT ALONE WayneRay 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Hi WayneRay, that's somthing I don't understand. Since seeds are plant parts like leaves and roots and not a direct subject of botany, Category:Seeds must belong to Category:Plant parts and not directly to Category:Botany. There is a tree structure you might have overlooked leading from botany over plants and plant parts to seeds. So when Tano4595 changed (not deleted!) the category of Category:Seeds from Category:Botany to Category:Plant parts he corrected an over-categorization according to Commons:Categories and did everything right. (I hope you didn't discourage that brave user completely.) A "wrong" categorization for over a year can't be a serious reason to leave it as it is, particularly as right or wrong always depends on the changing context of other categories and, as you can see in the history, Category:Seeds was put to Category:Plant parts right from the outset. Where do you see a problem remaining? Ies 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing I am a graduate of Niagara Horticultural College and had at one time the l;argest private Herbarium collection in Ontario which included 1800 different species of seeds. I, for one, would never think of looking in the small categories for seeds if I was searching for them. Botany has covered many important and less important subcategories and Seeds has been one of them as far as I am concerned. It has to go somewhere as a sub category that is in a more recognizable place, SO leave the damn thing alone, no one cares but you, Put it in Plants or Plantae or Botany again (even though I didn't put it there in the beginning, just quit deleting things. It is not over doing it, have you seen some of the articles with 5-10 links and some galleries with the photo in the article, the gallery, the family and I saw one yesterday by color. It's a sub category, it's not replacing Botany or Horticulture or whatever. STOP WayneRay 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay
Ok I see your point above now and it is valid, sorry, I was thinking, and still am thinking of someone searching for Seeds not the taxonomic tree, apologies but I still think it should stay. WayneRay 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Aegilops seed a reply from my page[edit]

Hi WayneRay, despite of the image names and descriptions the so called Aegilops seed images like Image:Aegilops cylindrica seeds.jpg and Image:Aegilops triuncialis seeds.jpg don't show seeds at all but dry flowers that may or may not bear invisible remaining seeds deep within. Go to the original source pages to see that the word <seed> isn't mentioned anywhere. The Wikipedia image names and descriptions only base on the – wrong – interpretation of the uploader. Plase take a look at Image:Weizenkoerner.jpg and Image:Roggenkoerner.jpg to learn what Poaceae seeds really look like. Greetings --Ies 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you could have replaced it and put it back in Measured seeds and as such, it is a seed head which is good enough for educational purposes and another thing Taxanomic classification is fine for genus and species and Gallery to sub category to category, but in the case of Seeds, it is not applicable and is wherever it will be best seen and found so I disagree with you guys on putting Seeds and other galleries there, so I am going to have to ask you to STOP once again. This is an educational and taxonomic website and I am placing things in easy to find main categories that are not genus species WayneRay 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Category: Plant cells[edit]

I have noticed that you have categorized some of my microscopic snapshots of moss cells. I have uploaded lots of more. Is it alright that I categorize future microscopic photos into this category myself? Or maybe also all of my other microscopic photos of moss cells? Fabelfroh 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kristian, yes, please put your images in this category as long as plant cells (of Bryophyta or other plant) are clearly visible. Besten Dank. Ies 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)