User talk:Ies/Archive 2007

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

Contents

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)

2006 | 2007 | 2008

If I knew how to give barnstars...[edit]

...I'd give one to you. Your contribs have been popping up on my watchlist a lot lately, and every edit it a good one. Kudos, my thanks, and happy solstice :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flor no Parque das Nações.jpg[edit]

Thanks, for his work of category of the flowers.

Sacavem1 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - doublet[edit]

Greetings. I noticed you speedily deleted Category:Dasylirion texanum saying "Doublet". What does this mean? Is there a style guideline for species categories that I'm not aware of? Thanks, Quadell (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, if you look around you'll rarely find categories for certain plant species. Usually the species images are placed in galleries and together are collected in genus categories. There are exeptions of this (unwritten I think) rule but these particulary occur if many users of different sense for harmony get involved. To make a plant species category for only one single image if on the one hand there is a gallery for this image already and on the other hand not even the related genus category exist is very unusual. Well, it's not explicit forbidden but as it makes little sense only it's just very unusual. I'm asking you to do without such unusualness. Greetings, --Ies 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wild Petunia Blue Flower 1.JPG and Image:Wild Petunia Blue Flower 2.JPG[edit]

You removed a catagory from this photo saying it is not a Petunia. A image search on msn.com on Wild Petunia show flowers that are almost exactly the same flower and are called Wild Petunia. It was also found in the right area for Wild Petunias. It may not be Ruellia caroliniensis and I am not a plant expert, but I am pretty sure this is a Wild Petunia. If you do not think it is, could you tell me why and what you think it is? Thanks. --Digon3 talk 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Digon3, 'Wild Petunia' is a common name of Ruellia caroliniensis, a member of the Acanthaceae family. It's not related to true Petunia species of family Solanaceae. That reminds for instance on the Confederate rose (a Hibiscus) and the moss-rose (a Portulaca) which are only called roses but are not related to genus Rosa. These common names are sometimes very confusing! Greetings, --Ies 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing categories[edit]

Les, if I see you removing a categories one more time, I am going to report you to administrators as a disruptive user. Please don't make me do that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not Les you might mean another one. Anyhow I'll certainly keep on correting things User:Quadell caused by his bot. I'm not overdoing anything but only try my best to reconstruct the state before the bot ran. Read the discussions to understand that you are supporting the destructive ones. Btw, administrator User:SB Johnny is well informed about this case. --Ies 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed, but I don't think you should be removing the categories without discussion. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Think this over again please! When User:Quadell ran his bot before and even during discussion and then against the specific advices of botany experts, he produced several thousends categories and category links in a so called test run. If this actually was meant as a test and since the bot was stopped after intense protest there is no reason for any discussion. Simply let's clean the traces of the test. If however the test was meant to produce facts that now should be the base of a discussion there is a dishonesty and fraud going on that I wouldn't put it past Quadell and I don't believe you support. So to get a fair discussion base let's clean the test traces first and than discuss what has to be discussed. --Ies 04:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is no policy against having species categories, and removing categories is frowned upon just like running unflagged bots is frowned upon. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this is pretty much an edit war at this point. You can revert him later, or better yet have someone else (an uninvolved someone) do it (preferably someone with a flagged bot, since using that approach the edits can be undone without any undue burden on you or anyone else). There's been bad behavior on all sides of this, IMO, so please just stand down and discuss. We're not on a deadline or anything, so I really think we should just try to have a calm discussion without the mass reverting (doing both at once may well prove to be impossible).
The easiest way in the end would be for Quadell to just add rollback to his script (he's also an admin), and just undo his own edits. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Stop!!! You are making a lot of work for others by adding all these pages to Category:Other speedy deletions. Either start an RFA so you can clean up your mess, or just stop. This is extremely disruptive, and you'll find that my approach is to block disruptive users (even if well meaning...nothing personal, but you're making a huge mess). Back off for a while and discuss this, please. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus and SB_Johnny are right, please stop removing all categories from particular images (each should be in at least one category), and please instead join the discussions at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Anti-category crusade, Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Removing categories from images, and Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Now it's getting rediculous. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cane cholla / walking stick cholla[edit]

So Opuntia imbricata is just a synonym for Cylindropuntia imbricata? I was mislead by the wikipedia article, where is seems to treat Opuntia imbricata as the prefered term. Should those pages be switched? Also, I added the category "Category:Cylindropuntia" to both of my pictures, is that correct? Thanks! --Skoch3 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Skoch3, yes, Opuntia imbricata is synonym for Cylindropuntia imbricata and, yes again, the mentioned article is misleading. Reason for the confusion was the hypothesis of some botanist that Cylindropuntia as well as Austrolylindropuntia and some more genera are just not genera for their own but subgenera of genus Opuntia. This hypothesis, however, is not commonly accepted. Category:Cylindropuntia (like most genus categories) belongs to images of plants of uncertain identity. If your plant is well identified remove the category link, please. Ies 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Marchantia[edit]

Hello! You uploaded a set of four images:

They are all named Marchantia polymorpha, but that is not what they are. I can't tell for certain from the photographs, but they look like either Pellia sp. (my best guess) or possibly Blasia pusilla. I am about 75%95% sure they are Pellia, but I have never seen Blasia in nature. I can see the reproductive structures in some of the photos, and they are lined up along the central axis of the thallus, which is typical for Pellia, and this is most likely Pellia epiphylla. In any case, Marchantia does not grow like that, and has air pore on the surface of the thallus. --EncycloPetey 06:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to give an intermediate result: you seem right. While brousing literature the plant more and more turns out to be a Pellia species. Thanks for your note! Ies 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red Clover.JPG[edit]

Hey, I'm guessing that this is Trifolium incarnatum, though I can't really be sure, not being a botanist or anything. Thoughts? Murderbike 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This plant looks pretty like Trifolium incarnatum but also resembles Trifolium incarnatum and Trifolium medium for instance. As long as there are no other details visible or at least known this plant's identity remains uncertain in my eyes. Ies 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cigarette smoking[edit]

Hello. I see you removed "Category:Cigarette smoking" from "Category:Smoking". As you offered no explanation and this did not seem appropriate to me, I reverted your edit. If you disagree, please explain or offer a reason. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Measured seeds[edit]

Thanks for continuing my organizing of this page I created, It was going to be one of my projects to complete this summer, your efforts are appreciated and I agree that the extra categories should be deleted as discussions above, but still disagree on the categorization of Category:Seeds no one will find them and they should be part of Botany, but I digress, thanks for the measured seeds cleanup. WayneRay 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Please use an Edit Summary.[edit]

When editing a page on Commons there is a small field labeled "Edit Summary" or "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the Edit Summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the Edit Summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's name in the Edit Summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I of course use to use edit summaries, but while editing thousends of files I might forget about one or another sometimes. Since my percentage of forgotten edit summaries certainly ranges at far less than one I don't see a serious reason to remind me on that. Are you just trying a new template out? --Ies 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ies, I'm sorry I used such an impersonal template, but I had just finished going through all your edits to User:Ies as listed here, none of which had an original Edit Summary. Flcelloguy's Tool is crashing when trying to review your usage here, but these results from Tool1 show a fair amount of red, and these results from mathbot's tool show "Edit summary usage for Ies: 87% for major edits and 23% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 75 minor edits in the article namespace." Also, please keep this discussion on this page, where it belongs, so as not to fracture it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cylindropuntia bigelovii[edit]

I have no opinion on whether the plant should be classified as Opuntia or Cylindropuntia, but is there a reason for only having a page for the plant species rather than a category as well (whatever that category might be named)? Also, something should be done to address the different naming; see, for example, the treatment in w:Teddy-bear Cholla, which is what I was following in making the category. Cheers, Postdlf 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Category Euphorbia[edit]

Sorry for including Euphorbia bravoana and Euphorbia canariensis in the general category of Euphorbia. I had not realised that you have ordered the whole category. A few months ago all the pictures were mixed up and there were no articles for each plant. You have done a great work. --Nanosanchez 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Aabach_Stausee_und_Staudamm.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:Aabach_Stausee_und_Staudamm.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-3.0}} 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. Siebrand 09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Segeln_aasee.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:Segeln_aasee.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-3.0}} 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. Siebrand 09:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Sclerocactus_glaucus.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:Sclerocactus_glaucus.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-3.0}} 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. Siebrand 09:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use CommonsHelper! Cheers! Siebrand 09:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoo Wuppertal[edit]

Was soll das? Nicht jedes Bild aus dem Themenkreis (ehemaliger) Bahnhof/Haltepunkt zeigt auch eine Sicht auf den Wuppertaler Zoo. Die Aktion macht keinen Sinn... --Atamari 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Atamari, ich wollte etwas aufräumen bevor ich weitere Bilder in Category:Zoo Wuppertal stecke. Zoo und Umgebung kenne ich gut, die habe ich u.a. eben noch besucht. Da Deine Bilder einerseits fast alle den Zoo und die direkte Umgebung zeigen, andererseits die Kategorie des Zoos selbst etwas verstopfen, halte ich die Auslagerung schon für sinnvoll. Ich habe auch selbst Fotos vom Zoo, also nicht von Tieren, sondern von Gebäuden, Autos usw. geschossen und überlege noch, wie ich die von den Tieren trenne. Hast Du eine gute Idee? Grüße aus Radevornwald --Ies 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Der (ehemalige) Haltepunkt war zuerst der Sinn der Bilder. Leider gibt es noch nicht von allen Wuppertaler Bahnhöfe Bilder (oder Bilder wie es Heute ausschaut). Das irgendwie zufällig ein paar Bilder zum Zoo passen - ist irgendwie ein Abfallprodukt. Aber es waren nicht alle Bilder eine Sicht in den Zoo hinein. Deswegen passt die Kategorie auch nicht innerhalb der Zoo-Kategorie. Die Zoo-Kategorie zu splitten könnte man mittelfristig im Auge behalten aber eine gute Idee habe ich jetzt noch nicht. Ich glaube, es ist auch hier die gefüllteste Zoo-Kategorie. Die Teilbereiche fallen mir auf Anhieb ein:
  • Tiere aufgenommen im Zoo
  • Pflanzen aufgenommen im Zoo
  • Architektur im Zoo
  • Landschaft im Zoo
Wenn andere Zoos im Moment noch nicht unterteilt sind, sollten wir hier erst mal abwarten. Aber: Man könnte ein Artikel (Gallerie) erstellen in dem die besten Bilder strukturiert präsentiert werden. Normalerweise mag ich nicht die Artikel innerhalb den Commons (weil man bei dem Upload direkt die Kategorie mitgeben kann) nicht - aber hier, bei der vollen Kategorie wäre es sinnvoll, eine Auswahl zu treffen. --Atamari 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mango tree.jpg[edit]

Das ist sicherlich der essbare Mango-Baum (bzw. die kultivierte Art, siehe Mangos), bei Mango ist das Bild auch unter Mangifera indica beschrieben. --Atamari 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Die anderen Bilder sind auch sicherlich die kultivierte Art. --Atamari 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Nun ja, die Bilder waren vorher im Artikel Mangifera, also ohne Festlegung der Art aufgeführt. Auch die einzelnen Bilder lassen in den Beschreibungen die Art aus. Das kann aus Nachlässigkeit, Unwissenheit oder aber auch aus Absicht so sein. Anhand der Fotos lässt sich im Nachherein auch nicht wirklich sicher auf die Art schließen oder siehst Du dort eindeutige Merkmale der Mangifera indica? --Ies 07:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nun ich denke, die tiefere Kategorie bzw. einen tieferen Artikel gab es damals nicht. Deswegen wurden die von verschiedenen Leuten im allgemeinen Artikel Mangifera eingeordnet. Ich verstehe den Artikel Mango so, dass man hier in der Regel nur die kultivierte Art weltweit fotografiert. Die anderen scheinen auch nicht aus der (indischen) Wildniss zu stammen. Es gibt aber bei den Mangos eine Reihe von verschiedenen Sorten, wie bei uns Äpfel. In Gambia wird, glaube ich, pber 30 Sorten angebaut. Habe selber die großen normalen, kleine und blaue gesehen... --Atamari 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ich hoffe für Dich, Du hast die Mangosorten in Gambia nicht nur gesehen sondern zumindest teilweise auch probiert! Ich trauere immer noch den Mangos hinterher, die hier in den 70er Jahren vereinzelt mal angeboten wurden. Die dufteten intensiv nach, nun ja, Terpentin, waren aber voll aromatisch und extrem lecker. Heutzutage sind die Mangos zwar viel einfacher zu bekommen, schmecken aber im Vergleich zu den damaligen langweilig und fade. --Ies 14:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ob ich Mangos gegessen habe, reicht die Aussage, dass ich "Mangos" immer noch nicht sehen kann... ;-) --Atamari 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gargoyle-1.jpg[edit]

Do you know what the correct architectural term would be for this or any other of the additions to the historical site would be?... I named all of the little creatures that were architecture add ons to this building gargoyles. If they are not, I should correct the name to whatever they are.... Can you help with the correct naming? [[User:SriMesh|SriMesh | [[User talk:SriMesh|<small>talk</small>]]]] 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SriMesh, they are mascarons as recategorized. Mascarons are usually grimacing human faces but sometimes have a body or are even grimacing animal faces. True gargoyles spout water and typically look wolf/dragon-like. Unfortunately the English article shows ambiguous and misleading examples. --Ies 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Royale bassin colibri hummingbird.jpg[edit]

Hello Ies,

Thank you so much for identifying the plants in this photograph! I really appreciate it. As you asked in your diff, the hummingbird is quite discrete but normally visible when viewing the photo in its original size. It is hovering over the flower that is almost directly in the center of the photo. Hopefully either you or someone else will be able to identify it.

Thank you again,

Arria Belli | parlami 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wappenkategorien[edit]

Hallo Ies, die Category:Coats of arms from Radevormwald wird leider wieder nicht überleben. Deutschlandweit werden die Gemeindewappen auf commons nach Kreisen und kreisfreien Städten kategorisiert (Nordrhein-Westfalen war das letzte Bundesland, das diese Einteilung noch nicht hatte, in drei Tagen ist das System aber auch hier vollständig). Grund der Umkategorisierungen nach Landkreisen war das Überlaufen der Wappen-Länderkategorien (die Category:Coats of arms from Bavaria beispielsweise hatte 1800 Wappeneinträge). Wappen einzeln zu kategorisieren hieße, 10500 Kleinstkategorien allein im Bereich Deutschland zu eröffnen, was den Sinn der Kategorisierung entstellen würde. gruss Geograv 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Danke für die Information, Geograv. Ich hatte mich gewundert, warum das Wappen anders kategorisiert war, als ich es in Erinnerung hatte, bin der Sache aber wegen später Stunde und fortgeschrittener Müdigkeit nicht weiter nachgegangen. Dein Argument, warum die Wappen nach Landkreis gesammelt werden sollten, ist nachvollziehbar. Ich verstehe aber nicht warum das Wappen dann als einziges (!) Bild in der Hauptkategorie Category:Radevormwald erscheinen muss. Was hältst Du von einer parallelen Category:Coats of arms from Radevormwald, in der das Wappen aufgeräumt verschwinden kann? --Ies 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, Ober- und Unterkat zusammen sind eigentlich unerwünscht, nicht nur auf commons. Mir scheint im Gegenteil die Kat Radevormwald etwas zu aufgeräumt zu sein. Kats wie "Transports" (der Dahlhausener Bahnhof ist nur nach einer Klickorgie zu finden :-) oder "Economy" zerbröseln das Ganze nur. Eine so weitgehende Untergliederung habe ich bisher noch nicht gesehen. Es gibt natürlich auch viele Beispiele für völlig unaufgeräumte Kategorien mit mehr als 100 Bildern, Grafiken und Karten. Geograv 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Radevormwald habe ich, übrigens am Vorbild von Category:Wuppertal, schon mal vorab aufgeräumt. So um 60 Bilder habe ich derzeit im Vorrat (und noch mehr in Vorbereitung), die ich nach und nach hochladen werde. Auch wenn's derzeit noch etwas leer in den Untergategorien aussieht, die werden noch gefüllt! Ich finde es nur sinnvoll, vorher schon mal aufgeräumt und die wichtigsten Unterkategorien schon angelegt zu haben statt sämtliche Bilder erst unsortiert in die Hauptkategorie zu kippen und dann mühsam auseinander zu pflücken. --Ies 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A page to watch[edit]

Hi Ies. In case you're wondering how I keep finding your unidentified images: User:SB Johnny/Categories. Feel welcome to add it to your own watchlist as well :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

anying Marku[edit]

I have just seen it. You don't have not make an undo kust overwrite the wrong catagory. Thats no hard work. --Marku1988 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{Information}}[edit]

Hi Frank. I would like to ask you to start using {{Information}} in your uploads. This enables you and other to more structurally describe the media you have added and brings a common structure to the content in Commons. There is a tool to assist in converting description pages that is linked from an overview of all your uploads not yet using {{Information}} (almost 96% of your 2355 uploads are not using it :( ). Thank you for considering my request. Cheers! Siebrand 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Siebrand, I'm not yet committed to this Information template. The way I use to give the required information until now is pretty simple and doesn't result in any error messages. The Information template on the other hand appears quite sensitive or even tricky and for instance frequently produces missing source, missing author or missing description messages although these data are explicitly given. Well, I tried the tool to assist in converting description pages and got a “This media has no author information” message as well as a “Media lacking a description category” in result. This can’t convince me! Greetings, --Ies 09:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Asclepias syriaca[edit]

Thanks for identifiyng my photo. It's difficult to understand the conformation of the flower, so very hard to recognise with a common dichotomous key. Aelwyn 18:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mystery Euphorbia[edit]

Hey, I'm working through another pile of UC botanical garden photos, and have several of a purported Euphorbia alvodii from Madagascar. However, the sole Google hit on "alvodii" is UC's list of their own holdings. It's a leafless branched type with distinctive black dots all over. Any idea of the correct name? If not, I can upload under the name they use and we can puzzle out later. Stan Shebs 16:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stan, Euphorbia alvodii is neither an accepted name nor a common known synonym. Please upload and show me the photos. From your description I so far assume that the plant looks at least similar to Euphorbia leucodendron. Greetings, --Ies 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, E. leucodendron seems likely - and I'll bet "alvodii" is a transcription error from illegible field notes that used the synonym "alluaudii". Stan Shebs 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds likely. Btw, Euphorbia leucodendron belongs to a small group of plants: Euphorbia subg. Euphorbia sect. Goniostema subsect. Deuterocalli (Croizat) Bruyns that share three obvious characteristics:

  • waxy, hairless surfaces,
  • scale-like and soon deciduous leaves,
  • those reddish brown to black dots you mentioned

which actually are greatly modified stipules one better knows from the very close related Crown of Thorns (Euphorbia subg. Euphorbia sect. Goniostema) as usually paired spines. The other two members are

  • Euphorbia cedrorum (easy distinguished by the typical white waxy rings around the dots) and
  • Euphorbia famatamboay with ssp. itampolensis (ill-looking yellowish green plants, extremely rare in cultivation). --Ies 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Category Plantae additions[edit]

Hi and apologies, I haven't had time to go back and correct things. Someone had created the Categories in the first place for plants he couldn't or didn't find the proper species galleries for or proper botanical categories for, so in order for them to not be lost in Wiki cyber space, I placed his Categories in Plantae as the best I could think of until I researched the proper location. Seriously, I had been working on Britton and Brown images this week and totally forgot to attend to this mixup you mentioned. I will work on them this week and if you can be of assistance that would be helpful, I wasn't trying to upset the system, I have been correcting and categorizing many images this last week or two and yes I have been ill this past two months and am better now, thanks. WayneRay 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Ok just found them all and hope things are repaired Horticulturally yours, WayneRay 14:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Gundermann/Günsel[edit]

Hallo les, ist dir da nicht etwas durcheinander geraten? Das Bild Image:Glechoma hederacea cultivar ies.jpg sieht mir doch sehr nach Günsel, Ajuga reptans, aus! Beide Arten – blau blühend, kriechend und mit "G" anfangend – werden ja recht gerne miteinander verwechselt (ist mir auch schon passiert). -- Gruß, Fice 09:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Fice, danke für den Hinweis. Bei näherer Betrachtung könntest Du durchaus Recht haben. Da ich mich jetzt aber nicht mehr erinnern kann, welche Pflanze ich damals wirklich vor der Kamera hatte, habe ich das Foto einfach gelöscht. Es sind ja noch genug Fotos von gut identifizierten Glechoma hederacea übrig. Gruß, --Ies 10:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Too low quality?![edit]

[5] Who are you to decide that an image is too low quality to reside in your precious categories? It has long been established that mages should be placed in all relevant categories. To exclude an image on the basis of its quality is unprecedented and unacceptable. In this case, the image is a botanical diagram of a Haloragaceae and clearly belongs in both Category:Botanical diagrams and Category:Haloragaceae. Hesperian 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buche2007-10-29b.JPG und Image:Buche2007-10-29b.JPG[edit]

Hallo Frank, nochmal Dank für die Einordnung meiner beiden o.g. Bilder in Commons. Mir ist noch unklar: Warum gibt man einem Bild keine Kategorie, wenn man es in den gleichnamigen Artikel (zu der Kategorie) einordnet? Gruß Hedwig Storch 08:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Hedwig, das ist ein Stolperstein, der schon häufig diskutiert wurde, doch nirgendwo vernünftig erklärt ist. Das Problem liegt daran, dass Botanik und Wiki-Software bezüglich der Kategorien nicht wirklich gut zusammenpassen. Kategorien sind für dauerhafte Bezeichnungen gedacht. So werden “Tree”, „Flower“ oder „Stone“ auch in hundert Jahren noch so heißen und es wird keinen Grund geben, daran irgendwas zu ändern. Die Bezeichnungen von Lebewesen sind jedoch grundsätzlich vorläufiger Natur, da sie auf Hypothesen beruhen. So gibt es beispielsweise keine feststehende Artbezeichnung wie Exemplium fixum, sondern nur die Hypothese, dass eine Pflanzenpopulation, die zur Identifizierung einen Namen enthält, eine Art darstellt. Wird die Hypothese widerlegt, ist der Name hinfällig. Da insbesondere die Pflanzenarten so alle naslang neue Namen erhalten, fällt hier das Softwareproblem von Wiki besonders auf. Während sich Artikel leicht umbenennen, verschieben und umleiten lassen, ist das mit Kategorien entweder nur unvollkommen (seecat) oder gar nicht möglich. Deshalb hat sich schon lange bewährt, ALLES in Kategorien, Pflanzenarten als Ausnahme jedoch in Artikel zu setzen. Probleme machen nur ein paar radikale und fanatische Kategorisierer (lache nicht, die gibt es leider!), die keine Ahnung von Botanik haben, doch aus idealistischen Gründen auch die Pflanzenarten kategorisiert sehen wollen. Ein trauriges Beispiel ist User:Polbot, ein Bot, der in einem „Testlauf“ tausende von Pflanzenarten-Kategorien erzeugte. Zwar konnte der Bot nach heftigen Protesten gestoppt werden, doch nun sind die Kategorien kaum wieder zu beseitigen, da dieses von den Radikalen als Vandalismus ausgelegt wird. Die Massenkategorisierung des Bots hat bestehende, mühevoll erarbeitete Strukturen aus noch nicht (in Kategorien) und bereits identifizieren Pflanzen (in Artikeln) zerstört. Dazu kommt, das sich der Aufwand der Botaniker für die ständige Überwachung der Fotos und Identifizierung der Pflanzen auf das mehr als Doppelte und damit auf ein unzumutbares Maß vergrößert hat und sie deshalb die Bot-erzeugten Kategorien ignorieren. Weiterhin entwickeln sich Kategorien und Artikel nun auseinander, da einige User die Artikel, andere, insbesondere Neulinge, die Kategorien bevorzugen, wodurch man nun an zwei Stellen suchen muss. Insgesamt wurde durch diesen Vorfall Zuverlässigkeit und Qualität im Bereich der Pflanzen stark und dauerhaft verringert. Bitte helfe mit, das Problem nicht noch weiter zu vergrößern: Setze Bilder gut identifizierter Pflanzen bitte in Artikel, nicht in Kategorien. Vielen Dank! Falls Du mal Schwierigkeiten haben solltest neue Artikel anzulegen und/oder an die Kopfdaten zu kommen, helfe ich Dir gerne. --Ies 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Frank, danke für die ausführliche Erläuterung und Dein Hilfe-Angebot. Hoffentlich kann ich mir das merken: Eine gut bestimmte Pflanze in einen Commons-Artikel! Nicht in eine Kategorie. Viele Grüße Hedwig Storch 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

revert[edit]

Hallo Les - your edit was incorrect: IPNI Please revert this, thanks. Cygnis insignis 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cygnis insignis, IPNI lists every species name ever published, valid or not, accepted or not. Hence it can't be used to proof a certain species. Anyhow, the flowers clearly show that the plant doesn't belong to Cereus in the current definition but pretty suit to Cleistocactus. I searched my literature for the current name of this plant but unfortunately couldn't find any trace. Let me please know if you found it! --Ies 12:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First you said not a Cereus, looks more like a Cleistocactus, but there is not „tweediei“. There is, it was first published in Curtis's, as the link clearly states. Now you claim is not accepted or somehow invalid, IPNI makes no mention of that. Please undo it! If you can dispute the classification with research other than your own, please do that also. Your speculation has no place in the image description. Cygnis insignis 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your link, [6]. Cygnis insignis 15:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis, IPNI is a good source if you look for an author of a certain species or need to know if and where a certain species name was published. You can't however trust in it regarding valid/invalid or accepted/refused names. Read the IPNI instructions to learn that IPNI is just the wrong database to answer these questiones. The linked Flora Brasiliensis is well known doe to its weird, antiquated classification. Have you read its instructions? As you quickly linked it certainly not. Before we continue this discussion I urgently suggest to get some good cactus books and read everything about Cereus, Cleistocactus and related genera. Let me know if you learned how to tell them apart and if you found any “Cereus tweediei” appearing. Don't beleive in my speculation as you call it, study yourself! --Ies 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It is the accepted name; or was, if you provide a citation that says otherwise. Cygnis insignis 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm feeling we're going in circles. The flowers without any doubt show that the name is unacceptable. Cereus acc. to its description by Miller doesn't have flowers like this. The citation you asked for is this: Philip Miller: Cereus, Gard. Dict., ed. 4. (308), 1754. Nobody had to make “Cereus tweediei” unaccepted in some official way. It was unacceptable right from the moment of its publishing as it didn't (and still doesn't) correspond to the description of Cereus. Whether or not I provide a citation (well, I do) doesn't have anything to do with the acceptance of the name. Please get the books, read and learn! --Ies 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mammillaria geminispina[edit]

Hi les,

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately i am not living close to the BG but i am sure that somebody find certainly in the future the plant's true name. Best regards, Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you very much, I'll upload more pictures about cactaceae and also another plants of Peru (my country), may be you could help me to identify them. Greetings, --Dtarazona 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Reference: Image:Cactus 1011b.JPG

I gladly help if I ever can. :-) --Ies 18:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Art Nouveau[edit]

Hello. Image:Jer-Art Nouvé.ogg has nothing to do with France. It's simply the pronunciation of "Art Nouveau" with no geographical reference. Man vyi 07:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pimpinella anisum[edit]

Hi Ies/Archive 2007,
I revert your edit on Pimpinella anisum, because there is also the Category:Pimpinella anisum. Galleries should always be put (if available) in the category which the gallery is named after. However, apiaceae is a spice for example for thing in the christmas time. So why not?
hf --D-Kuru 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxonavigation template[edit]

Perhaps you could comment on the use of the Taxonavigation template, please.[7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop vandalizing[edit]

"Stop vandalizing in Category:Cactaceae! If you overdo categorizing there once again admins will be alarmed! --Ies 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)"

Te felicito por el entusiasmo en evitar vandalismos, aunque sugiero que prestes más atención a lo que haces tú mismo. Como puedes ver en Category:Cactaceae&action=history, no he editado esa categoría ni una sola vez. Tampoco he cometido vandalismos de ningún tipo en ninguna página y resulta molesto recibir tus acusaciones. Agradecería que puedas revisar tu actitud. Saludos, --200.40.88.182 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
He visto las plantillas de borrado rápido que has puesto en Category:Cacteae y otras, y entiendo que hacías referencia a esto. Como sea, el problema ha sido informado en el noticeboard. No informé de tu amenaza (que ya es grave) sino de las categorías en sí. ¿Cómo puedes decir que una categoría es un vandalismo? Pero tampoco quiero que contestes, es sólo para informarte de que he denunciado tu conducta. --200.40.88.182 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello les, could you explain me what the problem is with the many categories you have tagged for deletion? Please, leave me a message at my talk page. Anna 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, but you should have asked for help to a Spanish speaking admin as soon as you saw the anonymous insisted on creating the categories. It is not very wise to acuse of vandalism to an user's contributions, registered or not, in the first place, when you did not bother to explain the reasons to delete those categories. The anonymous is following a different type of categorization which, you may be right, is superfluous, but anonymous users deserve the same respect as registered ones so an explanation is due. I suggest you to change the speedydeletion tag for a deletion request instead to determine if the categories should be deleted. Meanwhile I'll explain the user your reasons. Cheers. Anna 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all I can see now in the category Cactaceae is the subdivision into the four subfamilies it has. Now it is easier (for a non expert on botany, at least) to find out the tribes and genus belonging to every subfamily, something impossible before the subcategorization, as they were all mixed up in the main category. Ok, my viewpoint might be as wrong as the anonymous one, but that is why I ask you to open a deletion request, there may be some other opinions to take under consideration and anyway, if you thought the editions were wrong there is a talk page in that category to explain your reasons and try to get a dialogue between the user and you before reverting several times with no explanation at all. Remember to assume good faith on others editions before accusing of vandalism for something like this. Anna 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Plaques in Wuppertal[edit]

Was ist deine Definition von Category:Plaques in Wuppertal von einem normalen Category:Signs in Wuppertal? (In diesem Zusammenhang sind einige Gedenkplatten auch in Category:Reliefs in Wuppertal einsortiert.) --Atamari 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Atamari, ich habe versucht, die "normale" Schilder (signs) von Gedenktafeln (plaques) zu trennen, war aber wegen gleitender Übergänge vielleicht nicht konsequent genug. Schilder, auf denen Karten abgebildet sind oder Öffnungszeiten stehen, gehören sicher nicht zu den Gedenktafeln, so weit war ich schon. Bei einigen restlichen Schildern bin ich mir über deren Einordnung nicht ganz sicher. Helfe doch bitte, wenn Du kannst. Die Reliefs habe ich mir eben erst ernsthaft angesehen: Da würde ich die Bilder drin lassen, die bildliche, reliefartige Darstellungen, also Skulpturen zeigen. Etwas erhabene oder versenkte Schrift gehört m.E. nicht hier hin. Dem Kunstwerk "Relief" von Maik and Dirk Löbbert würde ich schon wegen Verwechslungsgefahr gerne eine eigene Kategorie gönnen, nur fällt mir noch nicht ein, welcher Kategoriename hier passen könnte. Hast Du einen Vorschlag? --Ies 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Das Kunstwerk von Maik and Dirk Löbbert kannte ich nicht, ist es nur temporär gewesen? Was ist es überhaupt? Die schräg gestellte Wand mit der selben Struktur wie die Hauswand? --Atamari 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hut ab![edit]

Hallo Ies, jetzt muss ich dir unbedingt mal das längst fällige Riesenlob aussprechen für deine vielen feinen Pflanzenbilder! Die haben so eine ganz typische, hohe Ies-Qualität (genau wie die Artikel auf de-wp, die ich von dir schon zu Gesicht bekommen habe). Allmählich erkenn ich sie schon auf den ersten Blick ziemlich sicher, :o)! Du hast mir schon so viel Freude damit bereitet und ich wünsch dir sehr, dass diese Freude mit Zinsen auf dich zurückkommt! Herzlichen Dank auch für deine helfenden Eingriffe bei meinen Bildern. Ganz lieben Gruß aus dem Remstal, --Wildfeuer 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

whachya doin?[edit]

That is 'what are you doing?'

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABellwort.jpg&diff=8932266&oldid=8466223 -- carol 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Euphorbia[edit]

Please, could you check the information on Image:Euphorbia_male_flower_on_pedicel_NRM.jpg? Thanks. Aelwyn 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aelwyn, the information is correct and, well, that's one very close macros shot. I only suggest to turn the image so that the flower becomes more or less erect. --Ies 10:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! I will, thanks for the suggestion! Aelwyn 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)