User talk:Kersti Nebelsiek

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

User talk:Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv

New messages[edit]

You have new messages at this page.

Mono (POTY Committee) at 15:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

TUSC token 49c408e4e84d515da7dc70bb7a513cca[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

thanks[edit]

For the much improved Eagle picture Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Undelete in X categories[edit]

Please, yous <noinclude></noinclude> when adding Undelete in X categories to deletion request page. If you, for example want to some deletion request page to Category:Undelete in 2017, please write <noinclude>[[Category:Undelete in 2017]]</noinclude>. With noinclude tag Deletion request archival pages (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/16) are not categorized. Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 13:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Eggs[edit]

Thank you for your corrections on bird families. I'll be more careful.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

House Sparrows[edit]

You need to be way, way more careful about categorising House Sparrows. Juveniles belong in their own category; immatures cannot be reliably sexed, so don't put them in the "female" or "male" categories. The bird in File:Arboretum - Passer domesticus 2011-09-02 18-17-56.jpg has the plumage markings of a male, but since it's an immature, it could be a female as well. —innotata 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Than - if it is immature, why did'nt you put it in the correct category Category:Passer domesticus (juvenile) instead of reverting the edit, so that the next one could possibly make exactly the same fault? Why didn't you change the description, adding {{juvenile}}, so that the next on knows, where to put it?
You noticed the difference, I didn't have the knowledge to notice it - and - therefore one question: How do I know, that this bird is juvenile? How did you see this?
--Kersti (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Immatures are birds after their first molt on leaving the nest, not juveniles. They have paler plumage, more yellow bills left from their time in the nest, among other features—read up on it. (But you misctagorised some juveniles too.) I've read more about it, and it turns out immatures can be sexed (sorry for my uncertainty there earlier). But this bird is a male, as it obviously appears to be from its black patches. —innotata 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. But I once read a scientific article about the Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri) in which the young animals with down were called chicks and the older young, which had already fledged were called juveniles. Were the authors wrong in this? (Sorry for all these questions, but I am German and sometimes know the exact words only in German - in other cases I have the opposite problem, as I know them only from scientific articles and than want to write somethin in German about it.)

For example I think about sorting the young swans by age 1. the "Dunenküken" chicks that have only down, but no normal feathers and 2. the older ones that have already fledged but aren not fully adult. --Kersti (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they can mean different things with different species, hence ornithologists use a different terminology of plumage types (Humphrey-Parkes). Juveniles can mean both birds in the nest without feathers and newly hatched birds in their first ('juvenile', or 'juvenal') plumage. Basically, immatures are birds in the next plumage after the one they have when they leave the nest, not quite adults. Waterbirds go through more plumage stages than songbirds though. —innotata 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. --Kersti (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ducks in the Jardin des Plantes de Paris[edit]

Hi! You moved this category from Category:Waterfowl in zoos to Category:Anseriformes (captive). To clarify, the ducks which currently feature in this category don't belong to a zoo. They nest in the botanical garden every year, but they come and go as they please. I don't know which of these two categories, if any, is the more appropriate. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Amaurornis isabellina 1898 changed.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Amaurornis isabellina.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

your new category Mammals at Jerusalem Biblical Zoo[edit]

It should be "Mammals at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo" Thank you. --SuperJew (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And when you make changes like that, do it in the proper order. First create the category. preview before you save, so that it won't be categorized in uncreated categories, as just happened. And only then move the relevant pictures. Thanks again for your time --SuperJew (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Usually I start with putting the category in one to 20 pictures and than klick on the category link tho make up the category. As this is the first time within thousands of categoreis I made up, that someone reverted my changes, there`s no big reason to change this order, I think. --Kersti (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Familie Höckerschwan 1 - Arten der Schwäne.pdf[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Familie Höckerschwan 1 - Arten der Schwäne.pdf. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Die Gartenlaube (1890) b 469.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Die Gartenlaube (1890) b 469.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

JuTa 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eudocimus albus at Brevard Zoo[edit]

Hi Kersti - the birds at Category:Eudocimus albus at Brevard Zoo are actually wild birds, 'just visiting' the zoo, not inmates; they should really be in the main species category. Alternatively, can you think of a rename for the category that does not imply they are zoo inmates? Thanks! [cc: User:Pitke] - MPF (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I added this information to the category description and located the category in the main category. Kersti (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Voyageautourdum5DupeB 0043.jpg[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Voyageautourdum5DupeB 0043.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem with it? As the book was published 1825 I think there is no doubt, that the Author is dead long enough. --Kersti (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Actinodura souliei by Henrik Grönvold.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

JuTa 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Biologia Centrali-Americana Myiodynastes Contopus.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.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Biologia Centrali-Americana Myiodynastes Contopus.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Leyo 11:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Source was already given, only one { was missing in one of the other templates. Kersti (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe die Datei als „Neuzugang“ zu Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter entdeckt und dich als Uploader (angesichts der Grösse der Wartungskategorie) so effizient wie möglich auf deinen Fehler aufmerksam machen wollen. --Leyo 00:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Dog photos in Cat:Unidentified Anatidae[edit]

Hi Kersti - I removed these dog photos from Cat:Unidentified Anatidae as they are, basically, photos of dogs, with the dead birds being only a minor component of the photo, not the main subject. Just the same as they are not included in categories like Unidentified Poaceae, Unidentified wetland locations, etc., etc. The poor things are also so mangled as to be beyond any realistic hope of identification, so there is little point in having them in the category. They could perhaps though be added to Category:Abused birds, or to some hunting-related category? - MPF (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the natural enemies, hunting and so on, are relevant topics of an article concerning the duck species. Therefore it is good to have photos showing the natural enemies and humans hunting the species in the species categories to illustrate these subtopics of species-articles. Abused ist not correct - hunting ist a natural part of wildlife. Caging and slaughtering birds is more abuse than to carry a dead bird around, who doesn't feel it any longer. Therefore Category:Anseriformes (dead) would be the correct category.--Kersti (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to say, a good solution, thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Kersti Nebelsiek,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anguis_fragilis_heads[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Anguis_fragilis_heads has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

109.11.153.163 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Feszty korkep.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

Qorilla (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elephants_of_Zambia[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Elephants_of_Zambia has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

 Biopics 09:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lady_Feodora_Gleichen[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Lady_Feodora_Gleichen has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Keith D (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Human skulls[edit]

Polski: Nie róbmy bałaganu
Esperanto: Ni ne faru malordo
Polski: Rozumiem, że jesteś przeciwko usunięciu Category:Human skulls z Category:Skulls. Usunąłem Category:Human skulls z Category:Skulls ponieważ Category:Human skulls był w Category:Skulls dwukrotnie. Myślę, że jest bałagan jeśli Category:Human skulls jest jedonczenieśnie w:

1) Category:Human skull -> Category:Homo skulls -> Category:Hominidae skulls -> Category:Primate skulls -> Category:Mammal skulls -> Category:Animal skulls -> Category:Skulls

2) Category:Human skull -> Category:Skulls

Myślę, że musimy wybrać tylko jedną z dwóch ścieżek, nie możemy wybrać ścieżki 2) bo wtedy człowiek nie będzie wśród zwierząt a to błąd.

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto: Mi komprenas ke Vi estas kontraŭ eligi Category:Human skulls el Category:Skulls. Mi eligis Category:Human skulls el Category:Skulls ĉar Category:Human skulls estis en Category:Skulls dufoje. Mi opinias ke estas malordo se Category:Human skulls estas samtempe en:

1) Category:Human skull -> Category:Homo skulls -> Category:Hominidae skulls -> Category:Primate skulls -> Category:Mammal skulls -> Category:Animal skulls -> Category:Skulls

2) Category:Human skull -> Category:Skulls

Mi opinias ke ni devas elekti nur unu el du vojoj, ni ne povas elekti vojo 2) ĉar "homo" ne estos inter "bestoj" kaj tio estos eraro.

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Humans are no animals - therefore this is correct Kersti (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Humans --> Homo ✓

Humans --> Animals --Kersti (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


  • en:Animal: "The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.[3]" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the way, most people think. Therefore people interested in medizine or history won't find the human skulls in animal skulls, people interested in biology would search it primarily there. Both categorysations are nessesary. Kersti (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Insekt?[edit]

Wo ist hier das Insekt? --Atamari (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Auch hier.. das sind Ameisen. Ameisen sind keine Raupen! --Atamari (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the seemingly tireless categorization and classification of animals, birds and other creatures, particularly in photos by Keven Law. It is very much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)