User talk:Liné1/2012

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Template in Wikispecies

Salu Liné1, can you help again, please?: Wikispecies Template:WCL: [1].
I used your directlink to KEW. Unfortunately there is a problem with the × in the nothospecies (e.g.: Cattleya × ballantiniana).
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Of cours my friend. It was simple. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Salu Liné1, thanks for your quick answer. You made a result only for Cattleya × ballantiniana. Do you see an automatic way for all nothospecies or hybrids with the sign: × in the title?
I try to modify my question: Is there a way to create the urlencode without the × = "4|{{PAGENAME without ×}}" for this link:
http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do?page=quickSearch&plantName={{urlencode:{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} {{{5|''{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''}}} ?
(I know my trouble with complex questions in english) Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we can do what you want Liné1 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello my friend,
I tried to solve your problem with {{Nothospeciescleaner}} and see the result in Template:Kew list/testcases.
But I totally failed.
The problem can be seen in Template:Kew list/testcases: {{urlencode:{{str right|Cattleya × ballantiniana|10}}}} has a bad result.
Maybee we could ask for help?
I could explain the problem to someone else
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa

How do you handle monotypic taxa (category-wise)? Rocket000 (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I put {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}} with a single entry in the monotypic taxon
And {{Single}} in the subtaxon.
We can also add {{Moty}} on the monotypic taxon.
But {{Moty}} could be added automatically added when {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}} detects a single entry.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant do you create all the single entry categories or do you redirect any? We should make the taxa and genera templates detect single entries anyway to use the singular word (Included genus, family, etc.) Rocket000 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. About single-entry-categories or redirect, I sadly do both depending on the weather. If you want to take a decision, I will follow it ;-).
    But I never transform single-entry-categories into redirect because you never know when a second species will arrive (every 2 monthes with IOC for example ;-)) + our source are not aware of extinct species.
  2. About singular, you are right (as always ;-)). We would be able to have singular form + display {{moty}}. But I fear that it will be difficult:
    • we will have to double the code of {{Taxolang}} for the translation of singular form and plural form
    • how will you do for ranks without plural form (Tribus, Species, Series?). The solution is perhaps to keep inc-genera and add singular=yes
Cheers Liné1 (talk)
Heh, that's pretty much what I used to do. I never could make up my mind. Part of me really wanted to make monotypic categories simply to establish structure and keep things neat, orderly and accurate. I've followed many Wikipedia links only to wind up at some closely related but different article than I was expecting. But the other part of me (the same part that hates single image galleries, no doubt) didn't like creating categories that, in all likelihood, would only ever contain one subcategory. As many times as I've ran into those slightly inaccurate links on Wikipedia, I've come across some very sparsely populated category branches here. Too much navigation required just to get to the actual content.
This back-and-forth reminds me of the early days of VN/SN templates and their placement. And I don't like working under such irresolution. For the template order, I got tired of waiting for some kind of guidance so I just picked an order and stuck with it (with full knowledge that others were doing it differently as I figured inconsistency would appear regardless lacking an established guideline in place. I do try to match the order of neighboring categories if I am working outside my area though, so there's some attempt at consistency.)
Likewise, I think I made up my mind on this issue too. There are two main problems with redirects. First is that we use soft redirects so we are not saving anyone a click. Clicking the link in a redirection template isn't much different than clicking the link in a taxonavigation template (or, more likely, the sole member category itself). And second, as you mentioned, taxonomy is always in flux and not as neat and tidy as we sometimes try to make it. There are a lot of images here where further identification beyond genus (or higher) isn't possible (especially true with insects). The image quality and lack of specialist opinion make the task even more difficult. When I come across something labeled as "Callimorpha sp.", I place it in the genus category even if there's only one described species in that genus. If the prevailing thought is to place files in the most specific (practical) category possible, then I think genus categories should always be created (for species with images, of course). I do skip over subfamilies and tribes when I feel the extra subdivision on content isn't helpful. For the higher ranks, it depends on the area, but for the most part I feel that any major well-established taxon should exist, if anything, for structural hierarchy. Then there's also images that are representative (collages, plates) or generalized (drawings, anatomy, etc.) of multiple species where the most appropriate rank could be anything.
Ok, now regarding the templates: I'm having second thoughts about making the taxa list templates switch between singular and plural. It may not be worth it with the translations and everything. Adding {{moty}} would still be a good idea. We could even make it categorize into "Category:Monotypic taxonomic groups" (en.wp has such a category). Rocket000 (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Single}}

Hi Liné - this needs an English grammar correction. It currently reads "Note: This species is the only living member of genus Xxxx", it should be changed to "Note: This species is the only living member in the genus Xxxx". Maybe it should also be changed to "Note: This species is the only known living member in the genus Xxxx" (since new species may get discovered!). Thanks! MPF (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello MPF, that was the prupose of this template: have the grammar error in a single place ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. I did the first change.
  2. About the second, we could also remind that maybee species that were placed there were moved somewhere else. So what about "Note: This species is currently the only known living member in the genus Xxxx"
  3. What about a shorter version like "Note: This is currently the only known living species in the genus Xxxx"
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I like version 3 best - MPF (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Capsicum annuum

Hello. DEFAULTSORT must be capitalized. Why change? --Allforrous (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Allforrous,
The WikiProject Tree of Life voted some times ago to have lowercase sort keys for species (See the vote here).
I was the only one against it, but at the end, I agreed for greater consensus.
That is why I created a bot to enforce that rule.
So 100% of species categories with Taxonavigation use lowercase sort key.
But recently someone change the CSS to display uppercase even if lowercase was used (See here).
Someone requested a revert, but I did not follow that part.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. Greetings from Argentina.--Allforrous (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:WRMS

This seems to be broken. The genus and species list links are no longer generated correctly. Rocket000 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks, you saved me. It is corrected. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Liné1bot bad edit

Hi Liné - your bot is making unhelpful and un-neccessary edits (example) captioned "Corrected VN". Why so? This is not a correction, but making the VN formatting tediously and very annoyingly long to scroll down through before anyone can start editing the galleries. Next time I want to add an image to an affected gallery, I'll need to get rid of all those totally superfluous carriage returns again. Can you please stop your bot from doing this! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My bot is only sorting the VN entry by alphabetic order (fi was at the end). It doesn'nt modify anything if the ordering is correct. I know you don't like the one language per line, but it is because you never add any entries in the VN. Otherwithe you would not propose single-line VN. Regards Liné1 (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, to be alphabetic, fi (= Suomi) should be near the end, just before Swedish (= Svensk). I once made a list of all the cases where the two-letter language code is out-of-order with its language name; a couple of other examples are es (= Español) before eo (= Esperanto), and ja (Japanese, = Nihongo) just after nl (= Nederlands). I do often add entries to VN, and it is easier to do so when they're all in one paragraph, you don't have to scroll half-way to Australia to put them in :-) MPF (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing the alphabetical order of the language code which is needed to simplify maintenance (ex: simplies comparison of VN content and interwiki: did you try it ?) and the ordering of the resulting display which is done automatically by the {{VN}} template.
Liné1 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I was assuming it had to be in the same order as interwikis (where at least on en:wiki, fi is placed just before sv, and so on). Still be nice though if you could adapt your bot to put the VNs in one paragraph, it doesn't affect page display but does make editing pages so much easier - MPF (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Galleries etc

By the way, did you have a look at User_talk:Rocket000#Interesting_idea?
We are looking for a solution to avoid duplicated Taxonavigation,SN,VN,subtaxonList,ref... in categories and articles.
  • Some put everything in articles and nothing in cat
  • Some put everything in categories and nothing in articles (preferable as article are not always present)
  • Some duplicate everything
  • User:Kersti Nebelsiek proposes to put everything in categories and include the cat in the article !!! (I like it except that you have to put noinclude)
Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; nope, hadn't seen it. Maybe it should be moved to Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life? My thinking is to put everything into categories, but only a selection of the better pics into galleries, omit all the small, low quality, blurred, crappy, etc., pics from them. - MPF (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my idea.
I think there are 3 kind of articles:
  1. the complex one with list of genus or species or identification keys (I am thinking of bird family articles like Pteroclididae)
  2. the articles containing a selection of pictures (useful when there are > 50 pict) with separation of the subspecies, varieties (Often the associated category contains a lot of pictures)(I am thinking of plant articles)
  3. the bad ones: as much pictures as in the cat or very few pictures.
Rocket000 would like to kill the case 3 (by a redirect to the cat ?)
But for case 1 and 2, you, Rocket and I would prefer to put everything that is not <gallery> in the category.
The interesting idea of Kersti Nebelsiek is to do so and include the category in the article (See the content of Melanogrammus aeglefinus which I think is a case 3 ;-))
Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . I'd definitely disagree with Rocket on #3, bad galleries should be improved, not killed. Good galleries are important, as they are harvested by outside users like EOL as image sources; no gallery, or a gallery with no Taxonav., = no harvest. Unfortunately, the Melanogrammus aeglefinus gallery will need to be changed too, its current format doesn't trigger EOL to harvest it (none of the Commons images here) - could you change it please, and any others like it? - MPF (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Liné1, please add me to your list. I agree with MPF; improve, do not delete gallery pages (unless they are empty). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case 3 are really the small articles (like Rhinocrypta lanceolata or Eudyptes pachyrhynchus or Leptacanthichthys gracilispinis). What are their purpose ? Liné1 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Their purpose is that they allow (or will allow, once taxonav details have been added) automated harvest of the images by outside users like EOL; the categories don't achieve that. And one image is better than none. - MPF (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You really need to explain me the EOL stuff. Never heard of it and it seems important. Liné1 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's what it says. As it concerns us here, it brings together images from a variety of Creative Commons sources, of which Commons is an important one (but also including others, including CC-NC images not admissible on Commons). It does a weekly harvest of all images on Commons gallery pages carring a {{Taxonavigation| template. So galleries with even a single pic are still valuable (but getting Taxonavigation templates added to all of them is a priority!). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ur APG III template

Hello. I'm interested in using ur Template:Taxonavigation on the Category:Minerals. Something like: (IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz Classification: Class: Subclass: Structural supergroup: Supergroup: Structural group: Group: Family: Series: Mineral: Nickel–Strunz Nr.: ) Most fields would stay empty, and so they won't appear. What do you think? Any comments? Thx. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that you should duplicate the template.
Because Template:Taxonavigation detects when some of its parameters are incorrect.
Also if you use this template, some bots will consider your categories/articles as taxon ones and will apply modifications that you may not like.
Of course, I can do the duplication for you if you want.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking to make three sandboxes. One for template (Mills et al. (2009) The standardisation of mineral group hierarchies: application to recent nomenclature proposals; en:Nickel–Strunz classification), one "Native Elements", and one Inosilicates – Pyrochlore supergroup (Atencio et al. (2010) Nomenclature of the pyrochlore supergroup of minerals) or Inosilicates – Amphibole supergroup (en:Classification of minerals – Silicates). And show the result to User:Ra'ike. If u have time to make a duplicate Template:Taxonavigation, it'd be very kind from u. I don't know what should be deleted. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting, I had never heard of mineral classifications.
OK, could you modify an existing category or article with a Taxonavigation to show me a potential result ?
Then how would you call this template ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm away this weekend, how about Template:Mineralnavigation? I was thinking of a sandbox page with all mineral categories of the class "Native Elements" as in Category:Amaryllidaceae, for instance. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
{{Mineralnavigation}} seems fine to me . If you could create this sandbox page, it would really help me see what you need. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
First draft: User:Chris.urs-o/Native Elements Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, for the sandbox, I was thinking of a page using the existing {{Taxonavigation}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
ClassSilicates • SubclassInosilicates • GroupAmphibole • SubgroupCalcic Amphibole • MineralTremolite Nickel–Strunz code: 09.DE.10
to begin with ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, now I have precise questions:
  1. What will the ranks be: Class, Subclass, Group, Subgroup, Mineral?, Nickel–Strunz code?
  2. Instead of Nickel–Strunz code|09.DE.10 (there will never be a Category:09.DE.10, I suppose) should'nt we have a specific parameter |code=09.DE.10 ? It would allow to have a different display (avoid the red link for example)
  3. What about Mineral? Do you consider it as a rank?
  4. Do you want a parameter classification ? What would the possible value be: "Mills et al. (2009)" or "Nickel–Strunz classification". Any other possibility ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you show too the category title (Leucojum vernum) as in the taxonavigation, Ra'ike thinks it isn't necessary though:
APG III Classification: DomainEukaryota • (unranked)Archaeplastida • RegnumPlantae • Cladusangiosperms • Cladusmonocots • OrdoAsparagales • FamiliaAmaryllidaceae • GenusLeucojum • SpeciesLeucojum vernum L. (1753)
The problem is that minerals don't follow strict the school stuff
The divisions and the Nickel–Strunz code are a summary of the chemical formula
The ranks are class, subclass, supergroup, group and family; but most minerals don't have them all
The structural groups and the structural supergroups cross the class/subclass boundary, and so are no ranks
The Nickel–Strunz code should be only text as in authority
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Coudn't we consider "structural group" and "structural supergroup" as ranks ?
  2. What about the parameter |classification=
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Parameter |classification=IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz classification, Nickel–Strunz classification 10 ed, pending publication, as on Mindat.org. Is it ok?
As "structural group" and "structural supergroup" on Wikimedia cross the class or subclass border, they aren't hierarchical under the class or subclass rank, strictly speaking. They would have the "same rank" as the class rank. But the IMA/CNMNC recognizes only some classes and subclasses (Mills et al. (2009) The standardisation of mineral group hierarchies: application to recent nomenclature proposals). Don't know, where is ur problem.
Let's see how category:inosilicates looks; the rest must ripe, it's more complicated
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Are there other classifications than "IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz" ?
  2. Normaly the parameter is short (like |classification=Nickel–Strunz or |classification=Mindat.org) and the display longer (like IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz classification 10 ed, pending publication, as on Mindat.org)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello
There are Strunz 8 ed, Nickel–Strunz 9 ed, Nickel–Strunz 10 ed (pending publication), Dana 8 ed, Hey's Chemical Index of Minerals
There are things before IMA/CNMNC
I improved two test cases, I suppose:
ClassSilicates • SubclassInosilicates • GroupAmphibole
ClassOxides • SupergroupPyrochlore supergroup
I modified a lil bit: Template:CheckMineralRank, Template:CheckMineralRank/doc, Template:Mineralnavigation, Template:Mineralnavigation/doc, Template:Minerals, Template:Minerals/doc
Any comments? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What you did rocks.
I will prepare the |classification= and let you change it to fit your wish ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I prepared {{Mineralnavigation/classification}} that you should update. I recommend:
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thx, I agree Strunz 8 ed, Nickel-Strunz 9 ed aren't interesting. But we don't know what other editors will do. Maybe, "IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz" should be enough as title with a link to the full title IMA/CNMNC – Nickel–Strunz 10 ed (Mindat.org, pending publication). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Linné, why are all test pages on Category:Pages with incorrect mineralogy template usage --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Corrected ;-) Liné1 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Création de catégorie

Bonjour Liné1 !

J'ai créé ma première catégorie sur commons : Category:Grateloupia turuturu. Est-ce que tu peux regarder si c'est bon et me dire ce qui ne va pas si je me suis planté quelque part. Merci ! TED 11:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sniff, c'est beau ;-) J'ai juste changé:
  1. l'ordre: category puis interwiki.
  2. Et le sort de category: [[Category:Grateloupia|turuturu]]
Tu va et plaire sur commons: WBR y est assez efficace + les algues sont assez fidèle à AlguaBASE
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Pour l'ordre : j'ai dû copier quelque part où c'était inversé… j'essayerai de m'en souvenir ! (et de la clef de tri aussi) TED 09:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 

Bonjour ! j'ai créé ma deuxième catégorie : Category:Ipomoea bignonioides pour y recatégoriser File:Ipomoea bignonioides Bot. Mag. 53.2645.jpg. Comme WBR ne donnais rien (mais il y a une page Wikispecies), j'ai copié-collé-corrigé depuis une autre page : est-ce que tu peux me dire si ça va bien (pour la cat et pour la modification de l'article) ? Est-ce qu'il y a des spécialistes quelques part pour leur demander si Ipomoea bignonioides est bien toujours son nom ? (ou je demande au Café de Flore sur WP:fr ?) J'ai trop peu l'habitude de commons, et j'ai peur de faire une bêtise dès que j'édite une page. TED 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Elle est parfaite ta catégorie. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Sinon, j'ai vu que tu n'aime pas Category:Archaeplastida.
Comme je n'ai pas d'avis, c'est quoi le tien ?
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Mon avis, c'est que cela n'existe pas. Il y a eu de nombreuses publi et tout un débat (j'avais mis des réf sur l'article sur Wp:fr : fr:Archaeplastida). Je me range à l'avis d'AlgaeBase. TED 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 

Thalassiophyllum

Please see [2], where the genus is regarded as distinct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but with only one species Thalassiophyllum clathrus (S.G.Gmelin) Postels & Ruprecht that is not accapted by AlgaeBase. Here, it is also said that Thalassiophyllum has no valid species.
It is the famous bug of AlgaeBase that presents subtaxa with 0 species (the column #species is really important on their site)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I know about the 0 spexies, but that figure is often a bug. What we need to do is examine the referenced paper in Taxon to see if there are any other species in Thalassiophyllum that haven't been entered into AlgaeBase yet. The "0" only means that none of the species currently in the database are listed there; I have come across instances where species had not yet been listed. That is, are there other species still in Thalassiophyllum, or has AlgaeBase failed to update the genus entry? Either way, AlgaeBase says that Thalassiophyllum is "currently recognized as a distinct genus", so removing it from a list of genera recognized by AlgaeBase would be incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
All right, all right. ;-) Seems to me that AlgaeBase is a strange source: what is a valid taxon without any valid subtaxon ? It looks like a bug in their database.
Of course, they are not the only ones. The contibutor in charge of the taxonomy in fishbase is soooo ssllllooowwww that you can find incoherancies just because it takes him 3 year to update a family. You can find hundreds of genera described in a family + the family not listing this genus + another family listing this genus.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, in botanical nomenclature, a valid taxon may not be an accepted one; "valid" simply means that it has been published according to the Code. There are many obsolete plant and alga names that are "valid", but are not currently in use. Also, for AlgaeBase, there may be a genus entry but no species simply because the species haven't been entered yet. I have found, though, that when I write to AlgaeBase about a problem or necessary update, the change is usually made very quickly, especially if it is an obvious error, or if I provide a publication for reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: {{Taxolang}}

✓ Done. ;) Yours, --DPC (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thks a lot Liné1 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I've added the missing translations too. Many thanks for the kind notice! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hello Liné, I'd like to know why u don't have admin rights with 100k. I think it's ur choice, which are the disadvantages? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Chris (It is also my name ;-))
I really enjoy wikipedia and the good relations that I try to have with everyone.
But I dislike the fighting which is a part of admin work.
I only regret the limitation in editing protected templates.
But as I have some admin friends, it does not bother me that much.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thx Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

TN

Have you considered that after replacing all th TN templates it will be harder to have a bot make any further change regarding those templates (now there is no longer a single template to search and replace, so for instance it would be very difficult to do a bot name to change the name of a parameter etc etc) ?
Also other editors can no longer for instance find all the images tagged or untagged with TN type templates using the "what links here" link for the template, or catscan. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello
About the bot, I have prepared mine to do any modifications: it would look for templates in Category:Taxon name templates and find usage by following specific template usage or VNIncluded usage.
About your second problem, just follow VNIncluded usage.
By the way, these kind of templates are still under discussion [3] and [4].
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I have been discussing them over there too :-). Ok, just so long as you have thought about any problems before doing the replacement :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WikipediaBioReferences

Salut Zolo,
Je ne sais pas si tu traines sur fr.wikipedia, mais je développe un logiciel OpenSource pour fr.wikipedia et commons: WikipediaBioReferences.
Il est très utilisé sur fr.wikipedia mais peu sur commons (Seul Thiotrix s'en sert).
En gros tu tapes le nom scientifique d'un taxon, le logiciel surfes sur 100 sites de référence et génère de la syntax wiki:

Tu veux essayer ? Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Merci j'ai un peu regardé. Ca a l'air vraiment bien fait et j'essaierai de m'en servir à l'occasion. Enfin pour l'instant je crois que je vais un peu diminuer mes contributions à Commons, j'en ai un peu abusé ses dernières semaines ;)/ --Zolo (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai essayé WikipediaBioReferences avec Category:Gammaropsis nitida mais ça n'a pas marché. L'espèce est dans l' Encyclopedia of Life ([5]), il n'y aurait pas un moyen de le récupérer de là bas ? (Je sais pas trop comment c'est organisé mais les informations ont l'air plus ou moins accessibles à travers le code HTML de l'entrée--Zolo (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
WikipediaBioReferences ne gère pas encore EOL. J'ai créé le modèle {{EOL}} sur WikiCommons mais je me suis arrèté la.
Astuce1: Il faut cocher "Other" (je n'ai pas d'entrée pour les arthropodes) et "Species" sur l'écran principal.
Astuce2: Tu as du avoir du ITIS et du WRMS dans l'onglet "Wiki Commons" et CatalogueofLife,SeaLifeBase,ITIS,WRMS,ADW,uBIO dans l'onglet "Wiki france"
Du coup comme tu ne fais que du WikiCommons, pour optimizer tu peux aller dans "Options" et cliquer sur "Select All Commons" qui restraindra la recher aux modèles connus de WikiCommons.
La question est:
  • dois-je gérer EOL dans WikipediaBioReferences (pas mal de travail)
  • dois-je créer les modèles CatalogueofLife,SeaLifeBase,ADW,uBIO dans WikCommons (en les s'inspirant de ceux de fr.wikipedia) (moins de travail)
Il faut savoir que WikipediaBioReferences gère des modèles de Category:Biology external link templates.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
J'utilise WikipediaBioReferences, aussi. Amitiés, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Panolia

Hi. Why did you change this taxon without discussion? AFAIK en:Panolia is a correct genus. Regards.  B.p. 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Biopics, you are tight, I could have used a bit more concertation. But:
  • As you can see in Cervus eldii there are 3 possible names each of them still widely used. We mainly follow Mammal Species of the World which still recognize Cervus eldii
  • When you created Panolia eldii, Cervus eldii was already existing since 2006.
  • Panolia and Panolia eldii were blank, without information of the synonymy with Cervus eldii.
  • You must know that on wikicommons we rarely rename species categories except if one name is fully recognized by all source. Otherwithe we keep it with a SN section containing the different names.
  • As Panolia eldii contained only 5 files when Cervus eldii contained 20 files, if we were to discuss the renaming, I don't think that it would lead to any change
But sorry again for the lack of discussion ;-)
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but MSW dates already from 2005. Have a look at this and this. It's a specialist's (or taxonomist's) world :-). Cheers.  B.p. 08:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I added your 2 references in Cervus eldii. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that (for now;-)). Thanks.  B.p. 09:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can I bother you again? If you follow MSW, then why not using Rucervus eldii?  B.p. 21:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You will never bother me.
I simply used the existing and older cat Cervus eldii (that way, we don't need to move the images from one cat to another when the names are changing)
(I have to tell you that when you rename categories, contributors tend to scream at you, so you see why I don't rename ;-))
In this cat I precised the different synonyms with "(preferred by Mammal Species of the World)" (In our case it is more complex as there is no name more recognized)
But you can see that Cervus eldii is in category [[Category:Rucervus|eldii]] to have Rucervus fully following MSW.
In the past, I would have put multiple genus categories but that led to unclar/bigger genus categories.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my friend, we have the same issue with Corvus monedula and Coloeus monedula. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Coloeus monedula

Hi Liné.

Coloeus monedula is the currently accepted name by the IOC World Bird List. Regards.  B.p. 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, I just told you in the previous talk (As you were involved) ;-)
If you want, we could ask if there is a standard behavior when species are renamed by an author.
But I really think, that the response will be to keep the biggest cat until a bigger concensus is found (IUCN & ITIS & Wikispecies & en.wikipedia did not integrate the change yet).
I must confess, that IOC is changing so often species names, that waiting a bit seems reasonable.
And you must know that I really like IOC a lot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
About IOC, I am in negociation with them to contribute very humbly to their website. Liné1 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Subfamilia: Arctiinae

Hello Liné. I need your help. I don't know what I did wrong, but Category:Arctiini and Category:Micrarctiini don't get as Category:Dilophonotini. Thx. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected Template:Lepidoptera which is far too complex and specific.
I prefer the solution used for Category:Nematocera involving {{Taxonavigation}} and include=Diptera
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thx. Sorry, I didn't see that Template:Lepidoptera was Rocket000's kid. I prefer to follow Rocket000 work, I'm too afraid to mess up anything. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking categories and pages

Hi, you may have noticed that I link to pages, not categories, in the description text.

I do this for the following reason:

When a file is correctly categorized, you simply can scorll down and find all the categories (or extracted images that have them). Adding another category link in the description box is unnecessary and usually redundant. At best, the advantage is it saves you a bit of time (but it adds load delay OTOH), and that is all advantage there is. The disadvantage is that it wastes the opportunity to link to something else.

Categories only sort their content alphabetically. They contain not that much information (except -- on ToL -- taxonav, otherwise usually just a short note or nothing at all). It may be that a category contains hundreds of images sorted in no informative order. The reader is probably looking for information on a word they don't understand if they click on such a link, and (to the extent this has been done) pages have been used for this on Commons. Mostly in the geo categories, see e.g. Portugal which is very informative, whereas Category:Portugal is far less informative. So a user clicking on "Portugal" in a description text because they don't know what a "Portugal" is, will find the info at the page more useful.

Other editors have been using the description box to link to Wikipedia.

This can be expanded. I have built an example at File:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg.
Consider for example Colibri serrirostris versus Colibri serrirostris. The former gives the reader some useful info. The latter gives the reader nothing really (the same info as the genus page, but entirely out of context), and the maximum info the reader can ever get from this category, due to their intrinsic limitations (little descriptive taxt, no sections, galleries etc), is taxonomic data. Whereas Commons pages eventially beome something like a picture-book version of the Wikipedia article.

So I think pages on Commons and/or Wikipedia should be linked in the descriptions, instead of using them to add a (second) category link. The file here has no category links, but the extracted files do, and they are all linked.

The only drawback (but this is hard-coded) is that you must manually check for redlinks in the "en:", "de:" etc descriptions. E.g. Schleppensylphe appears as if it existed, but does not.

All the best, Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you you say.
Your could also use the form Colibri serrirostris (cat) that would satisfy everyone.
It would satisfy everyone because if there is a missing gallery you still provide a link to the cat and vice and versa.
I modified File:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg to provide the small (cat) but also to add all the missing categories.
But you use the term "description page" which is problematic. wikicommons should never provides description (We don't want to provide desciption in 200 language and english only is not recommanded). So we use the term gallery which is much more precise.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Well the MoS says:

The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. (COM:CAT)

versus:

Galleries are a complement to categories [...]. They allow files to be annotated with captions, shown at better sizes than the category default, organised in tables, etc. They are also useful for presenting material in a logical order, something categories have a limited ability to do. (COM:GP)

Basically you are trying to use categories in a way they were never intended to be used. There are four problems with that: a) it is contrary to MoS (categories should not be used for information purposes), b) it is visual clutter, and c) load delay (the software checks out every internal link to know whether it whould be "red" or "blue" - basically by doing what you did you almost doubled the lookup time, which in this case may already creade a noticeable loading delay for users with slow connections), and d) it is not "simple and straightforward" and thus violates a general programming rule.
In brief, categories should never be added to file descriptions without a damn good reason (e.g. if no other option exists - no Commons page, no Wikipedia article). But usually this should not be done. The MoS is quite explicit that categories are for organization, whereas gallery pages are for description.
(As a guideline, if you would not link to the category in a Wikipedia article, do not link to the category on Commons either.)
("wikicommons should never provides description" is not correct. It should never provide long descriptions. But with the internationalization templates ({{Multilingual description}} in particular), we can - and should in fact - have brief descriptions for everything and anything on the gallery pages, if we have people who write them. Categories OTOH are required by MoS to be English, and usually English only. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. About the "(cat)" solution: I was simply trying to find a consensus. But I did not invent it, you can find in many bird articles (See here).
  2. About descriptions in commons: COM:GP is very clear: only brief descriptions are allowed. You must know that I have seen a lot of contributors removing descriptions with the summary "commons is not wikipedia". But in the 100.000 categories/articles I have seen, only ~500 had a descripion. Could you give some example of articles with descripion? Maybee we are not talking about the same thing.
  3. About your linking system:
    You and I have the same definition for galleries and categories.
    You idea of forbidding links to categories in files seem a bit extreem + not much justified:
    1. Following our commons definition, there is no hierarchy/preference between galleries and categories => why link to one more than to the other ?
    2. About the lookup performance issue:
      • You must know the de lookup delay is only when saving, not when displaying the file.
      • As the categories are already present as categories (at the bottom) there is no delay at linking to them again (Example: File:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg contains [[Category:Heliactin bilophus]] so there is not lookup cost for additional [[:Category:Heliactin bilophus]])
      • but your article links being new add a delay (Example: Adding [[Heliactin bilophus]] adds a lookup)(sorry to invert your argument ;-))
      • Furthermore, you add a link to genus article + species article (which is not commons by the way)
    3. But your forgot the more important argument: there are much less articles than categories: For File:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg in 24 links 16 are red!!!
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | +/−


Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Pterocaesio digramma, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

RN1970 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pas que j'aime cirer les pompes mais...

Salut Liné1, si j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de te féliciter pour WBR, outil formidable sur WP, je m'en servais moins pour Commons. Depuis quelques temps que j'uploade à tour de bras, j'ai eu l'occasion de créer maintes catégories, et ton soft est un gain de temps incroyable ; les catégories d'oiseaux sont très propres et mises à jour et je sais aussi que ça demande un gros travail. Bref, tu mérites largement un énorme merci pour tout ce que tu as fait. :) Totodu74 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Merci mon ami. Ca fait plaisir.
La puissance de WBR c'est d'avancer avec les modèles francais et commons.
J'ai actuellement un gros soucis avec IOC 3.1 qui ne fournit plus le xml dont WBR se sert.
J'ai donc proposer de contribuer à leur site pour créer un générateur de xml ;-)
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Haha tu gères Clin Totodu74 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Tu gères la zostère ! Clin TED 16:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Affiche Zoodyssee.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Affiche Zoodyssee.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cultivar

Salu Liné1, could you help please here: [6]? User:Uleli needs an expert in software. (I'm a greenhorn). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Salu, "you are more quick than an echo" (This is a try of a translation of a german saying). Thank you very much! I informed User:Uleli obout your work. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
A deep bow to you Liné1... thank you for your expertice! I am very thrilled. To answer you questions:
  • When the year is not provided, would'nt you prefer to display "(year ?)" or "(year unknown)" - I would prefer "year unknown"
  • When parents are not provided, would'nt you prefer to display "Parentage: Unknown" - Yes I would like this. Not "insertae sedis" as this is horitculture rather than botany. Uleli (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Création de catégories avec WBR : projet et questions

Bonjour Liné1 ! Je vais me lancer dans la révision/création de l'arborescence des catégories commons pour les algues. Quelques questions :

  • 1. est-ce qu'on peut créer des catégories mêmes si elles sont vides ? (par exemple : si je crée toute les catégories d'algues rouges jusqu'aux familles, il y aura sûrement des catégories vides) Je pense que oui, mais c'est mieux si tu me le confirmes.
  • 2. est-ce qu'il faut copier tout ce que donne WBR ? (exemple : je viens de faire une mise à jour de Category:Rhodophyta) En particulier : est-il nécessaire d'avoir les sous-taxons selon tout un tas de sites divers et variés ?
  • 3. existe-t-il des recommandations spéciales ? Y a-t-il un équivalent des projets de WP où je pourrais annoncer ce que je tente de faire ? (et éviter que les gens me tombent dessus en râlant que je ne les ai pas prévenus)
  • 4. as-tu d'autres conseils ? TED 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Bon, pour ma question 2, je vois que pour les algues, je me contente de copier uniquement les sous-taxons d'AlgaeBase. TED 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. En théorie on n'est pas sensé crééer des Catégories vide, mais pour les taxons élevés (classes->familles) ca passe ;-) Vasy molo quand même ;-)
  • 2. Malheureusement, Il faut filter le résultat de WBR. Dans le cas de Rhodophyta, tu peux mettres toutes les ref, mais pour les listes de sous-taxons je ne laisse que les sites principaux (FishBase,MSW, AlgaeBASE dans ton cas)
  • 3.4. hihi. Je me suis souvent fait engueuler. J'essaierai de te compiler quelques recommandations demain
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 : mon idée, c'est ensuite d'importer en masse des images grâce à la Pokédex de Totodu74 à partir d'ouvrages du domaine public, et d'avoir les catégories prêtes avant. C'est préférable dans ce sens ? ou il est mieux d'importer des images non catégorisées, puis de créer les catégories, et de re-catégoriser les images ? (à mon avis, c'est plus simple si on a d'abord les catégories)
  • 2 : OK. Je ne garderai qu'AlgaeBase (WoRMS copie AlgaeBAse pour les algues, cela n'apporte rien de plus, et FishBase ou Mammals Species of the World ne sont pas vraiment des sites pour les algues Clin).
  • 3 : super ! j'attends demain alors. TED 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Le mieux serait d'uploader en premier. Peut-être avec 2 catégories: Category:Uploaded by TED + Category:To be sorted by TED
Au fur et à mesure, on s'attaque tous les deux à Category:To be sorted by TED (toi par le début, moi par la fin ;-)). On remplace Category:To be sorted by TED par la bonne catégorie d'espèce. Puis on fait tous ses taxons supérieurs selon AlgaeBASE.
On a vraiment besoin de photos d'algues car c'est actuellement la misère.
Pour les conseils;
  • Pour les Taxonavigation:
    • elles ne sont pas sensé contenir de liens rouge: ce n'est pas une taxobox mais un outils de navigation dans les catégories existantes. Il ne faut crééer les sous-familles/infra-chmurts que si elles sont vraiment nécessaires.
    • elles utilisent un système d'include pour la partie haute de la classification. Je parie que tu vas bientot tomber dessus et faire des modifications ;-)
  • Pour les catégories d'espèces il faut mettre un sortkey genre [[Category:Panthera|tigris]] même si le genre est monotypic.
  • Pour les listes de sous-taxon:
    • quand il y a 3 listes différentes, je garde celle de la référence (AlgaeBASE)
    • par contre si il y a X listes semblables, je les fusionnent en transformant source=AlgaeBASE ... source=ITIS en source=AlgaeBASE & ITIS.
      Quelques couples n'existent pas auquel cas, on peut utiliser source=AlgaeBASE|source2=ITIS
Je vais chercher encore un peu.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Je n'ai aucune envie d'uploader des images sans les catégoriser pour les catégoriser ensuite : c'ets deux fois plus de boulot inutilement.
Est-ce qu'il n'est pas préférable de créer d'abord les catégories hautes (par exemple jusqu'aux ordres, voir jusqu'aux familles). Parce que si j'uploade une image avant d'avoir créé les catégories, et que je créée la catégorie de l'espèce, je vais me retrouver avec une taxonavigation avec que des liens rouges ! Et il faudra alors créer des catégories pour les taxons de hauts niveaux en pagaille au fur et à mesure des imports.
Si au contraire, je créée les catégories hautes en partant par exemple de l'embranchement des Rhodophyta, en créant les catégories en descendant la classification (avec les éventuels sous-taxons et super-taxons si nécéssaires) les classes, les ordres, puis les familles : je n'aurais jamais de liens rouges.
Autre solution : uploader sans catégoriser, ou en catégorisant dans une catégorie d'epsèce qui sera directement catégorisée dans l'embranchement sans avoir le détail de l'arborescence des catégories dans l'embranchement. C'est stupide, mais c'est plus simple. TED 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 
Tu peux peut-être créer tous les ordres sans te faire repérer. Mais des familles, il risque d'y en avoir un paquet, ca ne va pas être discret.
Moi clairement ca ne me gène pas.
Mais dans tous les cas, pour chaque photo tu devra créer la catégorie d'espèce et de genre. Autant continuer à remonter jusqu'à la famille.
Tu peux uploader la photo avec la catégorie d'espèce. Elle sera rouge, ce qui n'est pas gênant. Mais il y a le risque que AlgaeBASE reconnaisse l'espèce sous un autre nom.
Je n'ai pas compris ton autre solution 2.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Category descriptions

Could you please reprogram Linebot so it does not change the category descriptions in the Fossil xxx categories to vernacular names? The {{en|Raphidioptera fossil specimens}} is present specifically as a description of what the scope of the category is, and thus it is incorrect to have it transformed into the vernacular names template. Thanks.--Kevmin § 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Il just did it.
But are you sure that your description is really needed ? You just add the term 'specimens' which is obvious.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is needed, as the category is specifically for fossils and casts of fossils. Artists drawings, taxonomic charts, phylogenies, etc... belong in the subcategories of Category:Raphidioptera--Kevmin § 00:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand. So maybe, you need a template like {{fossilscat}} that would display (perhaps in a small banner) the explaination you just gave me:
"This category contains fossils and casts of fossils of Raphidioptera (Please, avoid: artists drawings, taxonomic charts, phylogenies...)"
It would have multiple advantages:
  • centralized text (modify once => change everywhere)
  • internationalized text (I have friends knowing some languages ;-))
  • always the same display (better than a voted rule or a consensus ;-))
  • template will automatically detect the taxon category (Category:Raphidioptera here) the fossil category is related to.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:TaxonavigationAutoCategory/

Salu Liné1, I hope, you spent good holidays with your family. (I suppose, because we missed your activity here).
One question: As a test I changed in this template the sign * with #, because "*" is used by many subcategories and I think, your autosorting of species, genera etc. should be first and separate.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

...o.k., it was a proposal only. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend. I am afraid that everyone will ask himself what # means.
There are very few sort key with an obvious meaning:
  • † for extinct
  • ~ for undefined
  • * for standard list item
  • space is very common now days (many change from * to space)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
.... "?" is not only in botany and zoology a self-explanation sign for "Unidentified". Cheers. Orchi (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, even better ;-)

Alouatta

Hello Miguel,
About this change and that change.
Did you suppress the {{Category redirect}} because you want to recognize those 2 species to follow a certain source (maybee Gregorin (2006))?
Because, we follow Mammal Species of the World which does not recognize those 2 species.
In all the cases, if you want to recognize them, you should have put the species name as sorkey: [[Category:Alouatta|discolor]] instead of [[Category:Alouatta]]
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Liné, I really followed Gregorin (2006). The present howler monkey was photographed in Alta Foresta, Northern Mato Grosso, thus, according Gregorin (2006) is Alouatta discolor. On Wikipedia, there is a specific page to Alouatta discolor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alouatta_discolor. Is not valid to use the category "Alouatta discolor" on Wikimedia Commons, since there is a page considering this species on Wikipedia?Miguelrangeljr (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Miguelrangeljr
Don't worry, it is valid to create a category for a species partially recognized (not by MSW...}}
But you did not add any summary to you modification (bad boy ;-)) nor to the page
By the way, you also forgot the sorkey: [[Category:Alouatta|discolor]] instead of [[Category:Alouatta]]
If you want, I will provide the needed informations in the page, that you could verify
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried to explain all this in Category:Alouatta discolor and Category:Alouatta ululata. Could you check if the explaination suits you ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think we reached a consensus. I changed the category in this image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alouatta_belzebul.jpg too.Miguelrangeljr (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Miguelrangeljr
Of course we found a consensus: we are both admirable contributors ;-)
Just one last thing: you perhaps should:
  • rename your picture to avoid contributor to move in in the future to Category:Alouatta belzebul
  • change the name in the picture from "Red-handed-howler" to "Spix's red-handed howler" (don't forget the Portugues name)
  • perhaps you should say why you think it is a "Spix's red-handed howler" and not a "Red-handed-howler" (the color on the back ?)
Sorry to be so boring, but your picture is the only one we have => it must be perfect in its description.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No problems! I did the changes that you asked.Miguelrangeljr (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Miguelrangeljr
And, sorry for the mistakes in image upload. I'm not an experienced user.Miguelrangeljr (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Miguelrangeljr

Format of VN

Salu Liné1, a short information for you. User MPF and I have a change of view in formatting of the VN box on my discussion. We use according to our language-level 1 the english and german understanding. I hope we will reach a good result for an practical handling and for users in all countries. (Do you see the possibility to create the vernacular names by wikilinks automatically??) Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Hello my friend,
could you try to add the |mk= translation in:

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for letting me know! I hunt for any new templates from time to time, but cannot quite keep it up. The Macedonian translation is now added, with pleasure. I should mention that German is only partially translated, for some reason that is beyond my comprenehsion, but it may be that there's an explanation for it. Thanks and all the best with the effort --B. Jankuloski (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you my friend.
About the german translation, it is my fault. I asked a german friend to help the translation, but I know he might be afraid of the template stuff. So I did a first translation to help him.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! Hungarian translation is complete (or at least I hope, because of hungarian's specificity). --BáthoryPéter (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Great job, but hese templates don't work with bot moves (SieBot, User:RussBot/category redirect log, Iz...something). The bots will need to be adapted or the template integrated as a sub-template in {{Category redirect|Reason}} I guess. --Foroa (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Valerianaceae in what language ? --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
About these bots, did you warn their creator ? Do you want me to do it ?
Whatever, but good luck to find them all and get changes on SieBot. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You means, we have bots running without access to their creator ? Liné1 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand your question about Category:Valerianaceae. Liné1 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Displays: Reason: APG III szerint a Valerianaceae egy érvénytelen taxon, aminek tagjai jelenleg a Caprifoliaceae kategóriában vannak.; I have a problem understanding that. --Foroa (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Corrected. The hungarian translater made an small error in the i18n page. Liné1 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Translation

✓ Done. Ask me if you need more :). --DPC (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Cultivar}}

I wonder if you might have another look on this template. There are some cases when the template does not work perfectly. It is when the cultivar is not the product of a hybrid/crossing. Sports are mutations from one parent and there are also species cultivars which are merely collections from the wild. Could the template be arranged to cover these too? Or is it better to make a similar template for these types of cultivars? See: Category:Tulipa 'Beauty of Apeldoorn' where this should be no "parentage" or at least no "× ?". Best wishes Uleli (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. What about the |spot= solution ? As I did not know about sport, I provided internationalized links.
  2. I also added a surrounding box like {{VN}} and {{SN}}. Do you like it?
  3. I could also add other optional parameter like: |tradenames=
Liné1 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You are realy gifted! Thank you. Yes, if possible add some additional parameters as trade name(s) which should be in Small Caps and without the single quote marks. And one optional for synonyms.
I would like to change the word "descripion" in Cultivar description, as a description in botany and hortiulture usually refers to "how they look" not the cultivar data. Why not just "Cultivar:"?
I was even able to link the sport name (see Category:Tulipa 'Beauty of Apeldoorn').
I do like the box too? Maybe you can fix the box in Template:WikispeciesCompact too. The box is short and makes not too nice line breaks, see Category:Narcissus sect. Tazettae. It would be more consistent if it had the same length as the other boxes.
Again, thank you for your job Uleli (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. I added |tradenames=
    • with Small caps as you said. Is that what you wanted ?
    • I specified in the doc that it should be the trade names in the original country and that {{VN}} should be used for other languages.
  2. I did not add anything about synonyms because {{SN}} is meant for that.
  3. I suppressed "description" from the title
  4. About the {{WikispeciesCompact}}: personnaly, I don't like it. I prefer {{wikispecies}} which is on the right: Varanus for example.
Cheers 19:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinornis rossii

Salut, j'ai récemment déplacé ce dessin vers la Category:Thinornis rossii (que j'ai créée àpour l'occasion). En fait, si tu lis Auckland Islands Shore Plover tu verras que c'est un oiseau qu'on ne connaît que d'un spécimen, et qu'on ne sait pas si c'est une espèce ou pas. On fait comment dans ce genre de cas pour les cats ? Totodu74 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Un seul spécimen, ce n'est pas beaucoup. Mais tu as bien fait de faire une catégorie. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, et merci pour tes retouches ! :) Totodu74 (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur species

Hi, making categories for most dinosaur species is useless, since most genera are monotypic, and there is no consensus on the validity of those few multiple species thatare included in some genera, and most species are split off into their own genera anyway. In the case of Allosaurus, the europaeus species is not considered Allosaurus, it just haven't been moved anywhere else yet. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you must agree that it is much much simplier to move or rename a species category than have a mess of pictures of 3 to 7 species in the same genus category. It is even worth if pictures of different species are dispatched between Fossil Allosaurus‎ and Allosaurus models‎.
Also if there is a publication telling that Allosaurus europaeus has 75% chance to be more related to genus Antrodemus, it would be very convenient to have the species category to write this info as a note.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In the case of dinosaurs, when there are more than one species, which is rare, one well known species usually dominates a category, as the rest are usually dubiousand hardly even valid. So there is usually no mess to begin with. See Stegosaurus for example. Most skeletons are of S. stenops. Other species are known, which are dubious and probably synonyms, making categories for the few images we have for these wouldn't make sense. As for A. europaeus specifically "It may be a more basal tetanuran,[69] a carcharodontosaurid,[70] or simply a dubious theropod." No need to have a cat for that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The three sentenses you gave me mean that it is a species to be placed elsewhere. Which clearly indicates that a category is needed. Liné1 (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
But we have nowhere to put it, since "Allosaurus europaeus" is an invalid taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
1) The species exists even if many agree that it is badly named
2) Not invalid until it has a new name
Liné1 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There are two problems. It is both a dubious name and it is improperly classified, so if anything, it should be categorised in the closest taxon to it, which would be simply theropoda. It will not get its own genus name unless someone publishes a study that shows it has automorphies. This won't happen any time soon, if ever. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Liné1.bot (monotypic vs. synonym)

Hello Liné1, the Liné1.bot did many changes of redirects of species categories (for example Category:Atriplex latifolia) with the reason: "ist xxx monotypisch und enhält nur yyy (Abgefragt bei 31. Oktober 2012)". But the true reason should be, that xxx is a synonym of yyy. Can this be altered somehow?
(and not so important, but the perfect german translation of the sentence above is "xxx ist monotypisch und enthält nur yyy (Abgefragt am 31. Oktober 2012.) Greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a bug in my bot: it should have used {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}.
Do you have any idea how to revert all User: Liné1bot contributions on the date "1 novembre 2012" ?
About the german translation, could you look at {{Monotypic taxon category redirect/i18n}} ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I corrected the german error: depending on the presence of a source "Nach <sources>, ist <father> monotypisch" or "<father> ist monotypisch"
Liné1 (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for managing all these bots and templates :) --Thiotrix (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome my friend ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

re ‎Excellent travail

oh shit, I'm terribly sorry - categories are not my typical "Wikipedia environment" and I completely forgot about the sort key :( I fear I added in the last roughly 4 weeks many hundred cats without any structured sorting....

And thanks a lot for the praise! you can track my progress at fr:Utilisateur:Rbrausse/IUCN maps.

Greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

PS I think I fixed my error: All new cats are now sorted correctly. Cheers, Rbrausse (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. I did change your old categories. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Convert all interlaced JPGs

Hello, can you by any chance give a look at this bot work request? Thanks, Nemo 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend. My bot is really limited to biology categories. Sadly I cannot help you. Sorry again. Best regards Liné1 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nemo 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merci

Salut Liné1, merci pour les changements de catégories de certains fichiers importés par le Open Access Media Importer. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

De rien mon ami. C'est bien normal. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Varzea et Mabuya bistriata

Je pense qu'il serait mieux de rediriger Mabuya bistriata à Varzea bistriata, pas l'invers. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done J'hésite toujours à le faire quand ReptileDB a plusieurs synonymes pour une espèce. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
D'accord. Merci. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)