User talk:Liné1/2014

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.


Hi Liné - I fear I'm not fully sure what your request is, I'm not too familiar with workings of templates! Otherwise, I also have serious doubts as to whether we should support itis links at all, at least not for plants or birds, as it is not (in both my experience, and that of several others), not a good database to use: out of date, partisan (not independent), and very incomplete but without saying so (with the unwritten implication that taxa it doesn't list, are not valid). Any thoughts?

All the best for 2014! - MPF (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

KEW list

Dear Liné1,
Bravo, Bravissimo! Your Kew list for nothospecies is better in function as the own search line of KEW.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Liné1. Question: Category:Cultural heritage monuments should be used for: a) files, b) categories, or c) the two. Thanks. Allforrous (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, I am working on the biology part of wikipedia.
But there is a banner saying that it should contain only categories.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Synonyms in WikipediaBioReferences

Hello Liné1,
WBR marks the database link of a name as "invalid", if it is not a current name. This statement seems a bit problematic, because in taxonomy an "invalid name" means, that it has been published without a valid description or is in conflict with the rules of the International Codes of Biological Nomenclature. So it does not mean the same as "synonym", which is a not current or not accepted name. Can you please replace the misleading word? - Greetings --Thiotrix (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure it is in WBR, but more certainly in the commons template (I am still certainly guilty ;-)). What template are you talking of ({{Tropicos}}...) ? Because from what you say, this seems to be botanic specific ?
Cheers 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
here is an example Category:Leccinum percandidum: the first Index Fungorum name is not accepted and is boldly marked as "invalid". - Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, then problem is in {{Fungorum species}}.
All the templates of Category:Biology external link templates have the same display 'Invalid' except {{ThePlantList species}} and {{Tropicos}} that displays 'Considered a synonym'
I did put 'Considered a synonym' after [discussion].
  1. Do you like 'Considered a synonym' ?
  2. What template should I impact:
But in Zoology, 'Invalid' is correct, I think.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
For ThePlantList, "considered a synonym" is ok, as we discussed earlier, because of its third group of "unresolved" names. For other plants (Kew, Tropicos), algae, and fungi, I would prefer "not accepted" instead of "invalid": these names are mostly synonyms, additionally some rejected or illegitimate names, and only very few invalid (= not validly published) ones. But for zoology, the tems invalid seems to be correct, I think. - Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. That's the reason why I created those templates in the first place ;-)
By the way, take the last WBR there are a lot of correction for commons.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Thiotrix (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Script error

Bonjour Liné1, je ne sais pas si cela te concerne mais il y a des "script error" sur les références, par exemple sur Category:Coendou --Salix (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

C'est un bug wikipedia. Mais j'ai fait un contournement. Merci beaucoup. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Bravo. C'est rentré dans l'ordre. --Salix (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Liné1, regarding your question about mw.wikibase.getEntity() in Module:Wikidata4Bio (on my talkpage): I have little experience with LUA on commons, and am currently limited in time. I suggest you wait for other responses or ask the question elsewhere, for instance at d:Wikidata:Project chat. HenkvD (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Melanocoryphus dans Lygaeidae

Voulez-vous excuser mon erreur, Face-sad.svg . Estimez-vous utile de mentionner le nom de ce genre cité par Fauna Europaea dans la sous-famille Lygaeinae, de la famille Lygaeidae et par BioLib dans la famille Lygaeidae?

Je ne suis pas assez expérimenté en Wikimedia Commons pour en juger...

ZorglubAB (d) 30 janvier 2014 à 18:50 (CEST)

Bien sur c'est utile.
Dupliquez la liste existante et changez la source par source=BioLib ou source=Faunaeur.
Vous trouverez la liste des source {{Taxasource}}.
Si vous voulez, je peux vous ajouter des sources.
Amities Liné1 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon mon ami

Je n'ai pas vu, que tu a changer qc. J'aime bien separer "species, genera, tribus, etc.." du autres catégories comme " countries" etc. J'ai reprend mes changes.
Amicalemant. Orchi (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (This text with help of my son ;-) )


Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (APW) does recognize this family, with genera Francoa Cavanilles and Tetilla de Candolle. Kew does not recognize the family but it is recognized on Tropicos Francoaceae A. Juss. with a convincing reason and Wikispecies Francoaceae. I think Angiosperm Phylogeny Website uses Palazzesi, L., Gottschling, M., Barreda, V., & Weigend, M. (2012) First Miocene fossils of Vivianiaceae shed new light on phylogeny, divergence times, and historical biogeography of Geraniales, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 107: 67-85., as a recent major piece of evidence. Regards Andy.

Yes, this is problematic.
Look at Francoaceae, I tried to explain the fact that it is recognized by some and not recognized by other.
I will modify the genus Francoa to display that info.
By the way, we had the same problem with Ledocarpaceae which was recognized by APWebsite until recently.
Regards 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Genera of Caryophyllaceae

Hello Liné1, do you know what's wrong with this category? Why is it empty and not filled automatically? Thanks ---Thiotrix (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you must modify Template:Caryophyllaceae (APG) to make it work.
I did it for you.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not know these family templates. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata merge request

Hi Liné - could you merge and please? They both refer to the same species. I don't know how to do it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done
It is quite easy in fact.
  1. Go to
  2. On the top right there there are 4 menus: 'Read', 'View History', a star, a triangle. Click on the triangle.
  3. Select 'Merge it with'.
It is that easy
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lepidoptera and Coleoptera templates

Hi, did you ever sort out replacing Template:Lepidoptera and Template:Coleoptera with appropriate calls to

{{Taxonavigation| include=Lepidoptera (include) | ...

etc.? HYanWong (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I plan to run my bot User:Liné1bot to transform calls to {{Lepidoptera}} and {{Coleoptera}} into {{Taxonavigation| include=Lepidoptera (include) | ...
But it involves some java code writing.
When this summer I will have a busy schedule.
So maybee in september.
Cheers 14:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Good luck. HYanWong (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcluding Taxonavigation from category pages

Hi Liné, I've been chatting to User:MPF about including Taxonavigation templates on taxon subcategories: the example he gave was copying the {{Taxonavigation}} from Category:Milvus milvus onto Category:Milvus milvus in flight. His rationale – which seem reasonable to me – was that most of the images of this species are taken in flight, and the taxonomic identification in this subcategory is likely to be certainly as secure as in the parent category.

I suggested that, to avoid duplicating taxonomies on different pages, he might like to transclude the Taxonavigation from the main species page by placing

{{Category:Milvus milvus}}

at the top of Category:Milvus milvus in flight. To avoid transcluding extra categories, I also suggested surrounding the Taxonavigation template on the main species page with <onlyinclude> tags. It would also be possible to do this for the Milvus milvus gallery page, and that way the taxonomy is declared in a single place, making changes in classification much easier to implement. In fact I've done this for Milvus milvus to test it out, and it seems to work.

I just wondered what you thought of this idea: good or bad? Or if you had any other useful suggestions? HYanWong (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not a fan of such inclusion.
Kersti Nebelsiek does the same kind of things: Casuariiformes (the modification) and Casuariiformes.
But he prefers to surround categories with 'noinclude'
When you prefer to surround {{Taxonavigation}} with 'onlyinclude'.
Your 2 technics are not really compatible.
Why don't you use his technic and inherih in Category:Milvus milvus in flight of the {{VN}}, references and interwikis ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
For a first trial I wanted to make as minimal an alteration as possible, hence not including the references etc. I don't really mind whichever technique is used (and it will probably be User:MPF who adds anything to subpages, so I'll let him know what the consensus is). But I'm interested in why you aren't keen on inclusion. Would you prefer the whole Taxonavigation section to be copied and pasted into subpages (and run the risk of the taxonomies getting out-of-sync), or do you think it is a better idea not to have any Taxonavigations on species subpages, whether done by inclusion or otherwise? I'm don't have terribly strong opinions either way, so would be interested in what experienced biology editors like you think. HYanWong (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to explain my reluctance:
I think that it is mainly because when contributors edit a category or gallery they don't expect it to be included elsewhere (When templates are made for that).
We cannot check easely if and where it is transcluded (We can see that here).
So maybe we need a template to display on Category:Milvus milvus: "This category is included here" ?
But I agree that there is a need.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You mean like this? I've stuck it in the no include section so that it only appears on the category on which the Taxonavigation is defined, and put a back link in that only appears on pages which transclude it. I wonder if you would disapprove that I've transcluded it on the gallery page too? HYanWong (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
What you did is exactly what User:Kersti Nebelsiek does.
Yes, your 2 notes are very helpful.
I wonder how we could do that in a template.
Maybee a template {{NoteTransclusion}} taking the page/category/file calling {{NoteTransclusion}}
In your case it would by {{m|NoteTransclusion|Category:Milvus milvus}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Glad you think it's OK. I had a look at your {{NoteTransclusion}} and can't quite see how it works - it seems not to use the includeonly and noinclude tags. If it's also intended for use in the subpages, I'm not sure that's so good. Better I reckon to put both notes into the wikitext of the base category page, and not have to put anything on each of the subpages, apart from the transclusion call. And I wonder if there's a way to avoid having to type in the actual name of the calling page - some sort of programmatic way of getting the current page title that could be passed into the template call. HYanWong (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I reckon the ideal is a single template that you stick in the main category page like {{m|NoteTransclusion|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} which expands into <includeonly>{{Note:}} This information is taken from {{{1}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Note:}} This category page is also included on [{{urlencode:{{{1}}}}}&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 other pages]</noinclude>. I'm not sure if that's possible, or what the value of {{FULLPAGENAME}} will be if it's on a page that is transcluded. And of course, it still leaves the need to add <noinclude>s by hand around the categories that are called later in the file. HYanWong (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
N.B. This looks useful for my suggestion. HYanWong (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand this now, sorry for the confusion. I've also created a substitution-only version {{NoteTransclusion/subst}} which can be used when adding the template to the main category page by simply pasting {{subst:NoteTransclusion/subst}} which saves having to type out the actual pagename. I haven't documented any of this though. HYanWong (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes {{subst:NoteTransclusion/subst}} would work fine. Maybee we need to document both in {{NoteTransclusion}}. 09:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Liné & Yan for working on this! Can I assume it's safe to proceed with adding {{Category:Xxxx xxxx}} to pages and subcategories now? For Liné: the main purpose of starting this discussion was to enable the pickup by EoL of images in species subcategories. As EoL is more interested in images of natural life, my proposal is to add the transclusions to subcategories with natural images (e.g. Category:Xxxx xxxx in flight, Category:Xxxx xxxx (male), Category:Xxxx xxxx in Germany, etc.), and not to subcategories with non-natural images (e.g. Category:Xxxx xxxx (captive), Category:Xxxx xxxx (cultivated), Category:Xxxx xxxx in zoos, etc.) which are of low interest to EoL. Please bear this in mind if adding transclusions ;-) Also subcategories for infraspecific taxa (e.g. Category:Xxxx xxxx subsp. yyyy) need to have their own taxonav template with the additional infraspecific taxon line(s), so should not have transclusions. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oula, having a behavior specific for EOL is really weird.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, although I'm also keen on getting something that works for EoL, I agree with Liné that we shouldn't be changing stuff on Commons specifically to tackle an EoL issue. However, I think the two are entirely compatible: where subcategories are essentially used by people who might want to know taxonomic information about this particular species, then it seems quite reasonable to me to transclude a Taxonavigation template. This is especially the case for nested subcategories or others where the connection with the main taxonomic category is not obvious. On the other hand, it can't be an automatic thing, as there are many categories such as Category:Books_about_horses which are subcategories of a taxonomic category Category:Equus_ferus but for which a Taxonavigation is not appropriate. There will be some edge cases, of course, but I'm assuming these will be resolved by common consent among Commons users, and EoL will just have to deal itself with any cases that don't fit its particular use case. HYanWong (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Botanic and category suppression

I have restored ctgr's, please create redirects. Regards, --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Wikispecies now follows the 7 sub-family circumscription for Lamiaceae, perhaps Commons should follow this? There is still work to be done for incertae sedis, but we are getting there! Thanks.Andyboorman (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem.
I finish Fabaceae and I will do Lamiaceae. There does not seem to be a big difference between our 3 sources (species follows GRIN), except Ajugoideae and Teucrioideae that have almost the same content.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Help by an expert

Salu Liné1,
could you help me with your specialist knowledge please?
Problem: Wikispecies - wikispecies:Template:FOC25 - e.g. wikispecies:Arachnis (Orchidaceae).
Could you change the software of the template, that the used template "BASEPAGENAME" is in function without e.g. (Orchidaceae) or (orchid) in the title?
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC) me reveille et toute est près toutesuite :-). Merci beaucoup. Orchi (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Liné, I think your automatic adding of a Taxonav to Category:Komba is problematic. Do we need a separate Komba (genus) page? HYanWong (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right. What was I thinking. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Asterina pectinifera


Please look at the talk page of this category. cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The same thing with Asterina miniata. DenesFeri (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome Liné1 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot applying to redirects

I noticed your bot added a header to a REDIRECT page, here. Please don't do that. 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It is also a pleasure to meet you.
What you describe is obviously a bug. I will correct it right away.
Best regards, Liné1 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pachliopta aristolochiae

Why this is redirecting to Category:Atrophaneura aristolochiae? The current acceptable name seems Pachliopta aristolochiae. Jee 17:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my friend. I am not much of an entomologist. So I cannot really answer your exact question.
But I can tell you one thing:
In commons, for species, we usually avoid to rename categories.
This because:
  • renaming a category means modifying all its media. (even if it is easy with cat-a-lot)
  • species are often renamed (sometimes back to an old name)
There are exceptions of course:
  • the existing category is obviously badly named (orthograph, really deprecated name...)
What I would do in such case:
  • provide as much sources as you can about the name and synonymy in the category (I just tried, but I do not know much sources)
  • move the more accepted species first in {{VN}} (I just did)
  • add "(Prefered by ...)" at the end of this first VN entry.
I hope it helped.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand. I had reversed many such categories and re-cat all files with the help of VFC. But I think it better to leave them as they are, now onward. But the reason "Pachliopta aristolochiae is a synonym of Atrophaneura aristolochiae" is misleading. :( Jee 17:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about the message.
Truth is: I am not english ;-) neither the best biologist ;-)
Do you have an idea of another message ?
We have to tell that the 2 names are synonyms, but there is no assurance wich one is the more accepted.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I will ask Shyamal to look into this. Jee 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not really have a solution for this. I think there are many situations were sources use differing placements without a sound reasoning. I think it would be good to put it in any one of the categories but the text stating something like - "This species has been treated under multiple alternative genus placements and the current name has been chosen over others for convenience. Do not move to other placements unless there is a definite case for the other placement." - of course I think one might also claim that the category rename mechanism is buggy if the contents are not automatically retagged. Shyamal (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Shyamal directed me here! There is no doubt that Pachliopta is the correct generic name as of today. Atrophaneura has only two species in India - varuna & aidoneus. As to why the redirect is so? Probably no Aurelian (Lepidoptera lover) has as yet taken up the job to clean up the Commons! AshLin (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Guys, there are 3 discussions here:
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Taxonav changes

Hi Liné - thanks! That was what I thought too, strange, as he is an admin, so I assumed he knew what he was doing. Would you like to change them back please, I fear to tread on these templates which I know nothing about the workings of ;-) - MPF (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Done, as requested ;-) MPF (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorting of diverses in categories

Salu Liné1, can we find a uniform way?
Category:Iridaceae botanical illustrations etc. you use „*“
Category:Hypericaceae botanical illustrations etc. you delete „*“

I would prefer to separate these Diverses from your automatic produced "Species of -, Genera of - etc. of familia"
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Orchi
I understand as I also like uniform ways.
In fact I don't like "*" because it looks too much "computer" thing ;-)
So what about:
  • Proposition 1:
    • I change all "Species of ", "Genera of " sortkey for "•" or "·" or "°" (Or anything else) (Change in a single template only)
    • all other diverses with sortkey " " (nothing after " ")
  • Proposition 2:
    • all other diverses with sortkey "•" (nothing after "•")
  • Proposition 3:
    • If there is only "Species of" => all other diverses with sortkey " " (nothing after " ")
    • If there is "Species of" and "Genera of" ... => all other diverses with sortkey "*" (nothing after "*")
  • Proposition 4:
    • all other diverses with sortkey "*" (nothing after "*")
If we agree, you can count on me to enforce the new rules ;-)
Look at Category:Iridaceae for the different position of "•" and "·" and "°"
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Salu Liné1,
I would prefer your Proposition 1 (with * for Species of - etc.  ;-)) specially for the friends of the various categories to the top; or Pos. 3.
In the past, I believe, was the most used way your Proposition 3.
(Maybe we can find in the future a category - name for the collection of the various categories.)
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, @Orchi, "propositon 1"
what about "proposition 1bis:
  • all other categories with sortkey " " (nothing after " ")
  • "Species of ", "Genera of " with sortkey "." (which is just after " " but before "?")
I prefer "." because it does not conflict with current "*".
Look at Category:Iridaceae
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
...I agree. Perhaps even two little proposals: to keep " * " for cultivars and a litte sorting change here: Template:TaxonavigationAutoCategory/ (as test)
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
my greenhorn test to sort was not successful. My aim was: under " . " Species of - etc. on the top. :-(. Orchi (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The thing is: Once you modify Template:TaxonavigationAutoCategory/ you have to wait to see the effect. Or do a small modification of a "Species of" cat to see the result. Liné1 (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
...the impatient old man. Orchi (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Taxonavigation/Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy

Hi Liné - this is redundant now, no longer used. Shall I just delete it? - MPF (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can. Thanks. I will clean the remaining usages. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Done! - MPF (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Little problem (DISPLAYTITLE)

Salu Liné1,
I'll try to describe this little problem in short points.
In all articles of genera with disambiguation and name of the family in brackets (e.g. Viola (Violaceae)) is at the end of the page by using the template "DISPLAYTITLE:Viola (Violaceae)" the following text in big red letters:
E.g.: Warning: Display title "Disa (Orchidaceae)" overrides earlier display title "Disa (Orchidaceae)"
Here: [1] I asked in the German Forum.
Answer 1: using "DISPLAYTITLE: Viola (Violaceae)|noerror" like I tried here: [2]
Answer 2: The template:DISPLAYTITLE can be used once in every page and in the Template:Taxonavigation(/taxon) it is used once or twice already.
Is my problem understanable and can you help with a proposal. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hihi. I will correct this issue easely. But I will need a few days. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Salu Liné1,
....I hope you had a few nice (wikifree) days ;-) Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Source KEW & Genera Orchidacearum

Salu Liné1, do you think like here: Category:Acianthus ? I think a good way. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

New source

Salu Liné1, a new question and request. Could you create a new source link for "eMonocot" please? Here my example as desire: Category:Acianthus. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done |source=eMonocot.
Beware that |source= is only for predefined sources (NCBI, GRIN, COI...)
If you want to provide a source with a full url you should use ref=
For example |ref=eMonocot
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
...first of all many thanks. I will test something in the next days. eMonocot shows the latest taxonomy of tribes and subtribes of "Genera Orchidacearum" also e.g. Eriinae. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seems very interesting. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Liste / List

Hi Liné. Should the word "liste" really be spelt "list" in "list genus", "list species" etc in I can't find the source to correct it HYanWong (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoo. Typical french error. ;-)
I just corrected my mistake.
Thanks for the warning.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Sorry to pick up on your Franglais :) HYanWong (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Salut Liné1. Comme sur Wp le manque de fair play de certains membres du projets Bio me courre sur le haricot, j'offre en ce moment plus volontiers mon temps à Commons. J'y est trouvé une Category:Diseases and disorders of plants en friche, que je tente de débroussailler petit à petit afin d'en extraire des recoupements exploitables dans des catégories croisées. Voilà quelques-uns de mes débats existentiels actuels : Doit-on catégoriser "by taxon" ou "by taxa" ? Et quand on a des catégories de parasites/maladies par plante, j'ai créé Category:Diseases and disorders of plants by plant taxa, mais comment titrer dans l'autre sens, pour catégoriser par taxon de parasites/maladies ?‎ J'hésite aussi par exemple à créer Category:Diseases and disorders of Triticum ou Category:Diseases and disorders of wheat. Lequel rediriger pour que les gens s'y retrouvent ? Faut-il absolument conserver la distinction Category:Diseases and disorders of trees et dans ce cas peut-être créer parallèlement une Category:Diseases and disorders of cultivated plants ? As-tu des conseils utiles sur le sujet à me donner ? --Salix (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bienvenue dans ma planque.
Je n'ai, malheureusement, pas trop d'avis sur tes questions.
Je vais regarder un peu ce que je trouve.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Merci de ton aide. Bah, sinon je ferai ça à vue de nez, mais je n'ai pas le balais pour faire ensuite éventuellement des renommages de catégories en masse... --Salix (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Luculia intermedia vs. Luculia pinceana

Hi Liné1,

Luculia intermedia and Luculia pinceana are synonyms? Or they are two different sp.? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
If you look at Luculia intermedia, you will see that ITIS & Kew Gardens 'World Checklist' & The Plant List & Tropicos think that they are synonyms and prefer Luculia pinceana.
Only NCBI has a page for both.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I already see that, but I wanted a more acurate answer. So in my picture File:Gentianales - Luculia intermedia.jpg, which name sould be? Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
More accurate?
Just look at this page.
I think that this is very accurate ;-)
About the picture, don't rename it. Luculia intermedia is a valid name even if Luculia pinceana is prefered.
And preference can change.

OK, than thank you! So it doesn't matter which name it is; both names name the same sp. No? Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Both names are correct and clear. One is simply prefered over the other. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ad. Unresolved on Category:Sollya linearis

Liné1: You redirected the Category:Sollya to Category:Billardiera. I don't know, if it's proper. So I'd moved the files according to your management. I always clean the redirected categories, because they should be empty. That's all. Wieralee (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Genus Category:Ceuthostoma

This genus is not a Moraceae, but a Casuarinaceae: --philmarin (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutaly right.
But why are you telling me that ? There is not even a category Category:Ceuthostoma.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Espace versus astérisque

Bonjour mon Liné1 préféré. Y a t-il une raison précise ou une règle qui m'aurait échappée et qui justifie ce type changement ? Parce que, dans ce cas là, autant que j'arrête de mettre une astérisque à chaque nouvelle catégorie (c'était pour éviter de mélanger les maladies avec les diverses catégories descriptives d'un taxon), ça t'éviterait de courir après moi avec HotCat ;-). --Salix (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Coucou User:Salix (savais tu qu'en faisant ca tu étais notifiée et je n'ai pas besoin de copier la conversation dans ta page de discussion)
Oui, on s'est mis d'accord avec d'autres gros contributeurs pour arrêter les asterix (On peux pas parler de règle ;-)).
J'étais au départ de cette proposition:
? pour Unidentified
† pour fossils
. pour les categories automatiques "Species of XXX", "Genera of XXX"
  • veux rien dire (ca fait trop informatique)
les autres sorkeys non plus (chacun a son explication, sa règle)
Donc on utilise espace suivi de rien comme sorkey. Comme ca on laisse wikimedia trier par ordre alphabétique. Ca tout le monde peut le comprendre ;-)
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oui, je connais pour les notif. Donc je reviens à l'espace traditionnelle. Ok. Le "?" est une très bonne idée en tout cas. --Salix (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Salu Liné1,
Long we had to wait. I'm very glad, that your great VN - Work is in function now. All the best for you and cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
Yes it works.
But I have to improve it again ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)