User talk:Thiotrix

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Thiotrix!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Category:Amaranthaceae[edit]

Hello my german friend,
I saw your modification on Category:Amaranthaceae. Are you sure that you prefer to reference Wikispecies (that is not really loved on commons, because wikispecies never provides any reference. That is the case for Amaranthaceae: you don't know were the list comes from) over APWebsite which is very well know ?
Best regard Liné1 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Liné1, the Amaranthaceae on wikispecies were edited by myself (botanist) using the most recent phylogenetical research. So the lists of subfamilies and genera refer to the actual state of knowledge. Thanks for your notice, that I just forgot to add the references there.--Thiotrix (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. 99of9 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

99of9 hat wohl vergessen das Recht dann auch noch zu erteilen, ich habe es eben gemacht (wollte es eh machen, und sah dann erst die Nachricht von 99of9 hier). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Urhebernamen[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix, danke für deine wertvollen Beiträge! Eine kleine Bitte/Tipp, um klarer zu machen, dass der Fotograf selbst das Bild hochgeladen hat: kannst du deinen Namen bei Bildern wie File:Haloxylon griffithii 1.jpg auf deiner Benutzerseite verlinken ([[user:Thiotrix|Dein Name]])? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Chondrus crispus[edit]

Hi Thiotrix,

Could this two also be Chondrus crispus?: File:Broadstairs - Chromalveolata sp. 8.jpg and File:Broadstairs - Chromalveolata sp. 14.jpg? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri, I am not sure if this is an algae at all, it could probably also be a colony of marine animals like Bryozoa (see here). The algae in the background is a Fucus species, identifiable by its midrib. Regards --Thiotrix (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

fucus[edit]

Hi Thiotrix,

Could this be Fucus vericosus? File:Broadstairs - Chromalveolata sp. 1.jpg. Take care. DenesFeri (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, clearly not. Fucus vesiculosus has paired gas bladders. I do not know, what this grape of gas bladders can be. That's why I put it in category:Unidentified Fucus.--Thiotrix (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. DenesFeri (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ulvaceae[edit]

Hello Thiotrix,
I just reverted your modification on Category:Ulvaceae.
Your justification seems perfect, but we should not alter information when we provide its source. (It is like quoting a famous literature author but altering its sentense: that should not be done ;-)).
You could add a note, (either with |note= or directly under the page) to explain the merge of Enteromorpha and Ulva and siting your source.
And maybee duplicate the information in Category:Ulva.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Liné1, the reference for my change is Enteromorpha on Algaebase which quotes "Taxonomic status: currently regarded as a synonym of Ulva.". As Algaebase was already cited as source of the list, I just removed Entermorpha. You can actualize the Ulvaceae genus list, if you like. Best regards --Thiotrix (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, sorry. It is AlguaBASE that is very strange: In Ulvaceae they list Enteromorpha but you have to go to Enteromorpha to know that it has been merged in Ulva.
I apology, will revert my revert and say the contrary ;-)
I really need to investigate AlguaBASE to understand their strange display
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thiotrix, I saw your update of some of the AlgaeBASE genus list. This is totally my fault.
When we go in AlgaeBASE taxonomy, we just need to see the "# Species" column.
0 means that the genus is considered invalid. I did not know. Mea culpa and thank you for correcting me.

As I look at your contributions, I think you could use WikiBioReferences.
It is a very simple free java graphic tool for wikicommons. You type the name of the taxon, click search => It will give you {{Taxonavigation}}+{{VN}}+{{Genera}}+{{AlgaeBASE genus}}+interwiki... that you just need to copy in the wikicommons page.
It is very simple to install.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Merci and thank you for your useful informations. And about the algaebase genus and species lists: I think we should add the date, when these date were accessed, because the database will change with new research results. Greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my thought. I did that last month on the french templates ;-). The hard part is that we need to modify all templates of Category:Biology external link templates + {{Taxoconflict}}, {{Single}}, {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Genera2}}, {{Species}} & {{Species2}} to add a parameter |accessdate=
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend
I just added |accessdate= to {{Taxoconflict}}, {{Single}}, {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Genera2}}, {{Species}} & {{Species2}}
I did upgrade WBR to version 377 to generate |accessdate=
As you can see in the main dialog, the version is displayed at the to right.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your upgrade! Greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Need your advice[edit]

Hello Thiotrix,
In Codium tomentosum‎, Codium vermilara‎, Laminaria digitata‎ you added some {{Taxa|varietas|...}}
Shouldn't I modify {{subspecies}} to allow {{subspecies|rank=varietas|...}} ?
Of course, I would modify WBR to follow this.
I did almost the same for {{genera|rank=subgenus|...}} and {{species|rank=nothospecies|...}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,
I added the varieties as it was the output of your useful Bioreferences-program. So I thought they are usually included in the categories. Do you list varieties and forms, or do you erase them from the WBR output? For my opinion as a taxonomist, I think the rank of subspecies should be sufficient for wiki commons. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, they are not really needed. Most of the time, I suppress them; except if there really are some varieties sub-categories. Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

source[edit]

Hello my friend,
About this modification: you can totally have 2 sources but only with the 2 following syntax: "|source=AlgaeBASE & ITIS}}" or "|source=AlgaeBASE|source2=ITIS}}".
It is good to have someone working on alges because commons was missing alges contributors.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your excellent work[edit]

Hello Thiotrix,

  1. I added a rank "(unranked)" to Archaeplastida because it is needed by {{Taxonavigation}}
  2. Are you willing to put this Archaeplastida in all subtaxons of Plantae ? (It could be done throught the class templates of course)
  3. Do you really need to create galleries with the same content as their categories (Ceramium virgatum for example) ?

Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. Oh, thank you.
  2. I guess this will not be necessary, as everybody will find the Plantae. I made the category Archaeplastida, so that red algae could be found under eukaryota. They were just categorized under "Algae", which is not a "real" taxon.
  3. Of course those one-image-galleries are not beautiful. Do you know if the images are found, especially by the Encyclopedia of Life, if they are in a category without a gallery? With time, I hope that the stock of algal images will grow ... Regards from --Thiotrix (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. you are welcome ;-)
  2. OK, cool
  3. This eol thing is a nonsense. Nowdays only categories are maintained. EOL should query both categories and galleries. I am already on it ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Orthoptera species file[edit]

Hello my friend,
Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage is full of pages containing references to "Orthoptera species file".
So we need to improve our templates:

  • I will allow source=Orthoptera species file. But first we must agree on the source label. For this source=, do you prefer "Orthoptera species file" or a shorter version like "OrthopteraSF". Of course, the display should be as on the web site "Orthoptera species file") ?
  • I should create a template to provide links to Orthoptera (like {{ITIS}}). Same question: what name for the template: {{Orthoptera species file}} or {{OrthopteraSF}} or {{Orthoptera}} ?

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,
sorry, I did not realize that only specific sources are under correct usage. The Orthoptera-website calls itself "Orthoptera Species File" and "OSF" (but that abbrevation is too cryptic and probably not unique). Your proposal of "OrthopteraSF" seems good to me, both for source and template. Thank you for your work, and greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Done: source=OrthopteraSF + {{OrthopteraSF}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aeolacris caternaulti(i)[edit]

Beware, there appears to have an error in the name of the species for: Orthoptera Species in Aeolacris caternaulti File link. there is an i and not two at the end of Caternault. [1] --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In Orthoptera Species File the spelling with only one i is listed just as synonym: Orthoptera Species File link: Aeolacris caternaultii. The typus is listed with two i, too: Xiphicera caternaultii --Thiotrix (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is a mistake, I took myself. Refer to the original publication, I gave you the link. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Small gift[edit]

Hello my friend,
If you take the last version of WBR, you will see some {{OrthopteraSF}}.
Of course, this is only step1: you will receive only {{OrthopteraSF}} + synonym if the taxon is not valid.
In the next version, I will also return {{Taxa}}.
Hope you enjoy. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,
that is very kind of you and will be extremely helpful for my work! Thank you, my friend :)
(On Orthoptera species file, the "simple search" does not find any species, for this purpose the "binomial search" has to be used. Your new WBR-Version gives results for genera. Curiously not for all of them, for example not for Phaneroptera, I don't know why. Maybe the search options have to be modified?)
Best whishes, cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello
  1. It should return results for all ranks.
  2. Of course there can be bugs. I discover many bugs by myself as I developped WBR for me at the beginning. But my french users describe a lot of bugs ;-)
  3. For Phaneroptera, the reason is that the search returns 2 entries: subgenus Phaneroptera (Phaneroptera) Serville, 1831 + genus Phaneroptera Serville, 1831. In that case WBR is not capable to decide.
Next version will return subtaxa also !
Cheers Liné1 (talk)
I just uploaded version 388 of WBR. It will provide subtaxa list. If you could test it and find potential bugs.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Liné1
your new version of WBR works well and gives results for all Orthoptera taxon ranks - except for species level, as I mentioned before. With the help of this useful program, I was able to give taxonavigation boxes and database- and interwiki-links to all Orthoptera categories on commons. (Before that, I completed this work for Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, Phaeophyceae and Angiosperm family Amaranthaceae).
Thank you for your constant work on WBR. If I could help with categorization etc. in other plant groups, please let me know. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of genus that does not provide species list ?
I see a bug when the genus has a subgenus (case of Phaneroptera). In that case, the search returns genus Phaneroptera + subgenus Phaneroptera (Phaneroptera), in which case WBR is blocked.
I am willing to continue working on WBR for OrthopteraSF even if you finished the work on commons, because I have users on fr.wikipedia ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the species lists work well, if the genus does not has a subgenus with equal name. But on species level, there is usually no output. For example, search for Phaneroptera falcata gives NCBI link: Phaneroptera falcata , but not Orthoptera Species File link: Phaneroptera falcata . So I had to type the id-number manually. Greetings from --Thiotrix (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I found the species bug.
So version 392 now finds species also.
Today I will work on the case where the search returns multiple items.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Orthoptera genus Tropidacris[edit]

I am not a connoisseur in Orthoptera but I posed the question to our curator of entomology Toulouse Museum. Best regards --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

APG families[edit]

Hello my friend,
be carefull with APG families. It was a complex compromise between different contributors:

  • First APWebsite section which is a real source of classification.
  • Then APGIII section
  • Then Cronquist section
    • Cronquist {{Taxonavigation}}
    • Cronquist {{Genera}} from ? or from ITIS which was the only online reference for Cronquist.
      But now ITIS does not follow Cronquist nor APG...I don't know

We did not really agree (for APG families only!) on {{VN}} position nor {{wikispecies}}. So at the end, for APG families only, {{VN}} went at the beginning and {{wikispecies}} at the end.
So I don't mind if you merge APWebsite and APGIII {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Genera}}. But, please

  • keep {{APWebsite}} with the comment in it
  • don't add any reference to WoRMS as it is not an interesting source for plants (it has only aquatic plants ;-))
  • don't add ITIS {{Genera}} in APWebsite and APGIII section (ITIS has never followed APG or APWebsite)
  • don't update ITIS {{Genera}} in Cronquist section (ITIS does not follow Cronquist strictly anymore)

We can also suppress the Cronquist section, but if we do, we must suppress all ITIS references. In the future, I intend to add better sources for plants to WBR: tropico .... Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend, thank you for your advice. I promise to keep the structure of familiy pages for the future, even if the multiple taxonavigations look somewhat irritating for "normal visitors". And as to better databases, like Tropicos or The Plant List, they all are not free from errors. (The best source is still the original taxonomic research work, if available, of course ;). Joyeux Noël! --Thiotrix (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree about the strangeness of mutliple taxonavigations.
It is all my fault: I was negociating the migration to APG so I proposed to keep both classification ;-(
In a few monthes, I intend to work on angiosperms: families and genus (I wont provide Taxonavigation and links for species before my retirement ;-))
If you want, we could work in pair: suppressing Cronquist, provide Genus lists in families cat, Species list in genus cat...
But I need to improve WBR first.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend, you can download the latest version of WBR, it contains the Tropicos.
I have a problem with the list of subtaxa. When I look at Selaginella Subordinate Taxa:
  • I am limited to access the first 100 subtaxa. I failed to:
    • increase the count per page
    • to access the second page by url (clicking on the arrow does some scripting magic that WBR cannot reproduce)
  • Then I found the printable list. Which list all subtaxa. But contains really all subtaxa (even intermediate ranks like tribes, subtribes...). But it does not display the rank so I cannot filter the list.
I intend to write to them but I fear that the response will not please me.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Liné1, the Tropicos list of subtaxa is not really useful, as it is not a list of accepted taxa, but lists all subtaxa that have ever been described. This is the reason for the great number of often hundreds of subtaxa. Just after clicking on a single name, you can see if a subtaxon is accepted. I don't know, if WBR can manage with this sort of database? But good luck! Greetings --Thiotrix (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that it is so bad. Look at Selaginella species list: invalid name have a * or ** in the ! column. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, invalid names are reliably marked (that means: names that have no valid latin description or that existed already). But accepted names and synonymes cannot be distinguished by the Tropicos list. Look at these Genera of Brassicaceae, for example, you see genus Cardaria without **synonym mark. If you click on the name, you will see, that the name is not an accepted name but a synonym of Lepidium. The same with the subtaxa of Cardaria. I usually look both at Tropicos and The Plant List to see if a name is accepted. But in some cases, The Plant List quotes Tropicos as source, but states the contrary.... Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Pffff, now I am totally depressed. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with categorizing media files[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix,

danke für deine Hilfe beim Kategorisieren von Dateien in Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review. Frohes Fest! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I need your advice.[edit]

Hello my friend.
I need an advice in botanic.
Are you aware that APGIII described its classification with a lot of clades with english names and without ranks (Like core eudicots, rosids).
But Chase & Reveal 2009 published a paper A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III proposing a classification compatible with APGIII but with some clades replaced by taxa with ranks and latin names (Like Superorders Amborellanae and Austrobaileyanae).
It seems that this classification is more and more used (ITIS, tropicos, Taxonomicon).
Are you aware of this alternate classification ? I would have questions about it.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Liné1,
I have no knowledge about Chase & Reveal's alternate classification, and how far their proposal is accepted among taxonomists. But possibly some botanists at de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie at the german wikipedia will know the answers, if you would like to ask your questions there. Good luck, --Thiotrix (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I did ask my question to them. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropicos[edit]

Hello my friend,
I created source=NCBI & Tropicos for you ;-)
I really need to improve Tropicos returned subtaxa, even if I have to request the accepted page for each of the subtaxa.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your constant work on WBR! And when you improve the list of subtaxa, would you please correct the misspelled "Topricos", too? Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Which misspelled ? Liné1 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
In the subtaxon list, source=Topricos, instead of Tropicos ;) --Thiotrix (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Whoa. You should have told me.
Try version 420
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

any problems with[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_flower_1468.JPG - my local info suggest that SatuSuro (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problems with the image. If you are sure about the species, you can remove the "unidentified" category. --Thiotrix (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
nah, I'll double check some other sources in the next week, first - best to be sure - I did a major mis-name on the ants in my recent uploads - still havent fixed that... cheers SatuSuro (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Species question[edit]

Can you explain what's going on here? I was following the conservatory's tags. Are these synonyms? Are you saying the conservatory misidentified the plant? or what? - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel, yes, these names are synonymes. According to [tropicos], the accepted name is now Mammillaria decipiens subsp. camptotricha (Dams) D.R. Hunt. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for categorising File:TU Delft Botanical Gardens 84.jpg.
Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ThePlantList (After Tropicos)[edit]

Hello my friend,
I need, again, a botanical advice.
I just added ThePlantList to WBR and I wanted to know how truthworthy for species lists.
You certainly remember that we had this discussion about Tropicos.
Thannk to you, WBR now provides {{Species}} from tropicos with note=list containing potentially synonyms.
Should I do the same with ThePlantList ?
Best regards, 14:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Line1,
especially authors of the english wikipedia rely much on ThePlantList, so the inclusion in WBR would be helpful. About the note=list containing potentially synonyms, that depends on how you will sample the species: only the "accepted" names, or "accepted" + "unresolved" ones, or all names of the list? "Synonyms" are very likely to be really synonyms, and "accepted" names are in most cases really accepted (but all databases have their mistakes here and there). The bulk of "unresolved" names may contain good names, that are just not yet checked by the sources used by TPL, as well as wrong spellings, or just wrong authorities. See Salsola for example. If you plan to include "unresolved" names, you should add the note like for Tropicos. - And thanks for your constant improvement of WBR. Cheers - --Thiotrix (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I was thinking of listing only the "Accepted". In that case, do you think that I should add "note=list of species with the Status 'Accepted'".
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this would give transparency to all users about the data sampled by WBR. Perhaps a shorter note will suffice, like "species listed as 'Accepted'". Cheers - --Thiotrix (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks Liné1 (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Pouteria campechiana[edit]

Hi, I renamed the pictures at your request. Did you also remove the foto from Wikipedia articles or is that something which has to be done yet? --Natuur12 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Natuur12, can they be removed by a bot, or do I have to remove them in each wikipedia? --Thiotrix (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a bot I'm afraid. There are about 12 pictures that need to be replaced. I'm a bit bored so I will replace them. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you! --Thiotrix (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cullen corylifolium[edit]

Hello, I removed Category:Cullen from this because Cullen is a town in Scotland, and I cannot find any evidence that the plant is named after this place. If you know that it is, please feel free to replace. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I added Category:Cullen (Fabaceae) which is the correct category. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Citrŭ x clemantina[edit]

Dear Thiotrix, my collegue user:Sjoerddebruin is trying to fix problems with local commonscats at the Dutch Wikipedia. He asked me the question if the images in this article are corrert. I'm afraid that i don't know the awnser. Could you have a look at it since you know a lot about plants and this matter is quite complicated. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Natuur12, although I'm not a specialist on citrus fruits, I will try to answer your question. Clementines (Citrus × aurantium Clementine-group) are a seedless hybrid of Mandarines and Oranges. The lower image with sectioned parts seems to be a Clementine. But I cannot identify the upper image. For more photos, see Category:Clementines. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and effort. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Invalid names[edit]

Hi, may I ask, why are names like Chalciporus rubinus, Hemileccinum depilatum and Hemileccinum impolitum marked as invalid? Thanks. --Xth-Floor (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In Index Fungorum, these names are treated as synonyms (not current names). From a strict taxonomical view, they are not really "invalid" names (missing a valid description). I use the program WikipediaBioReferences for creating taxoboxes and database links for biological pages and categories. The statement as "invalid" is created by the program for not current names. As this term seems unclear, I will ask the programmer for a correction. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems, that IF missed some published works. E.g. Chalciporus rubinus is considered as current name since 2006, when genus Rubinoboletus was revised and recieved subgenus status (KLOFAC, Wolfgang; KRISAI-GREILHUBER, Irmgard. Die Gattung Chalciporus, ein weltweiter Überblick: The genus Chalciporus, a world-wide survey. In Österreichische Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde). Also genus Hemileccinum is now widely accepted. I'll fix these three cases manualy. --Xth-Floor (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unscharfe Bilder vom Puccinia-Sporen[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix! Vielen Dank für die Kategorisierung und Berichtigung hier auf Commons bei den Pilzen!! Ich hab gesehen, dass du die ganzen unscharfen Sporenbilder nun einsortiert hast. Das bereitet mir etwas Bauchweh, da die Bilder so unscharf sind, dass ich mich schon gefragt habe, ob es nicht besser wäre sie zu löschen. Vielleicht kann user:Mkaercher etwas dazu sagen. Danke und Grüße --Josef Papi (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Josef Papi! Das Kategorisieren der Pilze beschäftigt mich bereits seit dem Herbst, es sind wirklich zahlreiche Bilder seit dem letzten "Aufräumen" dazugekommen. Übrigens sind nicht alle der Puccinia-Sporenbilder unscharf. Diejenigen, die du für ganzlich unbrauchbar hältst, kannst du einfach zur Löschung vorschlagen, dabei wird der Fotograf ja auch um seinen Kommentar gebeten. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Cat-a-lot and categories fyki[edit]

Hi Thiotrix, mistakes may occure, of course :-) As you too, i appreciate very much to use Commons:Cat-a-lot, but please avoid "over-categorization" of 'main' categories as p.e. "Bangalore". Instead, you may use p.e. Category:Bannerghatta Butterfly Park etc ;-) Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for editing and placing the image in the right category :) --Orientalist1979 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fachfrage[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix,
zunächst einmal vielen Dank für Dein eifriges Zuordnen von Orchideen-Fundstücken aus den Tiefen von commons.
Wenn ich Deine vita lese, sehe ich, dass Du auch Expertin für Nomenklaturfragen bist. Darf ich Dir diese Frage stellen:
KEW garden gibt der Naturhybride zwischen zwei Varietäten folgenden Namen: Calypso bulbosa nothovar. kostiukiae [2].
Gelten für Nothovarietates die gleichen oder andere Regeln wie z.B. für Nothosubspecies, Notogenera etc.?
Ist die Schreibweise mit Multiplikationszeichen Calypso × bulbosa nothovar. kostiukiae möglich, falsch oder richtig?
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi
mit Hybriden habe ich mich nicht allzu sehr beschäftigt, deshalb habe ich sicherheitshalber nochmal im Internationalen Code der botanischen Nomenklatur nachgesehen. Der Code gilt für alle natürlichen Taxa (für kultivierte Pflanzen gibt es einen eigenen). Die Regeln für Hybriden stehen im Appendix. "Artikel H.1.1.: Hybridity is indicated by use of the multiplication sign × or by addition of the prefix “notho-” to the term denoting the rank of the taxon." Da Calypso bulbosa eine echte Art und kein Hybrid ist, darf vor dem Artepitheton also kein × stehen. Richtig ist entweder Calypso bulbosa nothovar. kostiukiae oder Calypso bulbosa ×var. kostiukiae (möglicherweise auch Calypso bulbosa var. ×kostiukiae? Darüber steht nichts im Code...). Gruß von --Thiotrix (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Thiotrix, vielen Dank für Deine umfassende Antwort. Im Bekanntenkreis konnte mir keiner helfen. Wenn ich wieder mal nicht weiter weiß, melde ich mich bei Dir. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Flora / Algae[edit]

Hallo! I am writing you about the edits in Category:Algae of Ukraine and Category:Algae of Germany. Flora doesn't meen only plants, it is also algae, and even bacteria. You can check it in Flora. Yours --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

News[edit]

Hello my friend,

  • Do you use the latest WBR ? version 465.
    • I worked a lot on WBR arround synonyms
    • Look at Category:Glaux maritima: I now display the accepted names for each link.
    • By the way, I think that even redirect page should have links to determine if the species name is accepted/synonym...
  • I created {{Unresolved}}. I place it on all species cat that are not really clear.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that it is always a pleasure to look at you contributions ;-) Liné1 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Liné1
Yes I always download the latest version of WBR, and I am very glad with the new features, thanks to you!
I agree with you to place database links on redirect pages, and will do so from now on.
The new template "unresolved" is a very good idea. Here and there there are categories of taxa, which are neither mentioned in databases nor found by google. The english description is ok, but one sentence does not seem quite clear to me: "There is a need for a small study to know if the name is accepted or not and if it is a synonym". Maybe you may write something like "Additional references are needed to decide if the name is either accepted or a synonym". Not all species marked as "unresolved" by ThePlantList are scientifically unresolved, meaning that further research is needed. Sometimes it means just that the people of Kew or Tropicos - which are mostly cited by this database - did not yet include latest studies. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the english sentence. I will use it right away.
I knew about ThePlantList unmeaningful 'unresolved', but I needed an example to complete my drafty sentence ;-).
I forgot to tell you: the good things of adding calls to {{Species}} as you do, is that it helps User:Liné1bot.
When User:Liné1bot finds a genus category with a {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Species}} calls, it copies the Taxonavigation to the species categories !
You can see examples here like this one.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Thiotrix,
User:Liné1 hat mich ebenfalls zu {{Unresolved}} befragt. Ich habe ihm auf meiner Seite [3] geantwortet.
Könntest Du bitte meinen ersten Textentwurf hier {{Unresolved/i18n}} auf sachliche Richtigkeit und Formulierung überprüfen und/oder verbessern?
Vielen Dank und Grüße. Orchi (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hallo Orchi, ich habe den Text noch etwas umformuliert, da es bei den "unresolved" Taxa ja nicht nur um Arten gehen kann. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
....ich danke Dir und grüße. Orchi (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ericales - Camellia sinensis 2.jpg[edit]

Hi Thiotrix,

Are you sure that this is not Camellia sinensis - File:Ericales - Camellia sinensis 2.jpg? I believe that on the label under this plant was written Camellia sinensis. Could you identify the plant correctly? cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please answer. DenesFeri (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello DenesFeri, Camellia sinensis looks like this. Your picture is definitely different. As I do not know this species, it put it in category Unidentified plants, so that an other user may identify it. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Cheers DenesFeri (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank[edit]

hierfür. --4028mdk09 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Category Barnstar.png The Category Barnstar
Awarded for your fantastic work categorizing the photographs from Category:Photographs from CSIRO ScienceImage. Keep up the great work! 99of9 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wellcome Images Barnstar[edit]

Wellcome barnstar.gif Wellcome Images volunteer barnstar
Thank you for helping to categorise the Wellcome Image library uploads. You are in our project hall of fame for your work! Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)