Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 2009/2

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

Vote: Uppercase vs. lowercase species sort keys[edit]

I think everyone agrees that the species epithet should be used as a sort key for species categories. I assumed it should always be lowercase, however, many (most?) animal categories use uppercase (according to someone very active in this area). I have no preference either way (well, maybe a little bias for lowercase) but I think we should be consistent. So I would like to conduct a little vote to make one or the other policy (or confirm the separate policies for plants and animals). I don't think this is something that needs much debate; it's really just a personal preference so just signing your name is enough. If you pick the last option, possibly add something about what the other organism categories should follow (Fungi, Protista, Bacteria, etc). Also, I plan to have a bot do any necessary conversions so don't worry about the work involved. Rocket000 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a bot a while ago to sort these kind of categories. If you make me a list of genus categories to work on i can easily sort everything. Multichill (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested to see the source for the bot. I had an experience recently where I knew that a bot would be taking images from galleries and categorizing them based on information from the gallery so I made a bunch of categories so the bot could put images there. But, the bot was too stupid to look at that. Perhaps "too stupid" is too strong of a phrase, but it wasn't the kind of software that I would have expected due to the successful history of that author. I would like to see the source code for the bot. -- carol (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Carol, you still don't understand how {{Populate category}} works? Please read the documentation at the template. And please stop the bitching. You can find the source here. Multichill (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase a "great diplomat" perhaps "bitching" is too strong of a word.... I appreciate that you provided the link to the source for this and I think I remember seeing manually pasted templates for this action. To me that means that a lot of manual work was done by both me and MultiChill which would have been better spent researching the names of the galleries which in itself is neither obvious nor easy. Petty arguments about name changes that are explained not so clearly in paywalled papers is just one of the many problems (that one can be avoided via templates though, thankfully). I would really like to see the manual effort be spent where it is most needed, sifting through the online information and not pasting templates. I am possibly "bitching" for many people. -- carol (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(tab reset) One of the many reasons I have been given for the persistence of the situation I have found myself in was "to give others a chance". I have grown to enjoy this situation where every person in the world is the enthusiastic player who is not able to perform equal to his team mates (yes, it is an award winning movie scenario). MultiChill has performed his part very well in this and I am not anxious to see this change any time soon. I very much appreciate the effort all have made to maintain this situation and really love that it is outlined and exemplified so clearly here. Thank you all who have participated to make this a reality. -- carol (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When you put no specific sort key, you have uppercase. Then why lowercase ? Epithet should be lowercase, but only in their complete name with the genus. It is not the case here, as we are talking about a sort key. Wikipedia always uses First letter capital everywhere, then why change ? Liné1 (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The use of uppercase in category sorting is really just a historical leftover in WP. Compare Wiktionary, which sorts regular words by lowercase. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think part of this is a side effect of categories being created by willing users who are not familiar with scientific nomenclature rules for binomial names. I have always corrected pages when I found them.--Kevmin (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean, there is a nomenclature for sorting keys ? Because we are no talking about binomal names where epithet must be lowercase. Liné1 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One concrete benefit is that it can be used to partition category content into species pages and non-species pages e.g. "Banksia maps" under "M", not mixed up under "m" with "Banksia media", "Banksia marginata", "Banksia menziesii", etcetera. "Banksia pests and diseases" under "P", separate from the ten species that start with a "p". Hesperian 11:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a very nice example indeed. Lycaon (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like a real benefit. Any other idea/reason ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Lowercase letters are more attractive? It matches the name itself? If there's any subgenus categories they can go first under the upper case (this is hypothetical as I haven't seen any subgenus categories)? Everything Hesperian pointed out with en:Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name? Rocket000 (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, "more attractive" is really subjectiv! "Matches the name" is also subjectiv if you accept that "Banksia pests" should be sorted under P. en:Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name is not a good sample, as it contains taxa of different ranks without hierarchy.
But I prefer big Consensus. So I will vote like you guys. But we will need a bot. Cheers Liné1 (talk)
Awesome then, we're all in agreement! I'll start working on making a list for multichill's bot. Rocket000 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
MultiChills bot is quite elegant. So elegant that in fact, if just one line is removed it would be a good template for beginning any wikibot with. My question is this, do all of MultiChills bots need such manual effort before it will work? -- carol (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Always lowercase[edit]

  • Rocket000 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Orchi (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Lycaon (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Feels like the only logical way.
  • Stan Shebs It's a little odd-looking, but uppercase is odder-looking.Stan Shebs (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Kevmin (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) This seems to be the only proper and logical way for sorting species cats.
  • Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • MPF (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) It's a basic tenet of the ICBN and ICZN that species names are always lower case.
  • Always use the case of the infrageneric epithet. So "Banksia acanthopoda" goes under "a", but "Banksia ser. Abietinae" goes under "A" not "a" nor "s". See w:Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name for an example. Hesperian 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    Agree, I didn't think about those. Let's assume that's what I meant with these vote options. Rocket000 (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Liné1 (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC) For greater consensus.

Always uppercase[edit]

Lowercase for plants, uppercase for animals[edit]

Progress?[edit]

Any progress on dealing with this by a robot? I'm still encountering a lot of them (e.g. here). When I deal with them I also remove numerous superfluous carriage returns. - MPF (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Slowly but surely. I'm building a list as I work on other TOL stuff. (You can help. You seem to be good at finding them ;) Rocket000 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I only run into them by chance; any I find, I'll deal with as usual. I'd rather assumed that a robot had the advantage of being able to "search and destroy" the whole lot in just a few seconds, maybe it's not that simple! - MPF (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps again - category names[edit]

The category names for categories of maps of taxa are a mix-up at the moment, some are Category:Xxxxx distribution maps, some are Category:Xxxxx range maps, and some are Category:Xxxxx habitat maps. The last is the commonest, but also the least correct in naming. In the past, getting them all to a uniform standard was a pain, needing a user edit to each map, so they never got standardised. Now that it is so easy to change them with CommonsDelinker, I'd like to rename them all to Category:Xxxxx distribution maps (c.f. Category talk:Animal habitat maps). Thought I'd better ask for any objections here first in case anyone has any strong views to the contrary. Comments, anyone? - MPF (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think, it's a very senseful proposal with the possibility to create a "tree" of plant distribution. Agree. Orchi (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay by me. Hesperian 23:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "distribution maps" seems better. Also ok for a tree of categories. But with limits. Perhaps limited to families cat. Liné1 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK! Will go ahead. Agree with creating subcategories in the larger categories, which I'll start on after getting them all renamed; I'll not go below family per Liné's suggestion, except I'll leave existing lower subcategories (e.g. Category:Panthera leo habitat maps) rather than lump them up to their respective families. The old category names, I'll make into redirects. - MPF (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to date sample galleries[edit]

The articles (galleries) listed as samples don't seem to be consistent with current practices for galleries.

Taking a look at the first one, Marshallia obovata

1. Doesn't use a translation table for the common names
2. Doesn't use a taxonavigation box
3. Uses the genus for the category

Taking a look at the second one, Quercus robur
1. Doesn't use a taxonavigation box
2. Places the translation table for common names below the taxonomic description
3. Doesn't have a link to Wikispecies even though a Wikispecies entry exists for Quercus robur
4. Doesn't use small letters for the authority and doesn't list a year for the original description
5. Doesn't make the authority name a link when a Wikimedia entry exists for him.
6. Doesn't place the authority name and year in parenthesis
Walter Siegmund referenced an Orchi, Slaunger, Rocket000 consensus. Is this documented some place?

When I started editing and creating the Anseriforme galleries I tried to find a standard. What I found was these examples which didn't seem to be consistent with what was being done currently. I ended up taking what I liked from the many different ways that people had been creating galleries and using it as the davefoc standard. The davefoc standard seems to be at least reasonably close to current practice except for the issue of categorizing species galleries.

I have had species galleries changed to categorized by family and most commonly I have had the genus removed from the species gallery category. My own preference is to place the species gallery into both its own category and the category of its genus. There is considerable precedent for that but it seems to not be current standard practice. I think galleries should be an exception to the general (and appropriate IMHO) rule that entities are only placed in the most specific category possible. It makes sense that the gallery of a species should be in the genus category and it makes sense that it should be in its own category. That seems to be not an uncommon approach for things other than organisms. I noticed that in Wikipedia cities in Orange County, CA were both in their own category and the cities in Orange County category. One of the advantages is that when you look at the Cities in Orange County category there is a list of Orange County city articles. Despite this, I realize that my ideas might be the minority view on this. If a documented policy exists about this I want to comply with it. --Davefoc (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First things first, let just catch a quick error before moving on:
Doesn't place the authority name and year in parenthesis
This should only be done if the name requires it. It's not just there for looks, it actually means something (parenthesis means it's not the original name the author chose, but they are still referenced for naming it first).
To be honest, I hate most galleries I see. They add absolutely nothing to the category. They are largely created without reason and lack context. The worst is when users create them with a single image. Do these people even know what a gallery means? A single image by definition can not make a gallery. Every image already has it's own page where you can describe it.
That said, let me comment on the categorization thing. There's a basic fundamental rule that things should always be in the most specific category and not in both the specific category and it's parent. Overcategorization is a serious problem on Commons (largely thanks to bots), and that's why it may appear as the norm. Because it's so common. It's not to bad in the TOL, but some double categorization exists as a result of our general shift from galleries to categories.
To me galleries are supplemental to the category and thus you should go to the category first anyway. The gallery is only there if you're interested in getting a little info on the images. However, I understand your reasoning, and want to suggest that a better solution would be to use something like {{species|linkto=gallery}} on the genus category page which will provide a complete list of the species galleries. (IMO, a nice neat list looks better than the category listing anyway). Well, you already know my opinions so let's see what others have their say. Rocket000 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Putting authority in parenthesis when name has changed since original description

I didn't know that. Thank you. This makes the point I think, that the sample galleries should be improved so that information like this can be disseminated.

  • Rockt000 antipathy towards galleries and other issues with gallery/categories

I have read through the discussions on this and understand that it is a difficult issue with different opinions. Has anybody thought about combining gallery and category functions into a single page for the TOL project? The page would display a count of all the files and subcategories in the category by default and the user could choose to enable the display of all of them if he so chose. By default the page would show the gallery data if it had been created.

One additional idea here is that the location and sex be embedded in a standardized way within the image metadata so that image titles could automatically display location and sex data if that option was selected for the page. With that option turned on a lot of species pages might be created without any editing at all, since sex and location data is the most common information in species page galleries.

  • Use of {{species|linkto=gallery}} in categories

As I understand this it would require the user to create a complete list of species and would not automatically make a list of the galleries present in that category. That misses the point a bit of what I like to see in the genus category. I would like to see a list of the gallery pages that actually exist in it automatically compiled by the computer. A way to accomplish that is to put a species gallery in both the species category and the genus category. I think that is a good solution and would like to see it done that way. If I don't get some support for that view though, I am ready to give up on it. I would like to see a little discussion of it before I give up completely.

  • General comment about the failure to maintain and support the sample galleries

People seem to have put a lot of effort into discussing ideas about formats and approaches for the tree of life project. If the consensus that is created out of those discussions is not captured in sample galleries or with some other approach the value of those discussions is questionable.

Improving and standardizing the collection of meta data for the images[edit]

Right now, most images, I suspect, are uploaded using the standard image upload page.

This results in an image page that often doesn't have relevant information and even if the information is present, it is not stored in a consistent way.

Has consideration been given to developing a unique image upload page for the tree of life project?

My suggestion would be to request the person uploading the image to provide information similar to this:

1. Scientific name of the organism
2. Common name of the organism at least for the native language of the individual uploading the image
3. Date and time when picture was taken
4. Location (with suggestions in order that location information be consistent)
5. Coordinates of location
6. Sex of the organism (male, female, both, not determinable, not applicable)
7. Information about how the ID was determined and how reliable the uploader thinks it is.
8. Additional information about the image


The goals of this change would be:
1. Improve the collection of relevant information about the image
2. Standardize the display of relevant information about the image for improved readability
3. Allow the future use of this information for the automated creation of image labels
4. Allow for improved image search capability.
--Davefoc (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly agree that a prompt for location (including altitude [in metres], as well as latitude & longitude) would be very valuable (more so than any of the other items above). Actually, it ought to be included on all photo uploads, not just ToL ones. Date is already prompted for in uploads from Flickr, and is also often included in exif data. Scientific name is important; common name isn't. The contributor's opinion of the reliability of identification would be nice in a way, but could be divisive, e.g. if a contributor claims 100% certainty and a subsequent editor finds the identification to be incorrect - so this would probably best not be asked. One other useful point to request would be status - native/wild (or at least apparently wild), vs. captive/cultivated. - MPF (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a good proposal that may significantly enhance the value of the images in the collection, if adopted. I agree that latitude/longitude is the most important item since it documents the provenance of the subject. Altitude is very useful, but can be obtained from the location if it is not given. Regarding ID, I often give the source of the ID, e.g., the expert who identified the organism, or, if I identified it, the reference and page number, locality species list URL, etc. (please see File:Polemonium_californicum_6284.JPG). I think guidance in this vein may help others evaluate the reliability of the ID and avoid the pitfall cited by MPF. I agree that wild v. captive/cultivated is helpful. I scrape crucial metadata from JPG files, e.g., date/time of data generation, and add it below the information template because some image editors mangle metadata. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree but for the latitude/longitude. It may be the most important item, but it may also yield an open door to abuse when concerning rare and/or protected species. I personally always give some location info and rare species are handled e.g. like File:Dactylorhiza praetermissa (habitus).jpg or more commonly like File:Veronica prostrata subsp. scheereri (habitus).jpg. Occasionally I give id source like here: File:Somaticus aeneus.jpg, but I agree it could be useful. I'm all for full information and standardization BTW. Lycaon (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like there might be a consensus that this is a good idea. Is anybody opposed to it? What is necessary to begin the process of implementing this idea? A reasonable next step might be to begin discussing the details of the approach, however I hesitate to begin listing issues and getting comments until there is some indication about how a new file upload screen would be created and linked into the existing file upload process. And who is in charge of approving such a change. --Davefoc (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for:
1. Scientific name
2. Location (Nation: Region, local area, distance/direction from nearest town) (e.g. Bulgaria: Blagoevgrad Province, Pirin Mountains, 5km SW of Bansko)
3. Coordinates and altitude of location, if known
4. Date (and time?) when picture was taken (format: YYYY/MM/DD or DD/MM/YYYY, avoid illogical MM/DD/YYYY).
5. Sex and age if relevant and known
6. Additional information about the image (wild or cultivated/captive, etc.)
MPF (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could the editors be assisted somehow by templates, intelligent user forms or anything like that to make it a natural process to add those meta-data at the time of upload? I was thinking of building in some extra logic in the File Upload, such that the user has the option of selecting a living organism upload form. I guess that will not be a trivial thing to implement, but considering how many images of living organisms there are uploaded here, it may be worthwhile. As a matter of fact, specialized upload form could be relevant not only for ToL but also for many other types of files on Commons, i.e., buildings, portraits, ... --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I favor a special TOL upload form over adding the extra functionality to the general form because: 1. A specialized TOL upload form could be more readily updated to meet TOL requirements as they develop. 2. As Slaunger noted the TOL upload form requirements are different from other Wikimedia areas. 3. In the long run I think the specialized requirements of the TOL project will be expanded to beyond the upload form and putting in place a TOL unique approaches can help establish a methodology to implement other unique TOL projects. 4. A unique TOL upload will help make the uploader aware that he is participating in the Tree of Life project and not just uploading an image.--Davefoc (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that with a special TOL upload form we will miss most of the organism uploads as most people won't bother with the extra overhead and turn to a regular upload. Lycaon (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The same "in-a-hurry" users would not add the extra meta-data anyway. A ToL upload form could assist those who wants to do it right, like a walk-through upload form instead of manually remebering to add the needed meta-data. It should be as easy as possible not to be lazy, and the technical possibilities in the mediawiki software should help us, when possible to make it easy to do it right. The easier it is to do it right, the more will do it right, I think. Having a dedicated upload form would also help standardize the organization of the image pages; when meta-data appear in the same order everytime, it is easier for the repository users to navigate through it. --Slaunger (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Concerning MPFs last proposal for the metadata I have the following comments:
  1. If geodata has been specified it should be sufficient to provide information about the country and region for convenience (it is really redundant information as it can be inferred from the geodata). I do not find it necessary to register, e.g. the distance to the nearest town when you have geodata. That would overburden uploaders unnecessary.
  2. The date should be formatted as yyyy-mm-dd in the information template as this assures correct localized presentation in the users preferred language. Further date-time details such as the time of day can be in the EXIF.
I could also mention that we are discussing in the Valued images project if we should let these meta data be part of the Valued image criteria for living organisms. --Slaunger (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat related theme[edit]

Category:Unidentified plants is in dire need of some attention, with over 1,000 photos to identify. A few points . . .

  1. A lot have been transferred by robot from en:wiki (see e.g. File:Beautifulflowers2.jpg); looking at the original uploader's page there, I get the distinct impression that many of these images may have had some location information (maybe even just listed per which country they were taken in: en:User:Neelix/Images/Unknown); if this info existed, it has been lost in the transfer to commons (not the first time I've come across this problem). This data loss on transfer needs to be tightened up on.
  2. Is there any way of telling which photos have been added to the category recently? I've been through Cat:Unidentified plants several times before when it had about half the number of pics in; the ones I couldn't identify before I know I probably still won't be able to identify, and don't want to waste time opening them again - but there's far too many to remember which ones I've looked at before. Some way of telling which are recent additions to the category would be extremely helpful. Does such exist? if not, can it be made?
  3. As a general rule, if they are identifiable to family or genus but not species, they get put in Category:Unidentified Thatfamily / Category:Unidentified Thatgenus. But an awful lot - probably still well over the preferred max 200 files - are still (for me at least) not identifiable even to that extent. A while ago I made Category:Unidentified Liliopsida which any unidentified monocot can be dumped in until a monocot enthusiast can go through for better refining. Some other wider categories to split up the main category more manageably would help - can anyone suggest any good ideas? I did wonder about making a set to put under a [Category:Unidentified plants by flower colour]; I am not greatly in favour of this but it could be a suitable 'last resort'.

MPF (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what can be done about the upload bot issues and I recognize a series from a editor who doesn't take the time to identify there images (I dealt with a group of over 50 fossil fish ammonites, dinosaurs, etc...) all labeled as dinosaurs a while ago. But in the meantime I went through and sorted out ~70 images in Unidentified plants. --Kevmin (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Habitat pictures, own categories?[edit]

I was looking at category:Sonchus oleraceus and was struck by the large number of "habitat" pictures, some barely showing the subject (Sonchus oleraceus), but indeed showing places they grow. Are there any other species where we are "blessed" with so many pics of their habitat? Is there a standard naming convention for categories for pics of a species' habitat. I am tempted to create category:Sonchus oleraceus (habitat) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the directory that you are questioning the contents of here, I humbly suggest that this is a problem that is more widespread than just that one species category that is from a bot upload of all of the Starr images and not just the relevant images. I spent some time removing these images from categories that I found to be populated by these habitat images but there are a few categories in which most of the bot uploaded images need to be removed and put into a category more sensible for the image like Category:Aerial photographs of Hawaii and more specific categories like the specific area of Hawaii. Their presence here and in the species categories does give a "habitat of Hawaii" bias to the collection.
I started to mark some of these problem categories with Category:Bot upload needs cleanup. I have not made it an actual category yet -- I had wanted to clean them up so the need for the category would not exist any longer. -- carol (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have created a sub-category to store these valuable (:-P) images for this species. If an image contains a reasonable picture of the plant (or a closeup or it), I've left it in the main category, if the plant is a small part of the view I've put it into the habitat sub-cat. If it really doesn't show the plant (eg a only a leaf poking into the edge of the frame) I have removed it from the plant's category altogether. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Carol here; and it gets worse: File:Starr 071227-1089 Erodium cicutarium.jpg is clearly labeled as being from Nevada, despite the "Plants of Hawaii" source.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have only just noticed : there are 59,818 "Forest & Kim" photos, we are so blessed ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think they went climbing in Red Rock Canyon or something, a couple photos were of them in the parking lot, sorting gear! Stan Shebs (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree too and have been dealing with some slowly over the last 2 or 3 months. I've dumped an awful lot of the ones that don't show the claimed subject species into Category:Landscapes of Hawaii and a fair few into Category:Trails in Hawaii, Category:Signs in Hawaii and even Category:Skiing in the United States and various subcats of Category:Las Vegas (their Nevada ski holiday snaps!). When doing these edits, it is also worth amending the description of the photo to remove the scientific name of the species that isn't in the photo (e.g. [1]). - MPF (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I fear though that Category:Sonchus oleraceus (habitat) is not a good category name for these pics. A name like that should really only be used for the natural habitat of a species; these Starr photos almost all (except for those of Hawaii endemics) show invasive species growing outside of their habitat, so a better category name is needed. Maybe something like "Cat:Sonchus oleraceus as an invasive weed"? (tho' that is a rather clumsy title!). - MPF (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, there's also a scattering of their pics are so woefully blurred as to be totally useless; when I've run into those I've been bold and just deleted them as Out of Project Scope. - MPF (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree re natural habitat as such plants seem to grow almost anywhere in their invaded territories, the whole island is probably a suitable habitat. Personally I would just delete the whole lot in that category I created :-). I suppose the 'correct' way to do it is to have Category:Sonchus oleraceus (natural habitat) as a sub-cat of Category:Sonchus oleraceus (habitat). But that brings me back to my original question, do we have any 'habitat' structures already (apart from habitat maps), or has no one else thought habitat pictures worth uploading? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm . . I'd say Category:Sonchus oleraceus (natural habitat) is an exact synonym of Category:Sonchus oleraceus (habitat), and that invasive species outside of their habitat wouldn't belong in that category at all. I'm not aware of any species 'habitat' categories; there's a problem in that any photo which shows a single species in its habitat is also going to show lots of other species that it occurs with, so it would mostly be a nonsense to have a single species habitat category. Maybe occasional exceptions for e.g. trees which often form single-species forests. Beyond that, there are certainly a few more general habitat categories, such as Category:Rainforests, and perhaps more use could be made of these for some of the Starr pics. Maybe also make some cats like Category:Hawaii dry scrubland and Category:Rainforests of Hawaii. - MPF (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I was thinking that habitat pictures simply show where (the surroundings, other plants, terraine etc) something grows, a subset of that is their natural range. Perhaps botanically 'habitat' is more specific and means 'natural habitat', and adding it on the end of the botanical name for a plant implies that definition (I don't know :-). Remember though that this is not a botanical site, and people will interpret it in broader ways than you expect ;-). I am happy to discard the idea of habitat categories altogether, and just put Category:Sonchus oleraceus (habitat) into Category:Bot upload needs cleanup and eventually move them to where they might be useful, or delete them :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What I remember most from finding those categories was how any enthusiasm I felt towards cleaning them up quickly turned to a feeling more aptly described as disheartened when I found more and categories that were so filled with those images which probably should not have been there. That same feeling came back when I read the number of uploads from that source. ~60,000. That is a lot of images. Just playing with that number and my experience with the categories populated by images from that upload, I suggest that 5% is a conservative guess of how many images are mis-categorized and don't really belong here and that 10% is how many images (still from that upload) which are mis-categorized. That means, according to my conservative estimate, that potentially 3000 images need to be deleted and another 3000 need to be recategorized.

I was trying to think of methods other than manually search and remove or search and recat these images. The bot did some good things also -- predictable and descriptive naming of them, license clean up and there is something else that happens (or was happening) when an uploaded image had a duplicate already uploaded here, at the first edit of either of them, the duplicate image warning appeared.

My first idea for how to clean up this upload is what I consider to be ideal and perhaps not doable. Delete the upload, restore the deleted duplicates and reupload them again -- this time managing the upload for these problems that we now know about the collection.

  1. Present all of the images whose destination is one category as thumbnails so the operator of the upload bot can review the images and remove them from the upload list if they don't belong here, or direct them to the geographical area they were taken at (I found some images of a telescope dome which we did not have many of in this collection, if I remember correctly).
  2. Of the remaining and approved images, check to see if a duplicate exists here and if the category name matches the Starr species name (there were a few synonym problems also) upload those images keeping the upload log of the existing duplicate with it. That would make the duplicate deletions from this upload more like regular duplicate deletions and still keep the "sensible naming and the getting the license correct" -- the good qualities of the upload.
  3. Let ToL know when there is a synonym category found. Those can be argued (if that is what "floats the ToL's boat") or managed via templates to reflect both names in categories (which apparently "floats my boat" here) and if interested parties are that interested put into galleries reflecting that name which the gallery maker really feels that species should have, blah blah blah....

My other ideas are not so easy to think about or remember especially so quickly after writing this one ideal in comparison method. There are javascript gathered thumbnail galleries of category contentes here already and the author of that upload bot also has the good (very good, in my estimation) credit of writing the software which finds duplicates and warns upon upload of its existence.

I just think that it can be redone more sensibly with all that is known about the collection now and that instead of causing additional problems here a more managed reuploading of these images can find some of the few existing problems here and they can begin to be dealt with, also sensibly. -- carol (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas; unfortunately I can't see anything other than having to do each pic individually. The bot that can scan a pic and identify whether a named species of plant is a significant component of the pic, or not, has yet to be invented! I'd be inclined to take a fairly casual attitude to cleaning up the Starr set - while low-relevance photos do clutter up species categories, their presence in them isn't a major detraction, unlike e.g. definite misidentifications that will confuse people. There is the advantage that all the pics have names File:Starr_xxxxx, so with alphabetic listing, they in general appear toward the bottom of categories. If we are to do any systematic cleanup, I'd therefore suggest starting with species with names in the range St–Z, as in these, the Starr pics will be at the top of the category. Can a list of these be generated here? If not, there's always the Plants of Hawaii website species index. - MPF (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth did you move those habitat pics back to the main category for? Some of them just show the plant out of focus with the background habitat the obvious subject of the pic. Your action makes no sense and in your comments above you don't seem to have floated the idea first. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just moved a few where I thought the plant was significantly the main subject of the photo (yes, slightly out of focus in some cases, but still the main subject). Most, those where the plant was not visible or if visible was not obviously the main subject, I moved into Cat:Landscapes of Hawaii. - MPF (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I expect discussion of categorization of photos showing where a species grows (which I call habitat pictures) will be brought up again as we get more photos uploaded. A sub-category of some sort would seem appropriate. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is MPF the "seer" of the ToL? -- carol (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oaks v. Quercus[edit]

Hi Erik; I wonder if you'd be kind enough to explain the reasoning behind your edit to Category:Oaks and related edits, please?[2] Prior to your edit, the treatment of Category:Oaks would seem to me to be consistent with Category:Maples, but perhaps I'm missing an important point. Perhaps you could start a discussion at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life so that other editors could participate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oaks are used in heraldry, they get old enough to be used as border markers, they are worshipped (and were ruthlessly destroyed by trinitarian fundamentalists). Their bast is used for tanning, their apples are used to make ink, their wood gives strength to houses.
And, oh yes, biology has something to say about them too, and for that purpose biologists were given wikispecies. Of course, category:maples is just as bad, but maples aren't holy (well, to me, that is).
I tried to create Category:Oaks by taxonomy to gather the taxonomical sub-categories, but it was deleted (Incorrectly named: duplicates cat:Quercus). If Quercus is claimed for taxonomy, it can not be used for other purposes. Erik Warmelink (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik - I concur with Walter, the standard for all living organisms is to use the scientific name, this was agreed by the Tree of Life project long ago. Then Oak, Eik, Eg, Eiche, Chêne, Дъб, オーク, etc., etc., can all (if created) be made redirects to the standard scientific name that everyone uses. The only exceptions are for major food products, where the species as a food item uses the English plural for a subsidiary category (e.g. Category:Apples is a subcategory of Category:Malus domestica; the former shows the fruit, the latter the whole plant) - this is only done where there are very large numbers of photos to categorise. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I you seriously believe that everyone uses the binomial name for le vieux chêne d'Allouville-Bellefosse, you meet a very limited sample of the human population. On the other hand, it is nice to be able to find it by binomial name too.
It is good to be able to find apples if one talks your language, it would be nice if you allowed people who speak English, Chinese, Spanish and so on to find it too. In fact, adding Category:Fruit by species as a supercategory of Category:Malus domestica might help. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The preceeding discussion was moved from User_talk:Erik_Warmelink#Oaks_v._Quercus.[3]Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's like asking the Inquisition which, if any, people should be called "saints". Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I would further note that wikispecies is STRICTLY for the taxonomy and does not have anything to do really with the purpose of commons. Thus while WS will have an image of a Quercusit is not for organizing the Quercus images. Thus the reasoning preoccupied by wikispecies is meaningless.--Kevmin (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If it isn't for organizing the Quercus images, why does ToL get so excited if there might be some categories for Oak images? I don't mind how ToL categorizes, but I do mind if people refuse any other point of view. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Im curious if you have spent any time on wikispecies? If you have you should have noted that each taxa page has sat most one image, which is hosted from commons. There really is no connection between the two projects other then the use of images by WS.--Kevmin (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps you didn't notice "Cladus: Eukaryota Regnum: Plantae Cladus: Angiospermae Cladus:Eudicots Cladus: core eudicots Cladus: Rosids Cladus: Eurosids I Ordo: Fagales Familia: Fagaceae Genus: Quercus" on Wikispecies:Quercus and "Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Plantae • Clade: Angiosperms • Clade: Eudicots • Clade: Core eudicots • Clade: Rosids • Clade: Eurosids I • Ordro: Fagales • Familia: Fagaceae • Genus: Quercus" on Category:Quercus. You may believe those texts are unconnected, but I doubt it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I just don't understand "the standard for all living organisms is to use the scientific name". Most living organisms do not use any names, let alone "the" scientific name. Of those organisms which do use names, an overwhelming majority doesn't use ToL names (or knows that "scientific" name is too much praise). Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Yes they both have taxonomy, BUT there are NO images of Quercus hosted on wikispecies AT ALL and ONLY one link connects the two projects, that being the "Categories on siter projects" link. It is obvious that you have no knowledge og the purpose f Wikispecies at all but are trying to use the project as a means to push you POV. WS exists to record the taxonomy and the history of the taxon (eg synonyms). Commons exists to host and organize media for the wikimedia projects including WS. There is no other connection between the two.--Kevmin (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ehmm, you admit there are more connections ("Yes they both have taxonomy") and then repeat "There is no other connection between the two". At the moment taxonomy dominates category:Quercus (that's partly because I moved non-taxonomy subjects to category:oaks, but before that, taxonomy did dominate too, only less). Wikispecies gives, for good reasons, a lot of attention to taxonomy. Taxonomy is useful as a means to order media about living things, but it shouldn't crowd out other means. Commons does not only exist as a media store for wikispecies (just like it doesn't only exist as a media store for fr.wikipedia.org, ru.wikipedia.org, nds-nl.wikipedia.org or whatever other wikipedia). Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

end of unindent

Erik, "If Quercus is claimed for taxonomy, it can not be used for other purposes." It can be used for other purposes as Category:Acer demonstrates and you discuss. Is your objection to using Category:Quercus in a similar manner due to your religious or cultural beliefs and values? The Commons community is composed of and values a diversity of religions and cultures. However, the use of Quercus would seem to be consistent with Commons:Language policy, "The only content area where there is a consensus to use a single language is biology-related content (plants and animals), where Latin binomial names are used." Commons category names are not intended to endorse or advocate for any particular view or belief. Their only purpose is to help others find media that may interest them. Using both Quercus and Oak for content that would seem to most to be closely related may engender more confusion than clarity. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Category:Acer is an example of point-of-view pushing, there are 5 subcategories useful to people outside your (ToL, that is) group (bonsai, heraldry, leaves, wood and syrup), 5 subcategories are almost exclusively claimed by ToL, and 52 subcategory are claimed exclusively by ToL; note that even in leaves, non-ToL pictures are pushed into a subcategory. My objection is that one point of view almost completely overshadowes all other meanings. I think it is unusable and, as such, those other meanings will never be added.
Category:Oaks is not about biology-related content, it is about trees, many of whom are older than the system which seems to be in vogue during the last few centuries. Could you explain me how grouping the 52 Acer species or the 82 Quercus species into one category (say Category:Acer by taxonomy or, in English, Category:Oaks by taxonomy) would make it harder to find media for those others who don't know the binomial names. Using lower case helps only a bit, because not everyone knows about the conventions of ToL. However, I admit that having both Category:Quercus and Category:Oaks doesn't help, but I consider it slightly better than crowding out non-ToL categories. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
So the next question becomes which common name should be used? Oak, მუხა, Dub, etc... all are vernaular names of Quercus and as a multilingual should have equal oppertunity to be the Category name. Next how do you identify Oak from non-Quercus taxa such as stone oak which is a completly seperate genus (Lithocarpus). Scientific names were chosen for use becaus no matter the language used the scientific name is the same.--Kevmin (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
All names can be used, including the name used by your tribe. If you start using consistent names during periods which are relevant for oaks, it is even possible that people outside your tribe will use the same name. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That wasnt the point of my question, i will rephrase. Which Vernacular name should become the category name for this genus? And why that name over the others? The reason for choosing the scientific name is that no matter what language, it is ALWAYS the same no matter what while the common/vernacular names are many and varied.--Kevmin (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Your question is loaded. For people outside your small group, there is more to oaks than a genus. Your remark is untrue, the scientific name is seldom the same (for most genera less than a century). I wouldn't care too much about naming the category "Quercus" if that choice wouldn't be abused as an excuse to dump 60+ categories directly into the category (instead of into a subcategory "Species of Quercus" or whatever name ToL would like). Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"scientific name is seldom the same" this shows a complete lack of knowledge about taxonomy. There is only ever ONE VALID name for a taxon. yes there may be synonyms but they are NEVER used to refer to the taxon. This is the complete opposite of vernacular names were many myriad names ALL refer to the same thing. Thus I repete WHY use OAK and not a different common name for that category as they all refer to the same thing?--Kevmin (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It merely shows my lack of knowledge about English, I almost exclusively use "always", "ever" and "never" for time, not for place; three centuries ago, "your" names didn't even exist. Once again, "[a]ll names can be used, including the name used by your tribe".
  • This discussion is getting a bit over heated (words in all CAPITALS is interpreted as shouting :-). So perhaps a pause for breath by the participants before their next reply would be appropriate :-).
We (TOL) do not have exclusive rights to how living things are categorized on Commons. There is no reason that there can not be separate structures, in parallel, with the taxonomic categories, that include categories of living things. An obvious example is category:Dogs which is in no way synonymous with category:Canis lupus and has lots of other aspects of dogs that biology has no interest in (eg category:Famous dogs). So there is no reason that category:Oaks or category:Maples should not exist in a form that is not a redirect to a taxonomic category. There is a question about how the two structures should interlink, personally I think the taxonomic structure should be kept free of subcategories that are not specifically part of a taxonomic tree (eg I don't think Dogs should be a sub-category of category:Canis lupus), I think "see also" type links are much more appropriate. A construction of a category scheme for TLO would help --Tony Wills (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to address a couple of points
"the standard for all living organisms is to use the scientific name, this was agreed by the Tree of Life project long ago", yes TOL uses the scientific name, but that does not make categorization of pictures of "living organisms" the exclusive domain of TOL, Commons has many ways of categorising things.
Yes this is a multilingual project, but the standard is for category names to be in English (unless something has changed recently). To my knowledge category redirects are still not very transparent so the practise of creating redirect categories in different language names is not encouraged. Of course the category pages should include multilingual translations so that they can be found in all languages. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. I agree and I like your suggestion of using "See also" to link non-taxonomic categories to taxonomic categories. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quercus - subsection 1[edit]

If I understand this dispute correctly, Erik is bothered by the fact that Category:Quercus contains 88 subcategories, 82 of which are species subcategories. Alpha taxonomy is just one of many ways of classifying images of oak trees, and Erik feels that 82/88 is creating a navigational bias in its favour. Erik's solution, at first, was to create "Category:Quercus by taxonomy" to hold the species categories. This would have put the different classifications on an equal footing. I cannot see any problem with this, though I would have preferred the name "Category:Quercus taxa" or "Category:Quercus species".

However the majority of this discussion seems to be focussed on Erik's second attempt at a solution, which was, I think, ill-advised. But even for Erik this was the second-best option. Can we get back to the original issue, which is whether there is any cogent objection to us balancing the Category:Quercus category tree by pushing the 82 species category into a "Category:Quercus species" subcategory?

Hesperian 05:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have preferred a better name too, I asked for help in Category talk:Quercus with edit 19583697 (3 months ago). That brings me back to my main point; why do we talk about subcategories of Quercus/Oak/Dub/Roble in ToL? Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
That's almost 2 months without (cogent or not) objections to balancing the category tree. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you favor the proposal of Hesperian, or a variant thereof? Is it as follows? Please assume good faith... I'm not pushing this option. I just want to understand what is being proposed. Tony Wills proposed a somewhat different structure earlier. I think the current structure is close to that of Tony Wills. Regarding why it is being discussed here: I moved the discussion here because I think the majority of editors who have an interest in the categorization of Quercus/Oak/Dub/Roble are TOL editors. If we can be persuaded of the virtue of your ideas, we may help, rather than hinder your work. You are welcome to invite other non-TOL editors to join the discussion here, or to suggest another forum, but I think Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life is better forum than your talkpage.
  • Quercus
    • Oaks
      • Acorns
      • Quercus bonsai
      • {other non-botanical categories, about 6 in total}
    • Quercus species
      • Quercus acuta
      • Quercus acutissima
      • {other botanical categories, about 82 in total}
Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I favour the proposal of Hesperian. I do not think that any editor who has an interest in Oak/Dub/Roble would even come close to TOL (TOL is like the axe, the fire).
I would propose following the scheme at Category:Topics, which at this moment has subcategories
Perhaps you could be so kind and explain why TOL-like categorization would be more useful for oaks. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Erik; I see now why you think this page is not the best forum for this discussion. Thank you for preparing the detailed category scheme above. I see little interaction of your category scheme with TOL. TOL seems to be linked, more or less, as you suggest. I suppose that disputes arise when TOL editors rename your categories or merge them with the corresponding TOL category. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But I do see a place for the ToL category scheme, it is nice to be able to find it by binomial name too, it is only that I don't see it as The Scripture. Could you please state whether you oppose merging the species categories into a single Category:Quercus species? If the opposition is based on the name, what name would you propose? Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
But I see that the problem is not limited to TOL. Category:Squirrels was moved by GeorgHH, who does not seem to be a TOL editor, but does work on categorization. I don't see that you asked him the reason for his move of that category at the time. Regarding Category:Thor's Oak, your only edit was to add the cat symbolic oaks. I suppose that you may object to the two Christian categories that were added by the category creator, but again Bloodofox is not a TOL editor, but seems to have an interest in a number of non-Christian beliefs. I suppose that when you attempt to implement your category ideas that editors delete or merge your categories and you find that vexing. Do I understand the problem correctly? Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No, if I find anything vexing, it is that someone refuses to explain why they deleted a category (well, perhaps "I concur with Walter means that you speak for them). Be keeping silent, they can again remove the category if I would recreate it based on the lack of opposition to Hesperians proposal. Erik Warmelink (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I speak for myself. To do otherwise is or may appear to be meatpuppetry.
I'm puzzled though. If you are referring to MPF, it seems to me that he attempted to explain his reasoning in the link you provided.[4] He says, "the standard for all living organisms is to use the scientific name, this was agreed by the Tree of Life project long ago. Then Oak, Eik, Eg, Eiche, Chêne, Дъб, オーク, etc., etc., can all (if created) be made redirects to the standard scientific name that everyone uses. The only exceptions are for major food products, where the species as a food item uses the English plural for a subsidiary category (e.g. Category:Apples is a subcategory of Category:Malus domestica; the former shows the fruit, the latter the whole plant) - this is only done where there are very large numbers of photos to categorise. Hope this helps!" While you may disagree with his reasoning, I don't think it is fair to say that he refuses to explain it. Moreover, your reversion of MPF's soft redirect has stood.[5] Perhaps you are thinking of Category:Oaks_by_taxonomy.
At present, I favor the "see also" type links proposal of Tony Wills.[6] Most taxa are not of sufficient general interest to merit non-botanical categories. Tony Wills says, "I think the taxonomic structure should be kept free of subcategories that are not specifically part of a taxonomic tree." I agree. It seems to me that approach minimizes the coordination that is needed among TOL and non-TOL participants. I think that to do as Hesperian suggests may confuse those who are not participants of this discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to use Quercus, but I want to use it for everything about Quercus, not only for taxonomy. For most people, taxonomy is only one of the ways to find livings things. I have told MPF that their "everybody" is a very limited part of humanity and after that you seem to have been their spokesperson. The main problem with having this discussion in ToL is that in effect you have been canvassing (you asked everyone who reads ToL to join the discussion; and ToL is somewhat biased). OK, you said, that I could canvas too, but I hope to be able to refute your (plural, including MPF) arguments in your native language on your favorite project's talkpage.
Yes, when I said "deleted a category", I did mean Category:Oaks by taxonomy, when I said "again remove the category", I mean a category with the name preferred by ToL.
No, I do not agree with a special playground for ToL. It has a special playground: wikispecies, for the "see also", it has {{wikispeciesCompact}}. Tony clarified in the second edit: "that does not make categorization of pictures of "living organisms" the exclusive domain of TOL". Taxa which are not of general interest often attrack so few pictures that the TOL way seems to lead to more galleries and categories than pictures (because a picture about a new species leads to a gallery and a category). Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to step in here and note that the scope and purpose of wikispecies is completely different from that of commons and the classification of WS as a "special playground" for the ToL commons project is inaccurate and wrong. --Kevmin (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat: Could you please state whether you oppose merging the species subcategories of Category:Quercus into a single Category:Quercus species? If the opposition is based on the name, what name would you propose? Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You raise a number of points. Please allow me to address several.
  1. "use Quercus ... for everything about Quercus". To me, this seems consistent with Commons:Categories#Category_name. With redirects, users searching for "Oak" and related topics should be able to find the relevant gallery or category. Others may disagree since that is not consistent with Category:Dogs/Category:Canis lupus as discussed by Tony Wills above.
  2. "in effect you have been canvassing" I understand that you are unhappy that I moved the discussion to this page. As I said before, you are welcome to suggest another venue. I note that "it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions" (Wikipedia:Canvassing). I did so by moving the discussion to this page.
  3. "you seem to have been their spokesperson" I have addressed this above. Please desist.
  4. "in your native language" I recognize that it requires more effort to communicate in a second language and you have my sympathy.
  5. "I do not agree with a special playground for ToL" I don't understand what you mean by this. Tony Wills, a TOL editor, said "that does not make categorization of pictures of "living organisms" the exclusive domain of TOL". I said above that I agree with Tony Wills.
  6. "It has a special playground: wikispecies" My interest is in uploading photographs of biota and placing them in galleries and categories. Perhaps you can explain how wikispecies could be helpful to me? While I sometimes refer to it and often add wikispecies tags to galleries and categories, I have not found it particularly compatible with my goals, although I recognized that it is aligned with the interests of some. I have not contributed to wikispecies directly.
  7. "state whether you oppose merging the species subcategories of Category:Quercus into a single Category:Quercus species" I somewhat oppose this proposal. I gave my reasoning in my previous comment on this page. "I favor the "see also" type links proposal of Tony Wills.[7] Most taxa are not of sufficient general interest to merit non-botanical categories. Tony Wills says, "I think the taxonomic structure should be kept free of subcategories that are not specifically part of a taxonomic tree." I agree. It seems to me that approach minimizes the coordination that is needed among TOL and non-TOL participants. I think that to do as Hesperian suggests may confuse those who are not participants of this discussion." Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
7. I didn't ask about your opinion about other taxa, Once again, do you oppose? Or do you continue to claim that ToL is so important that ToL participants vs. non-ToL participants is a good way to categories contibutors to commons? Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I somewhat oppose this proposal. I could say simply, "I oppose it", if that would be more clear, but that is not as accurate as the words I used above and repeat here. Your edit summary, "I didn't ask about your opinion about other taxa, I didn't you to vaguely wave towards other vague statements" seems inappropriate to me. I responded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You are an admin, would you use your admin privileges to oppose it? You speak at least one language, would you use arguements to oppose it? Yes, my edit summary was inappropriate, shameful, undeserved, but could you please say *something*. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I will not use my administrator tools to impose my opinion on this matter. That is a restatement of long-standing policies and guidelines. I will use my tools (and the noticeboards), if necessary, to respond to violations of policies and guidelines. I have provided arguments against some aspects of your proposal but I have supported others. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If user:MPF uses their administrator tools again, will you again speak for them? You speak at least one language, do you intend to use arguements to oppose my proposal? Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to similar questions above. I'm disappointed by the argumentative, sarcastic, and tendentious tone of your posts. Please don't expect me to respond to further repetitions of similar questions and comments. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being at least somewhat honest. In my opinion, you have not responded to questions before, but finally you did announce that user:MPF will revert. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)