User talk:GillesSM

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

Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium[edit]

Hey, thank you for participating in this contest. I saw you placed and uploaded your first image. I hope everything went well, and you plan to add some more :-)

If you have questions, feel free to ask them on the discussion page. You can follow us on Twitter, of on our website

MADe (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished[edit]

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−

Dear GillesSM,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, GillesSM!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Ligia oceanica.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ligia oceanica.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Exochomus/Brumus[edit]

Hi Gilles,

Just saw your edit on Exochomus quadripustulatus. You added Category:Exochomus_quadripustulatus to the page. Currently that cat. states it should be empty, but the situation is silly of course. Either everything should be renamed to Brumus and then the redirection is correct, or everything should be Exochomus and then it should be reversed. Having a page called Exochomus quadripustulatus and the category Brumus quadripustulatus is, well ehrr - unserious.

So, what is your take on the current status for naming this taxon. I'm a tad confused. I think it was Kovar who last put it in Brumus (1995), but after that he himself was involved in the Catalogue by Lobl & Smetana (2007), where it is listed as Exochomus again and the genus Brumus isn't continued anymore. So I would think we should be back at Exochomus, but Fauna Europae doesn't agree and lists Kovar 1995 as the source for their decision.

My take would be that FE is lagging behind, but I'm not a coleopterist, so maybe you know better? What would you think the current status of the name should be - and more importantly: why?

  • Kovar I. (2007) Coccinellidae - In: Lobl & Smetana (eds.) Catalogue Of Palearctic Coleoptera. Vol.4. (Index (PDF)
  • Kovár I. (1995) Revision of the Genera Brumus Muls. and Exochomus Redt. (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) of the Palaearctic Region. Part I. - Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, Vol.44, pp.5-123.

Cheers, Arp (Pudding4brains (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

Hello
Honestly, I have no opinion on this. In Belgium we have been using the name "Exochomus quadripustulatus" for years. Recently we changed our taxonomic dictionnaries to follow Fauna Europaea (because we are working an a synthetic book about Belgian Ladybirds). We also changed Epilachna argus to Henosepilachna argus. I like the idea to have one unique online, freely available reference for taxonomy and to follow it (even if personally I would have prefered to keep the names I'm accustomed to...). I suppose that Kovar had good reason to turn back to the former terminology but maybe we should nevertheless keep the fauna europea one as standard reference.
I don't really understand the "categories philosophy" of wikimedia commons. In a more "key-words like philosophy", the solution is simple : just ad both key words to all the pictures to increase to probability to find it whatever the nomenclature you use. The Commons help recommend to avoid redundant categories but I don't understand why.
If ever you have the two references you cite, I'm really highly interested by a copy (particularly Kovar 1995). Please contact me by e-mail if it is the case.
I have just a last question for you : when somebody post a message on my discussion (talk) page like you did, do I have to reply on my own discussion page or on the discussion page of the person that asked the question ? I did both here...
Cheers GillesSM (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gilles, I agree that it would be good to follow one "standard" source for taxonomy and naming/spelling etc. Unfortunately I feel that FE is lagging behind a tad too much for many groups to make this work, while others are very well maintained. If you're not a specialist for such a group it may be quite hard to recognize and you'll end up relying on grossly outdated distribution data, synonyms, invalid taxa etc etc. It's a real shame that there is so much difference in maintenance quality as the badly maintained groups give the other ones a bad name too. I'm not saying the Coccinellids are badly maintained, but with some other groups it's quite obvious. Anyway, the fact that FE references the 1995 Kovar as a source for the name makes the current validity questionable imho.
As for the categories, there has been ample discussion on that in the past and there are clearly different views on the matter, but look at it this way: Suppose we would maintain both the categories Brumus qua. and Exochomus qua.? Now you would place your photo of such a beetle or larve in both categories, but someone else would only use the one or the other. This way we would soon get two different categories with different content referring to the same species and someone looking for Exo.qua. would not 'naturally' find the images categorized as Bru.qua.. This is solved by having a category for Bru.qua. that redirects automagically to the category Exo.qua. so we will all end up looking at the same set of images. This is for searching, but when linking from the image page to the category page it makes no sense to store it in away that would trigger the redirect, so you are encouraged to directly link to (categorize) with the correct name.
This is for synonyms. If you look at the matter more broadly 'redundant' categories don't make things easier to maintain, nor easier to find. Remember that the categories are 'places' where everything comes together. These are actually pages that can also contain some editable content, for example to link to other projects (wikipedia, wikispecies etc), so they require work/maintenace. In the biology section you will see that the category pages often contain ample taxonomic info/linking for navigation to higher taxa. This is added/created by hand. More categories means more work. And it doesn't make things easier to find. In fact, splitting/distributing stuff over many, many categories will increase the chances that a user looking for something doesn't find/visit all the pertinent categories and misses stuff. As in the example with Brumus/Exochomus above. It would theoretically only work if all people had the same brilliant ideas about additional categories and everyone would add all of them to every photo they upload. If that doesn't happen - and it never will - it would just mean that some images end up in category X and some in a quite similar category Y making it harder to find things.
I can appreciate your thoughts about abundant keywords, but they should not be confused with the categories. The categories represent several logical/structured ways (mostly tree structures) to eventually find what your looking for. Additionally these can be interlinked/netted together so that you may jump from one tree to the other wherever they cross, like for example in a tree of cars by brand/model etc and a tree of cars by usage where the Mercedes ambulance would be a connecting node.
Keywords galore can be added to your photo description pages, or better yet (if pertinent) to the category pages. For example, the category page for Exo.qua. should really contain the keyword Brumus in it (or vice versa - I already forget which one we are actually using currently), and preferably many other old synonyms. This enables the search function to find the category (or your photos for that matter) when someone types Brumus as search term.
References: Unfortunately I don't have either (just found an abstract/index to the catalogue the other day, showing that Brumus was kicked out), but I still plan to find them somewhere so at a next visit to the Naturalis library in Leiden I'll probably make copies (and forward one to you ;o)
Answering: Mostly people answer on the spot where the question was asked. Like in this case, I asked here, you answer here and my next reaction also comes here. This keeps the discussion all in one place. If I ask a question on your talk page, it's up to me to verify my "watchlist" (link at top right of page) to see if you have answered. This is not a "law" or "rule" or anything and leaving a note, or complete answering on the talk page of the person who contacted you has the advantage that the person will receive a clear notification and your answer doesn't get lost in an overcrowded watchlist or something. Some people clearly state on their talk pages how they go about it (Like: You ask here, I answer here. I ask at your place, I will come back and check there for an answer), which is informative. But there is no right way or wrong way really. Just make a choice of what works for you.
Cheers, Arp (Pudding4brains (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC))
Hello Arp
Thanks a lot for all these explanations. It makes it more clear for me. I understand that I have to place all key-words like informations in the description. I have however still the feeling that it is not very easy to find pictures on Commons (you can easily miss interesting pictures). It seems also that sometimes when you make a search with the search field at the top of each page it will redirect you to the category page if it exist and not to all the media that contain that word (but some times not ... There is something I don't understand...).
For the publications : the first who find it send it to the other... I have lots of numerized doc about ladybirds. If you are looking for something, please ask me...
Ok also for the discussion. I have to add the page on which I discuss to the pages I follow.
Thanks a lot also for the ID correction you made on my misidentified "Armadillidium album", you are completely right. The problem is that often the doc for terrestrial and marine isopods is separated. So this is what happens when you try to identify a marine isopod with terrestrial isopod documentation... I have also been trying to see this species for years now. So I was maybe a little bit over-enthusiast and not prudent enough...
Could you please just check also this other picture : [1] It looks ok for Ligia oceanica but they were very variable in size and coloration so I have some doubts now...
I need to continue my exploration of this wikipedia system... If you have any other recommendation for a newbie, please tell me. I'm wide open to any recommendation
Cheers Gilles -- GillesSM (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Pages, also "talk pages" where you edit are automagically entered to your watchlist I think (it may be a option in your personal settings?), so normally there is no separate action required.
I think you are right about the search issue. Haven't been very active on Wiki(p|m)edia myself lately, may do some testing later and will get back to you if I find a good answer.
A. album has been able to hide itself successfully from me as well, but I also have very little opportunity to search in coastal areas :-/
Your Ligia is correct :o) There is an astonishing difference in size between adults and juveniles and it is the only species of terrestrial isopod that still has chromatophores (or some such) and able to shift its colours somewhat depending on substrate/underground. Hence probably the impression of extreme variability.
I'm in the process of digitizing Coccinellid literature myself (Iablokoff, Hodek, Mader etc.), will let you know when it's done ;o)
Cheers, Arp (Pudding4brains (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Armadillidium album[edit]

Just to let you know, I've request a rename of your files File:Armadillidium_album_20111014_170331_9425M.JPG and File:Armadillidium album 20111014 170719 9436M.JPG - you may want to update your own files on your hdd as well ;o) Pudding4brains (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Please give images better names[edit]

العربية | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | +/−


I noticed you've uploaded File:20140427 130700 7257M.JPG and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)