User talk:Liné1/2008

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

Contents

WRMS

Merci beaucoup pour tout le travail que t'a fait sur ce template. Lycaon 09:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Félicitation pour ton francais, il est parfait ;-).
I did not know this web site, but it seems fairly great. It treats well the synonymes, the taxon tree, the authors, the references...
So I created the same template on wikifrance.
Do you wish me to add it to wikispecies ?
By the way, Your photographs and illustrations are really wonderful.
Cheers Liné1 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: APWebsite

I apologize for deleting that. All I saw was an simple external link in the template namespace and assumed it was for spamming purposes. I now see it's use is justified and I'm sorry for causing any trouble. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. Cheers, Rocket000 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re : Image:Angiospermes arbre3 fr.svg

Merci, c'est gentil :)

Je peux faire « les autres » sans problème, si tu me dis quels sont ces « autres » images dont tu parles :) --Stanlekub 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

OK... je ne te promets pas que ce sera super rapide, mais je mets ça dans ma liste de choses à faire, et je te préviens dès que tout est terminé... amitiés également, Stanlekub 10:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bird classifications

"Do you have any idea what classification wikicommons follows for birds?"

None presently ;-) It is a mix of Sibley (when the source was Wikispecies or the taxon pages, like Thraupidae, added by User:John feather and some Japanese source (I think)), Clements (much of the categories), and updates following HBW/BirdLife/IUCN/doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2006.00221.x (for example Acanthizidae not in Pardalotidae).

"Do you have any idea what classification wikispecies follows for birds?"

Sibley system, almost all of it.
The Sibley system is easy to recognize. It is the only one that has many "parv-" taxa, especially in songbirds.
Zoonomen varies from horrible (many orders and some families) to brilliant (especially genera and species. It is a very valuable source.

"Do you have an external web site displaying the classification followed (other than wikispecies)"

For birds, there is hardly a better all-around reference at the moment than the Tree of Life website here.
Four significant flaws exist in it; the first is cosmetic - "estimated to be about 60 million years old [...] based on morphology and fossils" is of course nonsense because Feduccia (1996) is not a good source in that respect (it is very good for everything Cenozoic) and then there is Vegavis iaai.
Second to fourth, here I think the Falconiformes and Charadriiformes are best placed next to the Strigiformes as 2 separate lineages, and the Cathartidae are best placed under the Ciconiiformes/Pelecaniformes as order Cathartiformes (the AOU has recently decided to and they ought to be followed).
But even these 3 issues only affect phylogeny and have no or very little bearing on the classification we would want, because there are 3 clades we would need apart from the orders and Neognathae-Palaeognathae:
  • Galloanserae
  • Cypselomorphae
  • Mirandornithes.
All mainstream researchers accept the first 2 and only very few do not accept the third.
On the level of orders, an "updated Clements" sequence should be followed for the time being. Switch the places of Podicipediformes and Anseriformes+Galliformes, and place the Charadriiformes right behind the latter (before Gaviiformes). Also separate Phaetontiformes and Cathartiformes.
Note that Ciconiiformes+Pelecaniformes need to be restructured, and that there are a few (Kagu, Sunbittern, mesites) that need to go out of the Gruiformes but at present it is not known what to make of them. This can just be annotated at present, not changed.
Everything else can stay as in the Clements sequence. Only 4 changes necessary to get a sequence that by and large is sufficiently correct for modern times. Which is not bad for a system originally proposed in 1975.
As regards families, every single system got it half right and half wrong. The doi: link above is the baseline for Passeriformes. At Wikiproject Birds we have spent most of last year cross-reading studies of the last 120 years to translate that one paper into normal language. I had the honor to assemble the systematic list on en:Passerine and I think the effort was worth it. For passerines, there is presently no better source available for free anywhere in the world than this page. Footnotes 12 and 13 give the sources.
Altogether, in the age of cladistics and molecular phylogeny, there are few groups for which a single source is good. The APG II system has now been updated:
Haston, E.; Richardson, J. E.; Stevens, P. F.; Chase, M. W.; Harris, D. J. (2007). A linear sequence of Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II families. Taxon 56(1):7-12
Judd. W., Campbell, C., Kellog, E., Stevens, P. & M. Donoghue. (2008). Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA
and in general I can only say that I found APG II a very robust and informative solution.
For spiders, there is in short nothing better that one can do that to use the work of User:Sarefo in en:Wikipedia. He has the one standard source and if he manages to be more up-to-date than Piatnick he properly cites his sources; one only has to copy/paste. Very helpful.
For other taxa, things may be difficult. I wish Wikispecies would provide a source for their Acari systematics; it is weird and I suspect I know where they got it from. For Acari, I would read the tolweb.org article and follow the resulting consensus phylogeny; I don't know any better.
I would not use PaleoDB at all. It is machine-generated and still not reviewed to any extent. I tried to use it for fossil birds and found it to have probably more errors than correct information. I think that the entire PaleoDB code needs to be completely rewritten. As it is now, it seems unable to handle the data; data is appearing in places where it does not belong far too often.

All the best! Dysmorodrepanis 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out this - it seems that if a formal phylogeny is wanted, Cracraft, Joel (1988) in The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds Vol. 1, pp. 339–361 is in many aspects very close to the current knowledge. He is certainly way closer than Sibley/Ahlquist who as regards the differences between the two seem only to be right about the Cathartidae! Dysmorodrepanis 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations des oiseaux sur fr

Salut Liné1, juste pour t'informer que récemment j'ai créé 2 pages afin de faciliter l'insertion d'images sur fr. Tu trouveras donc :

Cordialement. PurpleHz 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Prawn

Hello. Yes the problem was mostly with prawns in cuisine. As en:Prawn states: As used in commercial farming and fishery, the terms prawn and shrimp are generally used interchangeably. In European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, the word “prawns” is far more common on menus than the term “shrimp”, which is generally only used in North America... Australia and other Commonwealth countries follow this European/British use to an even greater extent, using the word “prawn” almost exclusively. As the common prawn is Palaemon serratus, I'd categorised thus; but as long as people can find photos of prawns/shrimps somewhere in the crustacea that's what's important. Man vyi (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 03 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 03 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble du Docteur Aimé 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Immeuble Georges Biet 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 05 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 05 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 04 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 04 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 03 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 03 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison du Dr Paul Jacques 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banque Charles Renauld 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Banque Charles Renauld 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banque Charles Renauld 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Banque Charles Renauld 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banque Charles Renauld 03 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Banque Charles Renauld 03 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 04 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 04 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 03 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 03 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 24 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 24-26 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 24-26 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 26 rue Félix 02 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 26 rue Félix 02 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maison de Lotissement 26 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Maison de Lotissement 26 rue Félix 01 by Line1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Cecil (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenganan category

Hello,
I don't understand this modification. Tenganan is a village of course, but there is no category for "Village in Indonesia" so "Cities in Indonesia" seems a good category.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Liné, excuse cette intervention! Amicalement, Djoehana (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

art nouveau

Bonsoir, pour restaurer les images d'art nouveau sur des wikis acceptant les images d'architectures il me faudrait une liste des images à restaurer et que quelqu'un s'occupe de faire un revert sur les pages concernées parce que je ne peux pas tout automatiser pour l'instant. Greudin (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Téléversé tes superbes 22 photos sur fr: en espérant que cela reste (sinon il faudra tous se déplacer directement sur Nancy pour voir ça) sous licence "fair use batiments recents" sans toucher a l'ancienne description, malheureusement on perd l'historique et sur quels wikis tes images étaient utilisées(le checkusage est inutile maintenant). Par contre je n'ai pas rétabli les liens aux articles, bon travail. Greudin (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Salut, J'ai élargis le champ des documents hébergés par Wikilivres aux images. Ces images peuvent donc être hébergées sur Wikilivres : http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/Wikilivres:Artists#Architects Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Bali

Hi. I've seen your username go by in my watchlist; tweaking cats and such. I thought I'd drop a note to let you know I live in Bali and edit id:wp a lot. If I can answer any questions you may have, feel free to ask. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tag your images

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to the Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikipedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best use CommonsHelper
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Category:Suina

Hello Liné, my reason in that moment to delete the cat was inapropriate cat. I think to remember it was redundant and empty but it was too long ago and my memory could fail, so if you think the cat is necessary now feel free to create it again. Cheers. Anna (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Limulidae

Thanks for letting me know and for creating the proper category! AxelBoldt (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

source

Hello, I have been extremely active in the taxonomy recently and you are changing things that I put into place today. This is not a problem but I would perhaps be better able to understand your changes if you could share your information source with me. Personally, I think I have done a pretty good job finding out where everything goes but it is going to be complicated with the conflicting information. Thanks. -- carol (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that someone moved cat category from Eurosids I to Rosids, from Eudicots to Core eudicots...
This needed a quick fix
My information source are APGII, which is available everywhere, for example on english wikipedia or french wikipedia.
Which of my changes do you find stange?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
They diverge from things I just put there. If you could give me a specific source and keep the cheers in favor of specific information, things will go much more smoothly I think. A URL for "everywhere"? -- carol (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, there were no links leading to Eurosids I when I started today. Please, give a url for your information; take a few minutes to review your personal facts and have a really good day. -- carol (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what a good project would be? A set of Taxonomy navigation templates that work with and move around solely on galleries. Perhaps you could consider an undertaking like that, especially with all of that universal knowledge garnered from French and English wikipedia and such. Just a thought. -- carol (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you tell me what I did wrong ? You look angry at me when I still don't know why. ;-)
I am using fr:Noyaux_des_Dicotylédones_vraies, en:Eudicots and their links.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this.
  • You suppressed the info that Zygophyllales is optional. But is is true. See in en:Eudicots, Zygophyllales is not present. It is well explained in en:Zygophyllales.
  • Eurosids I incertae sedis is not such a good idea. These families are called "unplaced to order". It is not sure (even if probable) that thoses families will all be moved under an order. This is why you won't see "Eurosids I incertae sedis" elsewhere.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite something that is not wikipedia for that? I did not suppress anything, perhaps I saved over it though, I am (as I said) working on that section.

I really think that (if it is a small effort of enabled people to get me to stop working on one project without actually communicating) the people here might have a serious need of some mental investigation into the way they work. As I said, direct communication is always the best approach. Hinting, bullying, citing English wikipedia as a source of information instead of where ever they got the information -- not mentally sound. And, if I am perhaps adding one and one together and getting three or four from what should be simple addition, please forgive me.

I don't need Cheers, I really need this world to dish back to everyone that which they encourage it to dish to me. That is the literal me, not the french me or the pokemon me. And that would be the world, to the people who cannot speak directly about simple things.

Hell, why all of the sudden attention on the abandoned categories here? The enthusiasm is with maintaining those galleries.... -- carol (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/

  1. I always cheers wikicontributors because I think thay/you are good guys doing their best for no money. It is called wikilove. The whole idea is to avoid shouting at each other. Please, let us be wikifriends, because we have the same purpose in wikipedia ;-)
  2. You still didn't provide me with the exact source of our conflit. What did I do wrong ?
  3. You want me to site my sources, but you don't give them yourself. ;-)
  4. Have you verified that http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/ follows APG II and not the APWebsite ? APWebsite is the site used by the APG to provide their provisory classification. So it isnt "APG II" but "APG II+ temporary". Wikicommons follows APGII not APGII+, whereas en.wikipedia follows both with explaining the difference. {{NCBI}} follows APGII mainly with small migration to APGII+. I have a written version of the official APG II, but like you I would like a website following it strictly.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Cheers" has been used when horrible/thoughtless/non-communicative things are happening here. If you could make those two things not occur together it would make that word work the way you would like it to work.
I am using the Uniprot site for some simple reasons:
  1. If any site had been followed here that site is a mess and the owners of it perhaps do not want to be given credit for that if that is what I saw here.
  2. Presentation -- it is good. I don't think that they have a complete list of genus but all things equal, the presentation is the cake.
  3. Once a family is in place with its genus listed and templates made, changes are very easy to be made via the templates.
The claim that anything had been followed is only as good as the software that people are using to upload images is, so I would like to read the javascript for the upload software to know that this software is intelligent enough to suggest the "proper" version of the taxonomy tree for the plants. It is a big claim and a brave claim but I think with just a little investigation it will become clear that Cronquist is on most categories if there is a navigation and quite often that is incorrect.
Did the APGII web site provide the guidelines for all of the existing Cronquist navigation here? -- carol (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
www.uniprot.org/taxonomy does not follow APG II. Look at Nymphaeales, it does not exist in APG II, not even optional like Category:Zygophyllales. This taxon is an invention of APWebsite (personal website of only one of the biolgists of APG).
You cannot use This site as reference, even if it is beautiful.
The truth is that I also failed to find a sexy website displaying only the APG II. APG II is a publication that can be accessed via difficult to read documents: Abstract | Full text (HTML) | Full text (PDF).
That is the reason why, in case of conflict, en:Eudicots and fr:Dicotylédones vraies are good sources!
Liné1 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I will look later to see if I can access the documents and I will take your suggestion for the wikilinks when I run into problems. If I am unable to access those documents, would you allow me to come here and type strong about equal access to things that are supposed to be followed in a situation like this (I am actually waiting to look right now because of trying to control when I can manage disappointment like that)?
Also, I always get a little laugh whenever a web site is called "sexy" so many different definitions of that word, heh. Thank you for this timely little laugh! -- carol (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

template management

While going through the existing genus categories here and the future genus categories here (if I can get the expected genus pasted onto all of the different places they should appear, it should work to find them all) there is this one thing that the templates do which is so sweet and so user-nice!

I am quite certain that commons has a larger challenge for managing plant images than any of the other web sites which do this if for no other reason than those shared names. I ran into a problem with the name "Melissa" yesterday. The category had been filled with a musicians images even though it also contained the gallery for Melissa officinalis. In defense of the uploader, there was little else to see that indicated that the category was for a plant genus. So, in expectation that there will be similar problems with this in the future, I made a category for Melissa (Gesneriaceae).

Here is the sweet thing about using templates to manage things like plant species and genus: {{#ifeq:{{{genus}}}|Melissa|Melissa (Gesneriaceae)|{{{genus}}}}} it is just a simple conditional and they must use that kind of thing to change the color of the taxonomy boxen at the wikipedias but the way it is used here means that the template can be used with |genus= Melissa and it will automatically be transformed into Melissa (Gesneriaceae).

In the large and weird world that my little knowledge of physics and other things I can see does not understand -- every time I find myself talking to one or another of the people on either side of the category vs. gallery war (which seems to have ended in a weird thing where the use of the word "Cheers" is in play) cats start to mate outside where I am staying.

It is my most humble opinion that this is an incredible waste of personal power and I can also confidently and gladly say that it is not my personal power being wasted.

Do you think that the nonsense here has anything to do with the screaming cat passion that is outside this place? And if so, do you think that there might be better things that can be done with that energy? (My answer to both of those questions is positive -- in the case that you would like to know). -- carol (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Melissa (Lamiaceae) looks really fine to me. Other would have named it Category:Melissa (Genus) or Category:Melissa (Plant) in case the family changes in the future. But it does not matter.
But I don't understand your problem. Are you talking about {{Taxonavigation}} ? You have to remember that I am french and I certainly don't understand everything ;-)
Cheers (I really mean it) Liné1 (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about how cool the templates are for several problem things. Name changes can now be managed with the category moving software that is here. (genus) doesn't work because there are plants and animals that share the same genus name. (plant) works but doesn't look right to me if applied to something like Oak which in my most often used vocabulary a tree and not a plant. It seems like there was another reason for this but I cannot remember that now. Uniformity perhaps -- when the categories were being moved a few weeks ago.
I really was trying to share something that was good about the templates and not a problem with the different versions of the tree. Something to enjoy thinking about instead of the always knowing that there are going to be problems. -- carol (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

burning a hole in my bookmarks

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=24059

If you follow the species link, the n becomes an r in the name and becomes an aster. The names are similar....

I found a typo at the original EURO+MED also, not as bad as this one, more of an honest typographic error. I really wish that I had bookmarked that one also. -- carol (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

about APGII Web site linking

I see that you have access to protected templates here. I would just like to assure myself that you have considered everything when you added that link directly to an external web site.

  1. Are the wikipedias that inaccurate?
  2. Isn't it better to add that external url to the document that is here?
  3. Is that web site actually so needy that it needs any wiki media project to have what could be thousands of links to it?

That web site uses frames. I don't do frames. It was not made for easy viewing and it was also not made for logical presentation of their organization of things. Many time I am looking at that site, wishing that it had more complete information (complete lists of genus, not needing to hack the web page to make the direct link and text as well as pictures occasionally).

To link every category or gallery that uses the templates that I am making directly to one site whose information is good but does not function so well as a web site seems dramatic, unneeded and might not assist that group in making a more user friendly web site later (a false sense of popularity). These are all of my ideas about urls that link directly to external web sites here, perhaps they fall within the overall wiki idea? -- carol (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, could you provide a link to the modification I made that you are talking about ? I am never sure what you are talking about. I have to guess .
I suppose that you are talking about thi modification.
The problem that I am correcting is that you continue to create categories and {{Taxonavigation}} for taxon that do not follow APG II.
These Taxon have been created by APWebsite. I already told you that APWebsite does not follow APG II, but invent a new version.
APWebsite is not the web site of APG (Angiosperme Phylogenic Group) a group of very famous biologist, but the website of only one biologist (there is no G meaning it is no APG)!
Wikipedia should not follow APWebsite because it is not a standard!
At least if you do follow APWebsite, it is normal to tell it on those articles/categories
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the time, if you have to create a family or order, it is because this taxon is a new invention.
On the english article it is very clear, there is always a phrase like "This family is recognized by some taxonomists. However, the APG II system (2003) did not recognize such a family and leaves the genus Dipentodon unplaced as to family".
On the french article, we sometimes provide multiple classification, see fr:Brassicales that provides APGII & APWebsite.
Liné1 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I rarely look at that web site. I am not "creating" Families, I am making categories for them here and they are mentioned on other sites and often exist here as a red link already. My questions were about the reason that you added it to some of the templates -- I did not use that web site when I made those templates and I would have (if I understood the problem) added it to the article -- not a link to that web site from every genus which uses that template. I am disoriented in what you did (adding a link to a web site which was not consulted in the making of the template) compared to what you are saying here.
I also make no claim that I am doing everything correctly. What I saw on the web site that the templates you added the direct link to is pointing at was that they somewhat defined things and were not very specific often. It is perhaps the reason for the mess now? My goal is to have every genus with a category here. Upload software suggests existing categories and well, I felt uncertain and unable to create new categories for the first few months that I uploaded images here -- so.... Between the upload software which suggests only categories which exists, the coolness of the most complex genus/species nameserver online and the shyness of people to make new categories for images that belong in them -- I am making the genus categories and relying heavily on one single version of taxonomy as it is today. No claim of correctness (I do not think that anyone is able to make this claim after looking at the fuzziness of the APG II web site). I will be interested to assist when the next one comes out and these templates are geared towards that day. Honest! -- carol (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, there is no 'APG II web site' as you just said! (I would love that, by the way).
APWebsite is not related to APG (which is a community) nor to APGII (which is a systematic)
classification=APGII links to an wikicommons article about APGII. I had to defend this page from deletion because they say that wikicommons is not an enciclopedy. So I had no choice except to do a direct link to the website.
I put Classification=APWebsite when an article/category describes a taxon that is not in APGII and that I find in APWebsite.
Liné1 (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

wikispecies

{{WikispeciesCompact}}, consider this. -- carol (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I use both. If there is text below the wikispecies, {{Wikispecies}} is better because it goes to the right and doesnt shift the text to the bottom.
If there is no text, both are cool.
Liné1 (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

in case you forgot

  1. Are the wikipedias that inaccurate?
    Again, give me the links. In most english pages, the taxon is precised to be non APGII and not always recognized
  2. Isn't it better to add that external url to the document that is here?
    Again, wikicommons is not supposed to have encyclopedic articles, so it has to be external links
  3. Is that web site actually so needy that it needs any wiki media project to have what could be thousands of links to it?
    No, the contrary, the site is bad to use as the categories. Those categories should not exist. But if they exist, they cannot says they follow APGII. You have to says that they follow one of the possible post APGII classification

I am sorry that I wasted my time and yours by explaining once again what I am doing when these questions perhaps deserve an answer. -- carol (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Liné1 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you talk about my Nudibranchia edits ?
You know what happens to us? It is the IRC chat phenomenon. As we don't see each other, we cannot see the comprenhention or incomprenhention on the other's face. So we don't really understand each other.
That generates a tension (irritation) between us. On IRC, long chat go always wrong.
Give me links to my modifications and I will explain you everything.
Cheers (to counter the IRC chat phenomenon ;-)) Liné1 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
IRC was a great place to work until we (assume the "we" does not mean me and you and it means people who worked on a large task "with me") did something great. If I don't change your edits and show up with the reason that they were changed, you can assume that my question is being asked politely. I also really think that a direct link to any web site is not good. I really really think that.
I am bored with and not caring about the Cheers and Greetings game and not playing it. I suggest that you do the same thing. Just a suggestion, I do not want to interfer with you if you are actually enjoying that. I am not playing that game though, please know this while you play it.
Honestly, I am new this year to taxonomy and kind of enjoying it. It is best to tell me the mistakes I make and point to a document if it exists. I am now understanding that edit to the template to have been a rude way to say that I made a mistake. If this is a wrong perception, then let me know that.
What reason would you think that the template I asked about had anything to do with edits made to Nudibranchia? I need some of your story between my question and that answer to understand what I obviously did wrong in attempting to ask three questions that I thought were kind of easy to understand and to answer. -- carol (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

a new question

Is there any good reason that you changed the templates that you did? I am unclear what the reason for the changes are and am open to understanding the reason that those templates now link to a web site and not to an internal document -- all I need is to understand the motivations (or reasons) that the link was added where a pointer to an internal document had one existed. -- carol (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you read my answers ?
  1. what modifications are you talking about? Could you provide the links to those modifications ?
  2. If a taxon does not follow APGII, you CANNOT add classification=APGII
Liné1 (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
How many templates have you edited in the last few days? This is a sarcastic question; if I should apologize for asking this one sarcastic question let me know. Template:Metteniusaceae. Perhaps you do not like the Unclassed category, but it seemed to be useful as it is a node for what german wikipedia had going as well (if I remember correctly).

You edited one single template. -- carol (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the best way to communicate with you if you do something wrong? Civil discussion or an edit which could be perceived to be somewhat rude and left to your imagination as to what the message is? -- carol (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That you for giving me this Category:Metteniusaceae link.
It is a very good example. APG II does not recognize this family. My proofs:
  1. There is no en:Metteniusaceae, nor de:Metteniusaceae
  2. fr:Metteniusaceae says that it does not follow APGII, but has been introduced by APWebsite
  3. This family is not present as unclassed nor in fr:Noyaux_des_Dicotylédones_vraies, nor in en:Eudicots
  4. www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/418793 says that the taxon exists, but they don't precise the classification/systematic followed. They give no reference. What kind of web site is that ?
Conclusion: I would prefer the category to be suppressed, but if it is kept, you must set taxonavigation=APWebsite in {{Metteniusaceae}} and Category:Metteniusaceae. By the way, I would also prefer to have [[Category:eudicots]] on those pages.
Liné1 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I really dislike the external link. I question the people who can edit that template for the decision to have that one be an external link. Thank you for letting me know what you would prefer. I would prefer to have the questions that I asked answered when they are asked. I think I can manage both sets of problems however.
Thank you for your time with this. -- carol (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If the external link is all that bothers you, I can fix that. But they will certainly suppress my article.
But I will try to please you
Still, this template cannot reference APGII, I would be a lie!
Liné1 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not about "pleasing" anyone. If that is just a turn of a phrase then alright, but it is not about making any one person happy, including me. Where is the APG II stuff at? In a book, online, in a paper? How accessible is it? -- carol (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

watching how wikiworld works

I am watching how wikiworld works and I do not like it very much.

I can write the software that I need to make the genus pages -- what I see happening is that the people who can write software but perhaps have not spent the time to learn about things like this, this taxonomy which somewhat defies my definition of the word "science" at times. It is true that I am in a big wrong life right now due to this way of thinking that there are people who are very good at writing software and there are other people who understand a situation (like this taxonomy) enough to describe what is needed and seemingly what happened is that the respect I gave to the software writers never came back to me and instead I lost everything and was relocated where I am extremely unhappy most of the time, blah blah blah. But I still think that I had it correct because people who can write software but don't know anything else, it is like knowing how to speak but having nothing to say (which happened to me often when I was younger).

This is not a good thing that the wiki people do. I made the template for python so I had the help of a template writer. I have other examples of this but that one should suffice to make my point. I don't think that software can write these templates -- that is the reason I take the time to write them. Sure, some of them could be automated but YOW! not everything involved with Category:Capparaceae and a few others like that.

This is not a good thing that the wiki people do. Not to me and not to themselves either. -- carol (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

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


Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Template:APWebsite, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

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

I think that everything has been done so that this can be safely deleted -- only a few things link to it now and most of those are talk pages. -- carol (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

all of those "hints"

All of those hints that you left that point to {{APWebsite}} are causing me many problems. Problems that I did not make, problems that were created when a link to a web site was provided instead of the norm, a link to an article that cites the web site. Understanding the systems and yet only writing hints and also pointing to what is in my opinion a horrible instance of a web site (if the purpose is to be a reference and a way to share information). Will you change the content that links to Template:APWebsite so that the redirection that was placed there can be deleted?

As soon as you have finished, let User:Rlevse know. -- carol (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what problem the template {{APWebsite}} is causing you.
In wikicommons we are not supposed to create articles if they contain no image or sounds. I told you that when I created Cronquist System it had been deleted. So direct link was the solution. By the way, it is the way of doing for references in all wikipedia.
The horrible web site is a researcher web site provided by a biologist certainly knowing very little in computer science. It is not meant to be sexy.
You really don't use wikilove much: "Will you change" & "As soon as you have finished, let ... know" look to me like orders.
Please, let us avoid classic wikifights caused by youth.
Liné1 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I know the problem introduced by {{APWebsite}}: your modification did include the content of APWebsite in the calling articles instead of including a link to APWebsite.
Liné1 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

spam

Consider allowing users to use the intrawiki links if they would like more information. A similar example, I was looking for a map and used a link from the atlas here and was put on an English wikipedia page.

I am going to revert those changes to that article tomorrow if you don't revert them sooner.

Make the article at English wikipedia nicer if this is your need. To me it is spam. Like the direct link was. Like hints instead of just putting the information into place is. It is spam. -- carol (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what modification you are talking about.
Again, you really don't use wikilove much: "I am going to revert" looks to me as a threat.
Liné1 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Threat? It is a strong word. The links that were added to the English wikipedia article. As a user here who is looking for information here, those links are discouraging and the people who add them seem to think that as a user of the information here, I cannot be trusted to use the intrawiki links that are provided ([[en:Too easily threatened]] for a gallery or category of things which are too easily threatened) being an example. When you put those links there, did you think that the users are here because they are interested in reading an article and cannot find it via the usual links? I suggest that they are here looking for images and those links to encyclopedias are just going to infuriate them. -- carol (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is the reason that fr.wikipedia doesn't have an article fr:Missouri Botanical Garden and did you not consider that the other encyclopedias also had articles for those links that you wikified? -- carol (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect problems

Hi Liné1. I am trying to clean up the category redirects that point to galleries as they hide the images that are in that category to the commons user. I cleaned already many hundreds of them and since a couple of weeks, I have this maintained file User:RussBot/category redirect problems that helps me monitoring it and that shows that I am nearing the end. As a lot of those redirects are in the complex species domain, where I don't have a lot of experience, I want to apologize for the mistakes I make in my attempts to put the categories in a normal operational mode. I am particularly confused when you have "bypasses" in the system when there exists only one single species of a certain genus. The nice thing is that my experience in the domain grows and I make less and less mistakes. Don't hesitate to point to my mistakes as I am here for learning. --Foroa (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While this french user is gathering their thoughts about the reason they add English wikipedia interlinks to information pages here (to answer my question) and not to articles at French wikipedia that also has the same articles or others, allow me to try to tackle this one.
It is an English wikipedia thing to only have one article if there is a family that contains only one genus with only one species. There are several like that. I suspect that there is some software that updates the links from English wikipedia to here, however, not all of the wikipedias follow that convention and if the names are to be like a database here, it makes more sense to have a family level and a genus level and a species level (examples of the usefulness of this is error correction, individual lists of families and of species and of genus, what happens if they add a species making it a two species family and genus?)
(It should be easy to determine when a family contains only one genus, perhaps via template or other similar/simple software functionality if the empty categories are allowed to stay and the different levels maintained, as it is now, that information is somewhat scattered all over the web.) -- carol (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
An image collection is not an article collection. It is more like a database of subject matter. The maze of redirections and other things that you mentioned are the way that one of the wikipedias work but not all of them. -- carol (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IUCN

IUCN has changed addressing scheme. Could you check work of templates? I can't understand the 3. sample in Template:IUCN. It doesn't work. Ark (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ark,
I am already working on IUCN. I will correct the templates.
Thanks for the warning.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Euasterids I‎

I am looking at the AP2 paper and it has Euasterids I and Asterids ranked equal. -- carol (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine says Euasterids I under Asterids.
Also, I followed the publication of APG in 1998 and APG II in 2003.
Look at en:APG_system and en:APG II system.
eurosids I is under rosids as euasterids I is under asterids
Liné1 (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: you are quick to reject! You could try to cross check with other wikisites.
First of all, I know that I am sometimes making mistakes because I am pasting lists of genera from that delta-whatever site and they have some incorrect spellings. That being clearly stated, I am finding wikipedias which have articles for the wrongly spelled genus from that site that I have found. I do not often check with wikipedias for any of this information (except the German wikipedia for Strasburger and they have their own mistakes there....) and lately for APG2 I am looking directly at the paper. I was sorry to see it, it is a pain in the ass because a lot needs to be changed, but other than that, it is what the paper says.... I was not so quick to change it back that I did not look at the paper (again) before changing it. Do you prefer that I keep compiling my list of taxonomy errors on wikipedias and other sites and that I read the paper that the wikipedias claim their information came from or that I instead verify from them? -- carol (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, do you know where I can get a list of the original Cronquist families and tree? -- carol (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybee, you need to find another paper because Euasterids I is under Asterids for ten years and that has never changed.
For cronquist, there is no "original" version. There have been different versions over time. The version everyone is interested in is the version of 1981.
Liné1 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118872219/main.html,ftx_abs?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 141, Issue 4 "Recommended citation abbreviated as 'APG II 2003.'" is what I am using. If you have the proper link for this information, please share it with me.
While I am somewhat enjoying determining the plant families that were used in 1981 and the families that are now being listed as part of the Cronquist tree -- I had a hell of a time with the exercises for "discreet mathematics" in my day with that stuff; reconstructing this stuff is similar to a set of those problems. Not unlike those old puzzles of elimination where hints are given "X doesn't wear glasses and A is sitting next to 3 and opposite the host" <-- I wasn't very good with these either which inspires me to stop enjoying this task and look at the real thing....
Did you just make the claim that the original Cronquist version never existed? -- carol (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Your link does not work for me. It involves cookies.
Have you looked at en:APG_system and en:APG II system ?
For Cronquist, I means that the terme "original" means nothing. The term you were looking for is 1981 version.
Liné1 (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the page [1] (certainly the page you use), look at the "Figure 1" (a tree diagram), at the top which is very clear: Cormales & Ericales are under Asterids. Euasterids I and Euasterids II are even deeper in Asterids.
Liné1 (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I concede! In my defense, I was using the list almost at the end of that document. Nested hierarchy has been a quality of papers both scientific and journalistic for at least as long as I have been in school and the authors of this paper seemingly did not know this or for whatever reason failed to use that in making their list of names. The visual of the diagrams that the taxonomy people use has only occasionally been helpful to me -- perhaps due to the amount of term paper styles, LaTeX TOC stuff, then lately html and their <h1> thru <h6> and my brief stint with that damnable docbook and xslt which also has a nested hierarchy for text. In 2003 LaTeX could have made this paper for pdf and the text list could have been easily nested logically -- instead, they made that list which gives equal weight to Euasterids and Asterids.
Let me know if I should apologize in addition to my concession. -- carol (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No apologize needed. Except perhaps some crosschecking before reverting.
Liné1 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, with the exception that I was looking at the original document and that one of the most embarrassing things that happened when they were going over my articles at English wikipedia was inaccurate and unsupportable information which I had gotten from a previously existing English wikipedia article on the same subject (en:List of Lepidoptera that feed on Senecio). I am crosschecking and I get a little queasy when the crosschecking involves any wikipedia since my articles were corrected yet the article which delivered the wrong information still exists. A system which attacks one individual and not the rest of their content the same way cannot, due to their own system of conduct, be trusted. And my beliefs are for what is there and did happen, not for what I would like to think it could be and in how nice it should have been or how well it should have worked.
About "Cronquist 1981" <-- this was a verbalized classification? -- carol (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Communication

I Am Going to Leave Messages Here Like This About Mistakes That Were Made....

I can also show you how to repair problems that you find, some agreement on appropriate methods to communicate should be, eh, agreed upon, however.

Again, you really don't use wikilove much.
I am, now officialy, afraid of you.
Liné1 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I officially do not know what "wikilove" means. I personally do not enjoy or prefer or encourage Messages like this, but everyone is different and you left a message like that; I question you if this is a good way to communicate with you as it is a method that you opted to use and apparently to me since I was the only name in the edit history. The assumption that you use this style because it is effective is wrong for me to assume?
The afraid part is due to what? -- carol (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If you are afraid because I worked through Category:Cornales I guess I am afraid of me also -- carol (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Here: en:Wikilove
There is a huge difference between <BIG> in a template documentation page (that means "be careful")(I don't see any problem with warning people) and <BIG> in a use talk page (that means screaming)(I see communications problem in screaming)
Liné1 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
English wikipedia is no place to learn about love. I had no idea that this was considered to be screaming in one place and a warning in another. That you left that message there instead of telling the author of the template -- can you paste what the English wikipedia bot cabal says about that? I used that <big> elsewhere to highlight an author change since whoever was at the keyboard was using the subtly rude no indentation thingie. Perhaps it was used here by me as a warning? Also, in real life I have worked with people. Some like a certain way of interacting and others like a different way of interacting. As you left that Shouted warning there instead of telling me that there was a problem or instead of attempting to fix it yourself, I assumed that it was just a way of communication that you use and left it here to see if you really like that way of communicating. I should assume now that you do not like it? I don't like it, but I could tolerate it if that is what works for you!!
If I offer to show you how to repair the template it is rude if it is big? WHERE I HAVE BEEN ON THE INTERNET, ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED TO BE RUDE. And honestly, reading that Warning left there felt very very rude -- so I brought the style here and guess what, you didn't like it either. -- carol (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You are screaming.
Liné1 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I am very very upset about that stupid merge between "Plants of" categories and "Flora of" categories. In the bigger picture, I am really beyond angry and beyond belief in the intellectual abilities of the species homo sapiens or whatever it is that I attempt to work with. I started this thread honestly thinking that the message left at that template for the author of it to find was rude, but also thinking I should not imply rudeness until I was certain it was intended this way. I am not screaming, but I am much more certain. -- carol (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, Liné1: Please take a step back and think about something else for a moment. Is this bickering over a large text cautionary note really a good use of your time and energy? --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Gmaxwell, I am going back to my current work
thks Liné1 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wunderpus photogenicus

Hi ! What a funny name for this octopus ! Is this really a serious thing ? The genus Wunderpus is not listed in Octopodidae, so I just wonder whether this is the correct binomial name. Can you confirm ? Yours, Frédéric (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the name is funny ;-).
It is a new species, reason why ITIS doesn't know it.
But it is now a famous octopus called "mimic octopus" because it mimics other animals to avoid fights
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Delphinidae

Thank you for your comment!! Sometimes you think your work is invisible... In my opinion, we have to keep editing categories of subfamilies because they are indispensable to get a right classification. Category Delphinidae is a wide one and so it is better to separate different genus by subfamilies; moreover, this strategy is already being used in plants, parasites... In connection with recognition in wikipedia of different languages, I think that the french one is the most developed in this field. However, nowadays there are also articles about Delphininae in more languages (I was going to update it in Wikimedia Commons when I saw that you edited Category:Delphininae). Don't hesitate in contact me again! Bye!!! --Airelle (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)