User talk:Liné1/2010

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.

Categorization Padogobius bonelli

Hi, I've seen you toke the category "Endangered species" off from the file File:Padogobius bonelli.jpg, why do you think it isn't a good categorization? Greetings from Italy! --Etrusko25 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend, I have created Category:Padogobius bonelli for your wonderful picture. I did put this cat in the precise category Category:IUCN Least Concern species.
Then I followed the ultimate rule: don't put a category on an image (or anything else) if this image is in another cat containing the previous one.
As Category:Padogobius bonelli is in Category:IUCN Least Concern species => File:Padogobius bonelli.jpg should not be in Category:Endangered species.
By the ways, thanks for your photos and merry chrismas.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Tank you to you for your supervision on my mistakes...

An happy new year!--Etrusko25 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bird (and other) pages

Hi Liné - please don't add external links to itis to these; the site is very outdated, and is also not a neutral unbiased taxonomic resource. We shouldn't be advertising it as if it were authoritative. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, no problem. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the encouraging words. You said:

But you shouldn't have use the dXX= parameter. It is must simplier to replace "|Sappho" by "|Sappho (Trochilidae)".

Yeah, I know, but when I saw the feature in the {{Genera}} documentation, I figured I might as well use it.

Also it is much simplier to maintain (If you insert a genus in the midle, you will have to recalculate tje "|dXX=" parameters.

But it shouldn't need to be maintained, really. I mean, I need to go through once more to make sure they're all there, but after that... how often is a new genus of hummingbird discovered/created? (Rhetorical question.) - dcljr (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


I need a break from insects and I'm thinking about helping out with birds. I see you're busy updating to IOC classification 2.3. Is it only the higher classification (like as shown here) or does it cover individual species? If so, is it online at all? Or maybe you can suggest another area in the TOL that needs work (zoology side). I'm up for anything, just not insects. Rocket000 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

hihi, excellent. I know this fealing. And insects classification has no ending.
You are right, I am working on IOC, orders and famillies only. I try not to change the classification when en.wikipedia has not the same classification than IOC.
You can find the migration progress status here.
You can see the few problems I encountered.
If you are interested in updating low level genus ?
In that case, you will need my tool fr:Utilisateur:Liné1/WikipediaBioReferences.
This opensource tool written in java (easy to install) is documented in english.
You type the taxon name + enter => you receive wikicommons syntax with VN + Genera + COI + IUCN + interwiki.
Try it, many french contributors are already using it.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried checking out the program but the download link's dead (404). I currently use a mix of javascript and firefox extensions to make my taxonomy work easier. What I need are some good internet resources. I never worked in this area before so I'm unfamiliar with what's good to use. For example, ITIS is terrible for some area (ok, a lot of areas), but for some things it's not bad (e.g. bees). Rocket000 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And of course, I'm not planning to use just one source. I take into account what the Wikipedias use, Wikispecies, Google book results, etc. The key is to make finding media easier even if it means being a little taxonomically out of date. Rocket000 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Tried a different link and it work. Rocket000 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If you try it, here are some steps to put WikipediaBioReferences in the Rocket000 more:
On main Window: Button "Options" -> Button "Select All for Commons" -> Button "OK"
On main Window: Select "Birds (Verbrata)"
On main Window: Select "Genus"
On Main Window: type "Carpodectes" + <enter> in "Searched Taxon" field
not cool ? Liné1 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It is cool! Where is it pulling the species information from? Rocket000 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I retrieve subtaxon from ITIS, MSW, COI, FishBase, ReptileDB, ASW, WRMS.
For IOC, I retrieve 2 pages: this xml + list of families.
Liné1 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
What about the species lists for IOC? Rocket000 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's what you meant by COI? Rocket000 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Species list is made out of this xml and the links out of this xml + list of families. Liné1 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I see now. You had the acronym backwards. COI instead of IOC. I got confused. Rocket000 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, COI is french ;-)
My tool has also a hidden option to generate global IOC lists for:
Liné1 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'm going to go look around in the source code. I'm not a programmer but I know a little scripting (and like to hack things) so maybe I can help you fix a couple bugs I noticed. ;) This tool has a lot of potential. With the MediaWiki API and some browsing capabilities this can become something like the AWB for taxonomy! Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Truth is, I never looked at MediaWiki API. Where can I find it ? Liné1 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Rocket000 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Liné1. You have new messages at MPF's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Species & co


Je t'ai répondu sur ma page pour {{Species}}

Et sauf erreur de ma part, c'est bien « incluses » qui est correct, cf. wikt:fr:incluses et TLFi.

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Hallo I created this category for a mistake (Mulloidichthys is the correct genus name), can you delete or can you tell it to someone? Tank you and excuse me...I still am a quite clumsy worker on Commons!--Etrusko25 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. Rocket000 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


I have this idea for a new template. It consolidates all the text of the taxa templates ({{species}}, {{genus}}, etc.) so it can be easily translated. Here's what it would look like: [1] (not finished). Do you think this would work? Rocket000 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Last problem is the name of this template ;-). Liné1 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought it could be {{taxotext}}. :-) Rocket000 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Or {{Taxolang}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Any idea how we can translate {{Taxa}}? I guess we would have to create translations for all possible input. Worth it? Rocket000 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Taxa. It is good latin. cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Taxa" is just the example in that template. Users supply the rank. In other words, we would have to translate "Included familiae", "Included ordines", etc. Rocket000 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry.
We could try to transform "familia" or "familiae" or "family" (some provide the english by error) with a translated version. Liné1 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we have to do the "Included" part each time too since sometimes it's after the rank and sometimes before depending on the language. Rocket000 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Right. So Maybee, you should pass "Included <taxonRank>" to {{taxolang}} so that we can translate it or return the argument if we don't recognize it. Liné1 (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Already did. It could probably use a couple more ranks though. Rocket000 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Subgenera template?

When I was checking the usage of {{taxa}} I noticed you used it for subgenera. These should be italicized so {{genera}} would be better. I almost created a template that uses {{genera}} but changes the text to "Included subgenera", but this isn't hard to do manually, just use {{genera|title=Included subgenera|...}}. Since subgenus isn't used much here, I was thinking we probably don't need a separate template, right? How often do you list subgenera? Rocket000 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth is: I really don't know. I think that {{MSW}} has a lot of them. But I don't think they are really needed. You could document your solution in {{doc}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxa templates

Hi Liné - when using taxa templates {{taxa|...}}, please always include spaces, like this: {{taxa |Taxon1 |Taxon2 |Taxon3 |Taxon4 }} or this: {{taxa| Taxon1| Taxon2| Taxon3| Taxon4 }}, NOT {{taxa|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}, as the lack of spaces in the last creates severe formatting problems in the edit boxes (particularly where there are numerous included taxa). Also, please remember (as pointed out several times above!), ITIS is a poor reference source, and we shouldn't be using it, please don't add links to it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me an exemple of buggy {{taxa|rank|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}? This problem has to be solved.
Your solution of spaces is only a workarround that, like many workarrounds, should be avoided
(the fact that some people will put spaces at the end and other at the beginning show the problem: why not 2 spaces before and 3 after).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example, note the way the lack of a clear line-breaking point messes up the text (how it does so differs from browser to browser). It is just the same as an immensely long single word, it doesn't work well in any word-processing context. Puttingspacesinisexactlythesameasputtingspacesinnormaltext,itmakesitmorereadableandworkable ;-) - MPF (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
So you have no display problem, but an edit problem ? with which browser ? It works fine with chrome. Liné1 (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Firefox. The problem is that "|" does not act as a line breaker in the same way as a space, so a long list of taxa with no spaces becomes one hugely long word which disappears off into the distance beyond the edge of the screen and can't be seen. So it needs spaces to create line breaks and readability. Please add them in, it is so easy to do so! - MPF (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried it with Firefox and had no problem with word disappearance.
I don't remenber to have created one line {{Taxa}}. Remember, I am for multi-lines {{Taxa}}
Liné1 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a bad one (added by BotBln not you, but the same problem occurs) . . . does this really not give you a page formatting problem? Does it not create a horrible scrollbar for you with most of the line invisible without tedious scrolling? {{genus|Abromeitiella|Acanthostachys|Aechmea|Alcantarea|Ananas|Androlepis|Araeococcus|Ayensua|Billbergia|Brewcaria|Brocchinia|Bromelia|Canistrum|Catopsis|Chevaliera|Cottendorfia|Cryptanthus|Deinacanthon|Deuterocohnia|Dyckia|Edmundoa|Encholirium|Fascicularia|Fernseea|Fosterella|Glomeropitcairnia|Greigia|Guzmania|Hechtia|Hohenbergia|Hohenbergiopsis|Lindmania|Lymania|Mezobromelia|Navia|Neoglaziovia|Neoregelia|Nidularium|Ochagavia|Orthophytum|Pepinia|Pitcairnia|Portea|Pseudananas|Puya|Quesnelia|Racinaea|Ronnbergia|Streptocalyx|Tillandsia|Ursulaea|Vriesea|Werauhia|Wittrockia}} MPF (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

problem ?

Dear Liné1, in the moment a part of my links in the taxonavigation do not connect the category but (mostly not existing) galleries. We can see it in "blue" and "green". Do you have the same problem?. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, can you give me an example ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
...for example: when I click here Ornithochilus in the taxonavigation to Epidendroideae I come to this page: [2]. Not evertime but frequently. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Even if I don't like it, I think it is normal.
{{taxonavigation}} has a different behavior in articles and categories.
  • In articles he tries first to do a link to articles, if they exist, then to categories if they don't exist (I think I am correct here).
  • In categories he tries first to do a link to categories, if they are not the current one, then to articles (not so sure about that line).
You should ask our friend Rocket to check my two sentenses.
There was a discussion somewhere about this.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. In the past the function was so, as you described. Since two or three weeks the link goes from tax-cat. to the english Wp article. I'll ask Rocket000 the next days. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think here is the problem: [3]. Cheers Orchi (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Salut Liné1, ....I think you make a great job! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gare d'asnière

salut excuse moi j'ai fais une mauvaise manipe --Parisdreux (d) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Plan ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes by Line1.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Plan ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes by Line1.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Boréal (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Salut Liné1, ...thanks for help. Where is Rocket000?? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello Liné1, the page I've used as source (given to me by User:Orchi) is a reproduction of this scientific paper:
Chase, M. W., J. F. Freudenstein, and K. M. Cameron. 2003. DNA Data and Orchidaceae systematics: a new phylogenetic classification. Pages 69-89 In: K. W. Dixon, S. P. Kell, R. L. Barrett, & P. J. Cribb (eds.), Orchid Conservation. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
The web site has just reproduced it, but I think is not correct giving to the site any authorship.
I think it would be better use Chase M.W. et al (2003) as a short quotation. --Esculapio (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


You are right, I've to separate each synonym by a |.
But, I've seen you are changing some categories I've recently improved. I've seen your changes affect only to styles, not to content. Why are you changing styles? I would ask you to argue with me before you continue editing categories of frogs (Ranidae). Thank you very much. --DPC (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is why changing contributions of other authors when the changes don't aport anything. I mean, the differences beetwen this and this are just of distribution and style:
order of synonyms and clasification (I think it should be first the clasification and then the synonyms, by hierarchy), substitution of template {{Ws}} by {{wikispecies}} —an administrator told me that the first one was the recomended—, distribution of external links or deleting all the languages in the {{VN}} template that I let there to facilitate future addings. I'm not talking about the new templates of EOL, GBIF, etc, which are good improvements. I know, here everything is changeable, but why spent time undoing the work of others? I can help you changing the * by | in synonyms and the new EOL, GBIF, etc templates, just tell me wich categories are still missing. DPC (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm a diver too! You can write me in French if you prefer.
I'll use the templates. Good work!, thanks DPC (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sterna bergii

Serait-il possible de renommer la page Thalasseus bergii (sterna abandonné depuis 2005)? Il y a d'autre part de nombreuses images en double. Berichard (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Il faudrait demander à Liné1 (talk · contribs) les raisons qui l'ont mené à effectuer ce renommage en janvier 2008. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
J'ai renommé cette page Sterna bergii en 2008 pour suivre IUCN, wikispecies et ITIS.
Cela ne fait que peu de temps que commons suit COI (grace à nous d'ailleurs ;-))
Voila, erreur réparée.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Super images

Je viens de découvrir les superbes images que tu uploades sur commons.
Je vais faire une passe sur leurs catégories pour les wikicommonifier ;-)
Tu es sur pour ton renommage de Acheilognathus imberbis en Gadella imberbis ? Car ce ne sont pas des synonymes.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Salut Liné1!
Oui, actuellement mon activité se concentre surtout sur l'import d'anciennes images! Mais qu'entends-tu par "wikicommonifier" ? Voilà, un vocabulaire bien étrange!
Yep, je suis certain, je me suis embrouillé les pinceaux avec les différents imberbis sur fishbase! En fait Acheilognathus est un cyprinidé, un poisson d'au douce! Alors que notre illustration représente une sorte de morue! :D Amicalement--Citron (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Tu connais Wikifier ? Et ben la même chose pour wikicommons. Par exemple ceci.
Amitiés 09:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
haa! Je comprends mieux! Par contre, il faut les catégoriser avec la catégorie de l'espèce pas du genre! J'ai nettoyé des milliers de sous catégories qui avait fait ça... --Citron (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


Boujour Liné1 - I think your removal of the cat Aplacophora is not completely correct - at least ADW defines Chaetodermomorpha = Caudofoveata and Neomeniomorpha = Solenogastres; both as subclasses of Aplacophora. How are those different taxonomic definitions handled in the cat tree of commons? amicalement, Rbrausse (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, there is a problem. I am investigating. I just created {{ADW}}. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks a lot! [and I'm not sure if taxonomy is science or art :)] Rbrausse (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Taxonomists are scientifics, but what we do (understand what they did) IS art ;-)
I have worked on fr:Aplacophora and fr:Neomeniomorpha=fr:Solenogastres to show the mess of these 2 taxa.
I hope, I did a correct summurize in commons category.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


You seem to get too few of these:

Bio Editors Barnstar.png The Bio Barnstar
For all your work with the taxonavigation, great job! Lycaon (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks my friend. Liné1 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

monobook / Chrome

Dear Liné1, shall I ask "Bdk" for help? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages

Hi Liné1,
Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you blanked Category:Actophila on Commons. If you meant for the page to be deleted, blanking the page is not the right way to do this. Please use {{speedy| type reason here }} and add it on top of the page you would like to have deleted; This way it will be placed on a special list that administrators check regularly for deletion. Without this it might take a long time before it's noticed. For redirects use #REDIRECT[[Target]] or {{category redirect|Targetcategoryname}}. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 22:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutaly right. I will follow your advice. Thanks. Liné1 (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Bonjour, Liné1, pourrais-tu identifier cet animal? Paul Hermans (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Je ne sus pas un zoziotiste confirmé. Surtout si je ne sais pas quelle est l'origine du zozio (ca change le bouquin dans lequel chercher). Je vais chercher quand même ce soir mais tu devrais essayer de poser cette question sur fr:Projet:Zoologie/Quel_est_cet_animal_?. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, plutot sur fr:Projet:Ornithologie/Quel_est_cet_oiseau_?. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Merci Liné1, c'est le zoo d'Anvers mais je vais suivre ton conseil et poser la question ailleurs. Paul Hermans (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hihi, bien sur c'est une photo dans un zoo. Mais l'important c'est la région d'origine de la bête. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pelecaniformes / Ciconiiformes

You changed a lot of pages/categories to change them to Ciconiiformes.
If you look at en:Ardeidae for example, you will see that the order is much discussed (look at the taxobox).
As Wikipedia is not really a place for scientific debates, and wikicommons is even less a place for debate, wikicommons follows IOC classification 2.6.
This you can see at the top left side of the Category:Ardeidae (IOC Classification:)
IOC (for en:International Ornithological Congress) is large commitee of ornithologists that try to forge a common classification.
So currently Category:Ciconiiformes should contain only Ciconiidae.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, NCBI is an interesting source. But it is not a taxonomic reference (See on their page the phrase The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for...).
Whant I mean is that they follow other's classification. Often with some delay.
We use {{NCBI}} a lot for plants because it follows APG III closely.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for changing so many articles from Pelecaniformes to Ciconiiformes. I was looking at such sources as the Catalogue of Life, ITIS, NCBI, Animal Diversity Web, the All Birds Barcoding Initiative (ABBI), etc - but I overlooked your reference to the IOC as the foundation of the bird taxonomy within Wikimedia Commons. I am working for the Encyclopedia of Life ( and this had come up as a potential issue, and I thought I was improving the Wikimedia taxonomy, not breaking it.
I did however notice that what I had hoped to be a simple change of order was a very long and tedious task. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else dealing with organismal Wikimedia pages) have given any thought to using nested templates to make a change like this easier. For example Wikispecies uses the nested template pattern pretty successfully (see ). The page references the taxonomy as a template, and the template for a taxon references the template for the parent taxon and adds a link to its own page. I figure this would save a lot of time especially in Wikimedia Commons where it seems customary to have both a gallery page,, and a category page,, which should have identical Taxonavigation boxes. pleary (talk) 22 November 2010
No apologize needed, I easely recognize a vandal from good potential contributors like you ;-)

First thing, it is good to have a contributor from
I discovered this web site recently and liked the fact that you don't provide only one classification, but many.
All other classification websites follow 1 classification, without telling which one, as if it was the absolute truth. looks like a meta-classification website and I like that.

I did create a {{EOL}} template but it is not currently widely used.
The reason why it is not widely used is that I did not incorporate it in my tool WikiBioReferences.
This tool has for purpose to find, for a taxon, references like Catalogue of Life, ITIS, NCBI, ADW and generate Wikipedia syntax.
Try it, it is free ;-)

As for your question about nested templates, wikicommons has already some. But I would not recommend them currently.
But your question gave me an idea about this that I gave to my good friend User:Rocket000 (See here my request).
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello, avoid using taxonomy from ITIS for gastropods (not up to date and incomplete). I would recommend (for non-specialist) using English wikipedia as a source for these categories. I am also continuously updating categories of gastropods on Commons. I can help in advice on categorizing gastropods if needed. Have a nice day. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Snek01, I know that ITIS is out (I use it for genus's species only, not for family lists), and I already use as source. But that does not feel right: does not provide its source, so at the end it is like inventing/creating our own classification.
So the solution would be to have a better source, online if possible.
Do you have that ?
As for the categorizing of the upper taxon, I follow Bouchet & Rocroi (2005). I created the page Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) + the parameter classification=Bouchet&Rocroi2005 for {{Taxonavigation}} + source=Bouchet&Rocroi2005 for {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}...
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I have a question on your modification of Category:Acochlidiacea: was the genus list wrongly copied from Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005? Why did you suppress it ?
I recommend you the use of {{Taxoconflict}} that has the advantage of standardizing the display of this phrase + will allow the use of multilanguage.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You will have no time to add all upper taxa for categories (families) of gastropods. An you also will have no time and knowledge to add all genera correctly with such templates. It is always under change. You can use also en:Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005. No databases and no online source can give you up to date solution. It is completely enough for all categories of gastropods if you will add one upper category and interwiki to English wikipedia.
  • Adding ITIS as a source for gastropods is more misleading than useful.
  • Adding Bouchet & Rocroi 2005 as a source may be useful in some cases, but you have to also understand what is happening in taxonomy in recent years. It can be said, that for majority of families of gastropods you can not use it as the only source(!).
  • Prior changing of categories in gastropods, READ at least the whole corresponding article on English wikipedia.
  • All templates on Commons are not useful for gastropods at Commons, because you can not uncritically follow any source. The best source is a person, who is familiar with the subject. You can ask me or at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods if needed. --Snek01 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am always very afraid of contributors that try to find the ultimate taxonomy truth (The only truth is that classification will change again and again, so we can can be a few year late without fear). Most of them tell me that they cannot follow one source. So at the end they follow their own classification and don't bother providing any source/reference/proof of any kind (That is one of the errors of wikispecies). Some of them even prefer to hide information as if they feared critics.
  • Wikicommons really doesnt need to be that uptodate.
  • Wikicommons needs to tell where his information comes from (for other contributors to be able to verify it + to give some credit to our work)
If I source correctly my information, the information is correct: Bouchet&Rocroi2005 says that, means "it may not be the ultimate truth, but it is scientific (sourced + dated => verifiable)"
It is better to add no information than old information. There exist interwiki for all categories. --Snek01 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that providing gastropod information from ITIS is a bad idea.
But you must consider that you provide information just by providing categories. But you don't justify them. That is not scientific + that is not collaboratif (nobody will be able to check your classification)
Information (not truth) must be verifiable.
Liné1 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This modification is not very nice:
  • You reverted my work without justification (was the information incorrect? that you would not tell)
  • You suppressed the Taxonavigation that says that this category follows Rouchet&Rocroi2005 for its upper taxa (which is true)
  • You suppressed Taxoconflict that provide a standardized phrase + multi language
  • Your phrase is incorrect: Acochlidiacea is not place in Acochlidiacea for Bouchet & Rocroi (2005).
Is the reason for that modification that you dislike templates ?
Liné1 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Dear Liné1,
I wish you a Merry Christmas and in the New Year 2011 all the best for you.
Orchi (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons greeting

Cher Liné1,

Je te souhaite un joyeux Noël et une excellente année 2011. J'espère que nous pourrons continuer à collaborer pour améliorer le contenu botanique cette remarquable encyclopédie.

Amicalement, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PS : Y a-t-il autant de neige chez vous ? Chez nous dans le centre de la Belgique, ce sera le premier Noël blanc depuis mon enfance.

Bonjour Meneerke bloem,
Bonnes fêtes et bonne année.
A Paris, il y a eu 3 fois de la neige mais 3 fois elle est repartie aussi vite.
Ca ne m'étais jamais arrivé.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)