User talk:Liné1/2011

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.


Category discussion notification Category:Oryzomys_perenensis has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Ucucha (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Affiche Cave affinage Juraflore - Fort des Rousses 01 by Line1.JPG


Désolé, vous auriez dû recevoir un message d'avertissement de Manuguf. Votre photo est une oeuvre dérivée de l'affiche qui possède des droits d'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

cultivars & Cultivars

Dear Liné1, Gratulation and success for your Bot! A little correction of the last run. Some times ago was the following agreement:
For example name in title: Pulsatilla cultivars, Pusatilla distribution maps etc. ( cultivars etc. in small letters)
Sorting in Genus Category: Pulsatilla|Cultivars. This make the sorting difference between small letter sorting of the species and the capital letters sorting of generic terms. Cheers.Orchi (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend, I remember this agreement.
You are talking of this case for example.
Currently my bot is running
  • on categories from Category:Taxon categories
  • on categories named "Category:Xxxxxx yyyyyy"
  • transforming [[Category:Xxxxxx]] or [[Category:xxxxxx]] or [[Category:Xxxxxx|Yyyyyy]] or [[Category:xxxxxx|Yyyyyy]] in [[Category:Xxxxxx|yyyyyy]]
This is the conservative algorithm that Rocket000 implemented in its bot.
So I could change the algo to say yyyyyy must not contain "cultivars", "distribution maps"... (You have to help me find the whole list)
Do you think it would do it ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC) the moment I think of: Cultivars; Distribution maps; Leaves: Heads [aves]; Captive [genus]; Nests; Eggs;.
When I see further useful terms I will write you. Good luck! for you and your Bot. Orchi (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW: ....perfect, your (correction) - bot!!!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Dear Liné1, there is an new info Bot by User:Franz-Xaver. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Arion alpinus

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Arion alpinus 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 gallery, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ 04:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Dear Liné1, I think your very good bot should not delete the latin names, when
a) in the latin WP is an corresponding article and

Yes, this seems a good idea. Liné1 (talk)

b) the latin scientific name is available in the moment only.

Sorry, I did not understand that part Liné1 (talk)

Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Orchi,
I discovered a lot of strange things:
  1. there are some |<lang>=<scientific name> (as If the contributor wanted their langage to have vernacular names for all species)
    • this works for some genus names that have been incorporated in the current language and can be considered as vernaculare names (In french: Begonia, Acacias...)
    • this cannot work for species names
  2. there are a lot of |la=<scientific name>:
    • in general there is a confusion between 'scientific names' (that can contain mix of latin, greek and other languages (like sioux 'Bison')) and 'latin name' (term that does not exist)
    • For species, I am sure that binominal names are never understandable by en:Claudius
    • For higher ranks, like genus, I am also quite sure that ancient latin people had not the notion of genus => even if the genus is a correct latin term (like 'Equus') I am quite sure that it does not describe the same count of species (Donkey (en:Equus asinus) where not considered as Equus)
  3. there are a lot of {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }}
    • I suppose that this is something else: the contributor knew that it is incorrect, but wants to place a VN, but he does not want to provide an empty VN.
Here is my proposition for my bot:
  • for any language but for species only: I will suppress any <lang>=<species binominal name>.
But I have an problem with:
  • what do I do with {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }} ?
    • should I suppress the VN ?
    • should I leave it so ? (Beurk, beurk and beurk)
    • should I replace by {{VN| en= }} ?
      • We could change VN to says "Dear reader, could you, please, provide Vernacular names" when no language is provided.
PS: I really like that you check my bot's work. I feal safer (I wont mess the whole commons ;-).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Orchi meant with his point b) that your bot should not remove {{la|<scientific name>}} if this is the only description of a given file.
OTOH, the upload form entices to use the language Latin as field for the scientific name, the main upload form has no possibility to add a "generic" description.
as an example: the day before yesterday I uploaded a picture with this summary, two languages with commons names and some infos about the picture and Latin as placeholder for the scientific name (without further informations), this was later changed. Probably the latter is the better and more transparent way of describing species images but I'm not willing to touch a file twice: First uploading with common names in different languages, second step to add the scientific name without using a language template (Yes, I'm lazy :))
Greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
But my bot does not touch files, only articles and categories.
So there is someone that puts {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }} manually.
And that is bad.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
For example, I just saw that Ochi corrected category:Allium (the diff).
With my proposition, my bot would let |la=Allium in category:Allium (because I cannot bring enough intelligence in my bot)
But I think that |la=Allium is really wrong. The latin word Allium is for en:garlic (en:Allium sativum) not for en:Onion (en:Allium cepa).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC) see my difficulty to explain botanical and software questions in the english language.
My point a) seems to be o.k.
My point b) User:Rbrausse helped for understanding: "that your bot should not remove {{la|<scientific name>}} if this is the only description in VN"

Your proposals:

  • should I replace by {{VN| en= }}
  • We could change VN to says "Dear reader, could you, please, provide Vernacular names" when no language is provided

are not the best ways, I think.
(what is: (Beurk, beurk and beurk)??

You are an informatic engineer and software artist. I try to say what I mean. (Please don't laugh)
Could you change the template VN in that way, that following condition is integrated:
"If not |af= until |zh= than write: Scientific name: {{FULLPAGENAME]]
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me summarize all this:
  • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
    • except if that leads to an empty VN
  • I will try to modify {{VN}} to display "Scientific name: {{PAGENAME}}"
    • if I success I will suppress the "except if that leads to an empty VN" part of the algo.
Do you think that would work ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
in general I agree - I have only problems with automatically define the pagename as scientific name. We have many categories like Hoplites (Hoplitidae) but the binominal is only Hoplites.
I would prefer an extended VN template, with an added mandatory parameter "binominal" - I think this would be more transparent as no one has the necessity to "abuse" la=<foobar> for the scientific name.
my 2 cents... [full disclosure: I'm neither familiar with templates nor the category system] Rbrausse (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

hihi, you are correct (again ;-))
  1. ALGO before any VN change:
    • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
      • except if that leads to an empty VN
  2. I will try to modify {{VN}} to add a |sci= parameter (like scientific name) that will only appear if no other language is specified. Its default value will be {{PAGENAME}}.
  3. ALGO after VN change:
    • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
    • If the resulting VN is empty:
      • if the pages/article contains "(xxxx)", I will add |sci=<species binominal name> where <species binominal name> whould be "{{PAGENAME}}" minus the ending "(xxxx)"
      • otherwise the VN will be empty (but will display "scientific name: XXXX")
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Liné1, I see all is very difficult and a hard work for you. The " |sci= parameter " is the good way. With interest I wait for testing of your first samples. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

will your bot be able to differentiate between species/genera and other taxons? Biologists are quite - uhm - hot-headed about the nomenclature and Equus asinus instead of Equus asinus could be resulting in *many* bug reports on your talk page :) Rbrausse (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, I will try to distinguish Genus from higher ranks ;-) Thanks for the reminder Liné1 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
....I said it sometimes ago: You are a perfectionist just. :-) Orchi (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Bonjour Liné1; I see that Greudin was able to make the changes you requested. I'm sorry I was not able to help last week. Thank you for the word "padawan".[1] Amitié, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Bonjour Liné1; Liné1bot is fixing many of the galleries I've created and is saving me a lot of work. However, it is making it difficult to read my watch list. Please consider requesting a bot flag for Liné1bot. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that problem today. How do I request this flag ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Bots and request a flag, your bot is apparently operating without permission and flag, and its actions appear in watchlists. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I did request the permission (See here). I don't understand the problem. Can you help me? Thanks Liné1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
the problem is that your bot makes *many* edits - and Walter's watch list is kind of flooded with edits by your bot. With a bot flag it would be possible to hide bot edits in one's watch lists and the signal to noise ratio will be much better :)
until your bot request is granted you could slow down the bot a little bit - you don't have other solutions to solve this issue by yourself. Rbrausse (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But my bot request has been granted. That's my problem.
I feel like a small boy taken with fingers in the honeypot. But I don't like honey ;-)
Of course, I stopped my bot when I discovered the problem.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
oh, I didn't realized that your bot is official since January... sorry. I "escalated" the issue :) Rbrausse (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
according to User:Jafeluv you have to set the flag "bot edit" in your application. What framework do you use? Rbrausse (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am using en:User:MER-C/
I looked in en:User:MER-C/, it is as if the code detects if my user as the bot flag, then set the attribute:
if ((user.userRights() & BOT) == BOT)
I will try programatically to check if I have the bot flag.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
or you could simply remove the if-condition (as your bot owns the flag here at commons) :) Rbrausse (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I like it ;-). But I will try to solve the problem first as en:User:MER-C/ is used by others. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
ah shit, a perfectionist.... :P Rbrausse (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It is fixed for me. "Hide bots" works now. Merci. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did a correction in my bot. There is a bug in en:User:MER-C/ because my bot loginname contains "é". Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
....I greet Mr. Perfectissimus! Salu. Orchi (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Plan_du_Parc_de_Merlet_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 file, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

ChrisJ (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Bonjour Liné1; I wrote a Python script that scrapes the USDA PLANTS site and generates text suitable for pasting onto a species gallery or category page.[2] Recent taxonavigation edits by Liné1bot are different.[3] I'd like to make my script consistent with Liné1bot. What is your data source? Have you abandoned {{Onagraceae species}} and similar templates as being unworkable? I see that Liné1bot sometimes leaves the classification parameter blank.[4] Is that because it is copying an existing taxonavigation template? Please reply in French, if you wish. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
I am replacing templates from Category:Plant Navigation Templates by templates from Category:Templates to include in Taxonavigation.
There are many many reasons, that I will explain here.
I am not using a data source, I am juste replacing.
I add a parameter classification=| when I know that a classification should be provided, but none has been provided yet.
So you should simply generates Taxonavigation looking like this:
include=Onagraceae (APG)|
Species|XXXX YYYY|
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, would you like to be part of the project ? I already asked User:Orchi, but he does not seem to have enough time.
Later, I will be much interested in your USDA PLANTS script.
Be careful, USDA PLANTS seems to follow Cronquist rather than APGIII.
I myself have a tool (WikiBioReferences) that does extract information from ~50 web sites to generate wiki code. You should try it: it is free, easy to use and weel supported (by me ;-))
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour Liné1; I'm very pleased to learn of WikiBioReferences. So far, I've been unable to run it. I sent you details via E-mail to avoid cluttering your talk page. Thanks for commenting on USDA PLANTS. I found your essay, Category talk:Plant Navigation Templates, helpful. Thank you for explaining the issues so clearly. At User_talk:Look2See1#Interwiki_links, I commented on Liné1bot and encouraged another editor to seek your advice. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Neotrygon kuhlii

This is the correct name, Dasyatis kuhlii is a synonim (see [5]), please can you take off the template? Thank you.--Etrusko25 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, so I did the redirect. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Image / File

Cher Liné1, just I saw, that you changed "File" to "Image" (e.g. Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum). Is there a handling change in commons? I (software-greenhorn) am proud to use a (selfmade)-Makro in OpenOffice to set "Image" to "File" automaticly. Have I to stop this or shall I change my Makro into the other way? Salu. Orchi (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, it is an error on my side.
I don't know why, but it is as if I had reverted you modification.
Yes, I know: I edited the article before your modification, then let the browser opened during the night, then did the same Species modification as you.
=> I reverted part of your modification.
Please, accept my most humble apologies ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates for speedy deletion

That's an awful lot of templates you put up for deletion; all eligible as they are unused, but I hope you know what you're doing :) Just saying. Rehman 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rehman. I am replacing 1300 useless templates of Category:Plant Navigation Templates. You can read the detailed explaination here. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh okay. That was just a passer-by note; no judgements made ;) Rehman 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Salut Liné1, perhaps we can think over the following proposals. Commons as collection for pictures etc. has many (good!) "texts" in the meantime.
1. for {{VN}} an alphabetical inline-scroll box. Test-sample: Orchidaceae.
2. the idea from wikispecies [6] to show and hide the complete taxonomy. Test-sample: Masdevallia rimarima-alba.
Of course the form (an inline-form) must be more better (with your graphic and softeware art). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
Sorry for the late answer.
I have a bad news: you mistook me for Rocket000 ;-)
The truth is that I really know nothing about HTML, and have no graphical capability: I am a poor geek happy with black and white text ;-)
But I am investigating {{VN}} with {{Liné1SandBoxTemplate}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
About {{VN}}, the problem of the scrollbar is that af,de,fr will always be displayed, when zh,yo will always be hided (even if accessible if you scroll)
Look at Callipepla gambelii, I have worked to put your language first.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Salut Liné1, I see you find good ways always. To set the VN of user's home-language on the first place is a good idea. (Perhaps can you build a little frame for a better difference to the alphabetical sequence of VN insted of underlining.) Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is for non-loggued user. Their language is set to english by default. I am afraid that someone would says that we are too english centered. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
...that is correct. Than let us wait for better ideas. I send greetings to you. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A mistaken Redirect page?

I'm wondering whether this Category Redirect page <> is inappropriate. After all, there is a real page for the Category: <>. So does that mean that the Redirect page should be eliminated? --James Steakley (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jdsteakley. I have seen such redirect from time to time. I don't know what there use is. I changed Monanthes to be a redirect to Category:Monanthes but that may not be the best idea.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That was certainly speedy! --James Steakley (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A new genus

Hello again. I have just uploaded this photo <<>>, which I believe is a genus new to Wikimedia. Would it be possible for you to do some taxonomic work on it? --James Steakley (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Once again, that was certainly speedy! --James Steakley (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No problemo. You are welcome. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, love the SN! Good work! --Jdsteakley (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WikipediaBioReferences questions

Bonjour Liné1;

When I run WikipediaBioReferences for Delphinium multiplex, it returns the following:

authority=(Ewan) C.[[Carl von Linné|L.]] Hitchc.}}



* {{ITIS|18479|''Delphinium multiplex'' (Ewan) C.L. Hitchc. }}

* {{NCBI|136332|''Delphinium multiplex'' }}

Is it possible to persuade it to add the Taxonavigation tag, include=, Genus and Species (as below)?


include=Ranunculaceae (APG)|


Species|Delphinium multiplex|

authority=(Ewan) C.[[Carl von Linné|L.]] Hitchc.}}

Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. I need to try it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been using WikipediaBioReferences to create galleries and categories for some images of species that I uploaded recently. It is very useful. Thank you for making it available. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Try version 338 it is a start.
There are 2 options that would interest you:
  • Options -> 'Select All Commons' that will optimize performance for a wikicommons contributor
  • Options -> 'Wiki France'=no that will optimize performance for a wikicommons contributor
  • Options -> 'Wiki Commons'=yes that will optimize performance for a wikicommons contributor
  • Options -> 'Wiki Species'=no that will optimize performance for a wikicommons contributor
  • Options -> 'Restrict Taxobox phylo to botanic' that will (or not) generate Taxonavigation for animals
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour Liné1; It works for me. Thank you for the explanation of the options. It appears to create links to sister projects if the article is present. That is a good feature. BTW, the file permissions (no access) do not allow me to run the script as unzipped. Giving myself "read permission" allows it to run. That isn't a problem for me, but may be a small barrier for others who may wish to use it. Do you have a preference for the location of the Synonyms tag? I've been putting it immediately after Taxonavigation, but I don't have a strong opinion. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. I am aware of file permissions problem but never could find a solution (put permissions in the zip?) On what OS are you ?
  2. As for the {{Taxonavigation}}, {{VN}} and {{SN}} order it really is a problem. My bot creates a lot of {{VN}} and {{SN}} but I still don't know what order to use.
    A long time ago I asked for a vote in Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life but could not obtain a result.
    My advice is: keep {{VN}} and {{SN}} together as they have the same look + Keep {{Taxonavigation}} and {{SN}} together as they are both taxonomy.
    So: {{Taxonavigation}} then {{SN}} then {{VN}} or {{VN}} then {{SN}} then {{Taxonavigation}}.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Bonjour Liné1;
  1. OS X 10.5.8.
  2. Thanks for the guidance on order. I'm happy with either. MPF, who unfortunately is no longer active, argued strongly for Taxonavigation first. The non-technical people seem to expect VN first. As I've said before, Liné1bot provides a de facto standard because of its high edit volume. I intend to follow Liné1bot, but my edit volume is small.
  3. I wasn't aware of the WikispeciesCompact problem. If it can't be fixed easily, that is a good argument for {{Wikispecies}}.
Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug in {{WikispeciesCompact}}

J'ai trouvé un bug pénible sur {{WikispeciesCompact}} que j'ai décrit ici.
Si tu as deux secondes pour regarder, ou si tu connais un pro en template.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Désolé, mais je ne vois pas d'où vient le soucis. Apparemment, ce modèle est loin d'être le seul concerné : cela fait la même chose avec {{PD-Art}} par exemple.--Bapti 20:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
PS : Au lieu de déranger plusieurs utilisateurs en même temps sur leurs pages de discussion, mieux vaut laisser un mot sur le Bistro.


Hi Liné,

A few taxon categories showed up on Commons:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. At Santolina chamaecyparissus, it appears that the bot add the category to itself. --  Docu  at 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent tool! Thank you for pointing me my error. I think I corrected all of them. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Liné, Any idea why you removed the "category: SA red list least concern" from Zygophyllum flexuosum? The categories are useful in that they clasify all South African Plants. I know we have discussed this before at my home page. The ease of finding e.g. Endangered and Critically endangered South African plants makes it a useful tool for other users as well. For example an article in [[7]] used the "category: SA red list extinct in the wild" to discuss plants and animals brought back from the brink of extinction. I have therefore restored the category. If you did not remove it, would you please tell your bot to leave these categories alone. Thank you Andrew massyn (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because I put it in the category Category:Zygophyllum flexuosum. With your revert, the same species is twice in this Endangered cat. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
OK Apologies then. I will leave it there, although personally I prefer them on the gallery pages so as not to give unnecessary sub categories in the main category. Regards Andrew massyn (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Salut Liné1! Only a little question, whether I have understood the system. Because "Tribus" exists in genera, I created: "Genera of Plantaginaceae". Is that wrong? Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Orchi,
Category:Genera of Plantaginaceae is a good idea (because you can only see tribes in Category:Plantaginaceae, not genera).
But not the way she did it (the cat was only added when you did call a template of Category:Plant Navigation Templates. Templates that I am removing).
So I did suppress those kind of categories if they did contain too few genera.
But I am studying a modification of {{Taxonavigation}} to add those categories automatically.
So I have stopped suppressing those kind of categories
I will recontact you when I will have successfully do the{{Taxonavigation}} modifications.
Then we will recreate those categories.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
....thanks for your info. Your activity is wonderful!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I did it!
Thanks to that modification of template Plantaginaceae (APG), Category:Genera of Plantaginaceae and Category:Species of Plantaginaceae are now automatically filled!
Do you want to help me?
You could go through all the templates of Category:APG Templates to include in Taxonavigation
  • add rank= in all cases
  • add categorizeSpeciesIn= in all cases
  • add categorizeGeneraIn= only if we manage tribes or subfamilia
  • create the associated categories
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Liné1, unfortunately I do'nt have a Bot. But I'll try to help you. In the moment I have promised User:Nillerdk to sort ca. 1200 orchid pictures. Today the first (Paphiopedilum) one.
I propose to help in "APG Templates to include in Taxonavigation", beginning with "Z" .
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh... Gentianaceae is out of fashion maybe?

Just asking, but you removed the category Gentianaceae from a few of my uploaded pics for Orphium and Chironia. And I think you inserted the tribe name Chironieae instead. I could understand inserting the tribe as a category, but then why remove the family? Personally if I had been doing a search I would have expected family names to be more heavily used than tribes. Not that I'd go to war on this point, but is there some sort of guideline I have missed? Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jon.
To help understand the problem, you should have given me the pictures link.
So let me try to give you the global picture:
  1. picture should be in their species category
  2. when the species is unknow, they should be in the category:Unidentified Xxxx when Xxx should be of the lower rank possible (genus if possible, then tribe, then familly)
  3. a picture/article/category can be in many categories except if these categories are included in each other => in taxonomy they can/should be in the lowest rank category
So in your case:
I hope I did give you reasonnable explaination.
Don't hesitate to give me pictures urls for more specific explainations.
Thank you for your beautiful pictures and best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Liné, Thanks for your patient and friendly response. I am sure that you have long known that in an endeavour with ramifications as complex as Wikipedia and Commons, it is difficult for the outsider to realise how many complications arise that dictate particular strategies. I had not thought for example, of the size of the family as a factor. (Of course, that would be a bigger problem with Gentianaceae or Euphorbiaceae than with say, Stangeriaceae!  ;-) ) I am afraid that I had not (do not?) understand the category structure; I had thought that a file could have a number of categories, so that anyone searching for a picture could look under several headings, which could be very helpful in various contexts. So, for example I have been entering known species under both family and genus and genus+species. For example in the file File:Crassula capensis Cape snowdrop 9815.jpg I have as categories: Aspalathus | Crassula capensis | Crassula | Crassulaceae.

Should I rather just have made the category Crassula capensis and put all the other categorical words in the description and summary to support searches? Thank you for your kind remarks on the pictures; I am embarrassed to insist that my lack of aesthetic, technical, and compositional skills and experience cause me both to miss many opportunities and spoil many more. As you might guess from the material present, I am from (and in) South Africa, where in spite of appalling impoverishment of the biome in the last century or two, there still are many wonderful things to find if one looks hard enough. I am no botanist, and I keep finding plants where I have no idea even of the family. (And at the rate taxonomy is advancing today, things get worse; I used to know a Sutera when I saw one; now I have no idea what a Sutera is!)

Al the best and I hope not to interrupt your long-term work too badly, JonRichfield (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jon.
About friendlyness, you perhaps know that discussions in forums or discussion pages have a tendency to frustrate participants. This because they fill difficulties in expressing themselves and convincing others. So they tend to fight very quickly.
That why I try to be over friendly from the beginning, to use smileys and sign with "cheers". That way, our conversation will be more productive ;-)
Give me 2 minutes and I will try to respond to your question.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
First of all, sadly, not many of our contributors are botanists (I am not one).
Also, we all begin contributing as beginners ;-)
Yes, you should try to create the species category. In this case Category:Crassula capensis already exists. But the difficulty, for us non-botanist, is to be sure that the species really exists: We could have miscopied the name, or the name we copied could be an old deprecated synonym.
Then as you said, you could provide many information in this category to help others find it:
  • interwiki, like [[en:hello]]
  • you could modify the english page to have a like to your commons one (will increase google hits to your category)
  • {{VN}} to provide at least the english name of the plant (will increase google hits to your category)
  • some links to famous website to prove the existance of this species. For that you could use one of the templates of Category:Biology external link templates (like {{ITIS}} or {{NCBI}}...)
To do all that I created a free software WikiBioReferences. You type the taxonName, click search => it returns wikisyntax to paste in the commons page. Try it.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Genera & Species of Orchidaceae

Hello Liné1, give some time to find a good way please. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think, I found the good way: only tribes will have an automatic cat. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 35000 species will give a "little" category. I search a good way in your system also. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
...could you create the automatical filled cat. for "Subtribus" also? Thank you. Orchi (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Merci!.Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


You have used a classification that is in conflict with current phylogenies. The authors themselves have recinded it in a more recent publication.

There are also some taxonomic choices in that group on NCBI that have not been published. This would make using the calssification Original Research, which is frowned upon. It also means that the classification you have used will not be familiar to most workers or students, even in the field of hepaticology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what classification would you prefer to follow? Do you have a website to recommend ? Best regards Liné1 (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There isn't one published yet that's up-to-date. There are many that have been pulished in the last ten years. But the latest studies have overturned all the previous classifications. The latest phylogenies were published by the same people who publish classification systems, and they rejected the previous systems becuase of their findings. However, they have not yet published a new classification system. That's why the Marchantiophyta categories were not done yet; there is no good classification system available. That's also why I haven't yet written many liverwort taxonomy pages for Wikipedia; all the old classifications are probably going to be overturned within the next ten years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Moss classification

The NCBI moss classification is out-of-date. A current and updated version is available at the author's website [8]. Several families and orders have changed classification since the publication of the system used by NCBI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, a online classification is always a good news. I will correct our categories according.
By first, I would like to modify our templates to specify that we will follow this classification.
But I need:
Do you have any idea for this shortname and displayname (not too long) ?
Thanks Liné1 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I would use Goffinet et al., sinc ethe other authors are not actually part of the same lab, or at the same university site. If you need more, you could used "2008 emend.", where the "emend." indicates it includes emendations to the 2008 paper, or you could use "on-line". They have a new classification "in press", but I expect that the on-line version will continue to be more up-to-date and revised as new discoveries are made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have tried to contact M. Goffinet (I did that for multiple classification website and had quiet many positiv answer) but he hasn't answered yet.
Let us try "Goffinet et al" as short name and "Goffinet et al" as display name.
I will contact you to show you the result.
Thanks Liné1 (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You can should the result on Bryophyta. Please, tell me if what you think of it. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I migrated all taxa with rank higher or equal to family to "Goffinet et al". You will find all the families in Category:Families of Bryophyta. Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


There is no reason to include the classes. One of the classes contains only one species, all the other species are in the other class. And, incidentally, each family is currently placed in its own order, so orders won't help any with categorization either. Hence, the families are currently listed directly in the main category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the class and order category should be created with redirects to the interesting category.
We need to have categories for the (for example) articles.
So maybe, Anthocerotales, Dendrocerotales, Notothyladales can be redirects,
but they must exist, even if only to say that we choose that option.
I really think that Category:Anthocerotopsida (class) must exists.
I will create Category:Families of Anthocerotophyta for the visibility of families in Category:Anthocerotophyta
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
But the will not have most of those articles or categories. Those are pointless categories that will not help anyone! --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand, if your want to see all the Anthocerotophyta families, there is Category:Families of Anthocerotophyta.
Why would a category representing a class (not a sub<something> rank) bother you ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to burden users with lots of additional links that all point nowhere. It simply adds visual distraction, and keeps users from seeing what information is actually available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Leiosporocerotopsida 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 category, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Anthocerotopsida 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 category, 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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. 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)‎ | +/−

EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Please do not move this file into c ategory Anthoceros; it is not an Anthoceros. I am not certain which genus it is, but I am positive it is not Anthoceros because the spores are entirely the wrong color. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How sad. Could you precise it in the media description itself ?
Normally this media should be put in Category:Unidentified Anthocerotophyta.
There is a Unidentified mosses and hornworts but it is not the standard.
Would you mind if I created this cat ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no point in creating a separate category for the single unidentified image. Having it in the main category works just as well, if not better. I cannot give a precise description, because I am not certain of ths genus. It belongs to one of the more recently recognized genera, and there are few illustrations and fewer photographs avaialable to compare against. The text associated with the image does not call it Anthoceros, that name only appears in the file name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, really, you seems an excellent contributor, but you seem you dislike commons/wikipedia standard behaviors (I don't says they are good, just that they are commonly used):
  • About, File:Anthoceros.jpg, if it is misnamed, there should be a warning in the media description (I put one with my approximate english, could you fix it?)
  • unidentified media are not left in a taxon category, but put in a Unidentified cat even if the this cat has a small content.
  • there are thousands of almost empty Unidentified cat.
  • I imagine that some other media from Unidentified mosses and hornworts could be easely put in that Unidentified cat
  • Unidentified mosses and hornworts should not be an article but a category. (There is a problem arround the fact that mosses+liverworts+hornworts is not a valid taxon, but the problem is the same for an article and a category)
By the way, shouldn't Unidentified mosses and hornworts be renamed Unidentified mosses, liverworts and hornworts?
I really hope, you don't dislike me too much. Our disagreement are only technically and limited.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Mosses, liverworts, and hornworts should not be grouped together, any more than ferns, conifers, and grasses should be grouped together. They are in separate botanical divisions. No, there aren;t any other unidentified hornwort images; there is only the one. There are very few hornwort images ever uploaded, so it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be many unidentified hornworts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Liné,

It is very confusing to mix current taxonomy with obsolete taxa. I use polychaete taxonomy every day at work, and the one at WoRMS is the de facto standard in the marine scientific world at the moment. Regards. Hans 18:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hans,
Polychaeta classification seems conflict without agreement.
The problem is that WoRMS seems a bit alone to use this classification: 'Rouse & Fauchald (1998)' (see in fr:Polychaeta), en:Polychaete, species:Polychaeta, NCBI, ITIS,, ADW do recognize Palpata.
WoRMS seems to follow 'Dauvin, J.-C.; Dewarumez, J.-M.; Gentil, F. (2003)'
WoRMS is a strange website that has strange bugs like class in a family in an class
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, If you find those bugs, could you tell me? I'm in close contact with the people at WoRMS. Thanks. Hans 06:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Mostly they have bugs arround ranks, but a lot of them.
Like here: all sources says that class Anopla contains orders that contain families. But WoRMS says that class Anopla contains subclass that contain families.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, just I saw, that the link to KEW of this this e.g.: Disa (Orchidaceae) do not use the template with "=Disa", but the title of the gallery "Disa (Orchidaceae)". Can you help? Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend. I corrected the problem in the templates. Thanks for reporting it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Salu Liné1, thank's! I hope you spent good hollidays. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Brown algae categories

I would have hoped by now that you would take more care in adding classifications categories. "Phaeophyceae" is a class, not a phylum. By ICBN rules, -phyceae is an algal class ending.

A much better source for current algal classification is AlgaeBase. I don't know why you're using ITIS and WRMS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I did a wrong copy-paste. It is corrected. Thanks a lot.
About AlgaeBASE, I know the source as I created {{AlgaeBASE taxon}},{{AlgaeBASE genus}}, {{AlgaeBASE species}}.
I will try to use it more.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cnidarian taxonomy

Hello! I wonder why you use the ITIS as a source of data on the cnidarian taxonomy. It's outdated in almost all groups. For cnidarian much better is the WoRMS. I even think that including the data from the ITIS is harmfull since it's wrong or at least incompete in most cases. Mithril (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  • And the "NCBI Taxonomy" is inappropriate too since there're only those taxa which are represented in the GenBank. Mithril (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, did I forget to provide WoRMS taxonomy ? Could you give me some links to check what you mean?
Truth is, I try to provide multiple references and I try to determine which reference is better for which group. But that is hard work. ;-)
For example, for fishes, FishBase is the better reference for description, but ITIS is often better in term of classification.
For cnidarian, ITIS is quiet poor and certainly outdated. But WoRMS has also a lot of limitations/bugs. It is also often criticized to be computer filled (FishBase is manually filled and reviewed by experts, reason why they are very very small to incorporate classification modifications).
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here I talk about cnidarian taxonomy only. And I've never found any rude mistake in cnidarian taxonomy on WoRMS. So the problem consists not in forgetting the WoRMS, but in usage resources with evidently incorrect data. The cnidarian parts of the ITIS and the NCBI Taxonomy are not other version of the group taxonomy. They are wrong and incompetent versions (respectively). In the ITIS there're mistakes even in the highest level: here they've simply forgotten to put Hydrozoa into Medusozoa. In the NCBI taxonomy there's a disclaimer about not using it as a source of data on taxonomy. Mithril (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree about ITIS pertinence in cnidarians.
About ITIS, Hydrozoa and Medusozoa, I don't understand: WoRMS places Hydrozoa directly under Cnidaria like ITIS.
Yes, I heard of the NCBI disclaimer. Personaly, I think it is a form of modesty which makes NCBI sympathic. There is the same kind on APWebsite which is a quite followed reference.
I will suppress ITIS from Cnidarian in the future.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no Medusozoa in WoRMS at all. And it's present in the ITIS and do not include Hydrozoa. Once I had an epic fight with a person who used the ITIS to prove to me that the hydrozoans are not Medusozoa. That was terrible. So by limiting usage of this resource you'll make me happy.
The problem of the NCBI is much deeper than modesty. You cannot describe the subordinal taxonomy using an incomplete list of the subordinal taxa. NCBI lists are typically incomplete since you can hardly find group with molecular data for all representatives. If there's no molecular data they do not include the taxon into their system. That's because of the aims of the NCBI Taxonomy Browser: it simply helps molecular biologists to get into classification of their objects, e.g., to inform them that Arabidopsis is not only a plant but also a member of Brassicaceae. It should be used to read the Tree from the branches to the root but not from the root to the branches. Mithril (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

taxon pages

Hello I have posted something at Commons:Village pump/Proposals, but I see you were much involved in biology categories so maybe it is easier to see first with people like you. I would like to create a 'taxon" namespace using a {{taxon}} that would take most information from Wikispecies but converted into a format that make it usable on Commons. The purpose is to have something cleaner and much easier to internationalize. The template could be useful for both categories and files. See Taxon:Gorilla, Category:Gorilla and File:Gorilla.jpg for possible implementations (note: I would like to make all information from taxon visible from categories through a collapsible table but I did not manage to do that yet).--Zolo (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)ah! j'aurais pu écrire en français, mais bon c'est trop tard...

Salut, je vois plusieurs soucis à ton idée:
La source étant wikispecies, tu va te confronter à une sacrée resistance, wikispecies n'étant pas apprécié (ils ne précisent pas leurs sources...).
Pour chacun de nos taxons (dans les 100.000) tu voudrais créer une entrée :Taxon:XXX. Ca couterait cher + ca fait beaucoup de travail + on perd ce qu'on a déja fait.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Oui créer un page taxon est un peu dommage, je préfèrerais pouvoir faire ça directement dans la catégorie mais avec le système actuel, ça exposerait à beaucoup de bugs dus à des problèmes de tansclusion (je voulais faire, avec quelques autres utilisateurs, faire quelque chose de similaire pour les oeuvres d'art, mais on a finalement reculé, vu que là bas le ratio image/nombre d'oeuvre est sans doute destiné à rester plus bas encore).
Quand je proposais Wikispecies, en fait je n'étais pas très sûr, si ce qu'on a ici est déjà mieux, on pourrait utiliser les données Commons en priorité.
Quoi qu'il en soit l'idée n'a pas l'air de plaire à grand monde, donc je vais abandonner pour l'instant. Peut-être pourra-t-elle être relancée quand on aura des possiblités techniques plus intéressantes (par exemple, vu que le modèle est facile à internationaliser, les pages pourraient aussi servir d'infobox pour des petits Wikipédia qui n'ont pas assez de contributeurs pour tout entretenir par eux-mêmes).--Zolo (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Would you please take a look at this template. Maybe I am using it wrong, but the outcome is not the best, as it does not group the names+authors. Please check Category:Vriesea sanguinolenta and you see what I mean. Uleli (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I've made template:WSSN to refer to synonyms in Wikispecies rather than listing them in commons. As you might know, these lists tend to vary and might be easier in the future to keep Wikispecies up to date. A consensus between Commons and Wikispecies would be preferable Uleli (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Rocket000 is in wikibreak but I am like its padawan.
What is wrong with {{SN}} ?
I don't really understand the part about "it does not group the names+authors".
About {{WSSN}}, you should know that is not really liked in commons.
I added many thousand {{Wikispecies}} but I see that many contributor suppress or comment them.
I must confess, that I always find strange that wikispecies rarely provides its sources and never its classification (like APGIII in botanic).
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The template work, but strange thing happen when you resize the window. Look at Category:Crinum × amabile.
Wikispecies. There are a lot of work to be done here and some authors are not so serious, not giving good references. I try to use standard floras or databases, or up to date research if possible.
What do people not like about the references to Wikispecies? I think it is a good tool to keep a consensus of the names used. And for synonyms, well they vary with time... easier to make the changes in one place Uleli (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, the resizing bug! I saw it. It is awful.
I think we will need help on that one.
I can reproduce it on Chrome, firefox but not on InternetExplorer.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I have described the bug in Template_talk:SN. I will find help on this. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, my gratulation! All the best for your 40. birthday. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend. Thanks for the congratulations but I hoped that my update would be less visible ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
....merci. Orchi (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

wth is a "BIO" diver?

Bonjour Liné1, Je vais donc répondre à tes remarques, ah cool, t'es francophone, toujours ça de gagné pour ma paresse. Bon alors: Avouons-le j'adore créer des catégories, mais il ne faut pas croire que je suis un maniaque pour autant. Je ne les crée pas comme ça par fantaisie. En gros, j'en crée dès qu'il commence a y avoir plus d'une vingtaine d'images ou qd le potentiel de remplissage (très important ça) est élevé.

Donc : Certes il n'y a qu'une photo ds Category:Cytisus scoparius in France et Category:Iris germanica in France mais leur potentiel de remplissage est très élevé, ce sont des espèces très communes dans les climats tempérés, donc je n'attends pas d'en avoir identifé plein pour créer la catégorie. Il y a un effet d'émulation lorqu'une catégorie est créée, mais peut-être est-ce vrai que je consacre plus de temps à créer les catégories qu'à les remplir après coup. Je compte peut-être un peu trop sur l'effet d'émulation. J'imagine tout à fait des catégories nationales voire régionales (cf. Category:Platanus in Toulouse (ornamental), oh mes aïeux !) pour toute la flore (voire biocénose ?). Quand je vais dans une catégorie comme Category:Flora of France, je m'attends à voir des taxons réellement originaire de France et pas de Chypre, d'Allemagne, etc. Et pis tu imagines dans 10 ans, 20 ans... le bordel que ça va être ? Je me mets donc à systématiquement créer in France qd j'uploade une photo de plante (commune bien sûr, je ne ferai pas ça avec des plantes à la distribtion limitée, mais Hedera helix, Robinia pseudoacacia,...), certes peut-être pourrais-je attendre d'en avoir au moins cinq pour créer la catégorie, oui j'y songerai. Bref tu peux voir dans Category:Flora of France by taxon que je sévis depuis déjà qq temps ;P (la plupart sont encore peu remplies, mais certaines comme Category:Trachycarpus fortunei in France commencent à pendre forme...

En fait Category:Rocher de Roquelaure je ne suis pas sûr que ce fut une bonne idée, son potentiel de remplissage étant plutôt faible. Département peu connu, patelin inconnu et pas touristique du tout, rocher invisible qd les arbres sont en feuilles, et même l'hiver pas très facile à photographier ou à atteindre, mais bah c'est fait.

Quant aux catégories chronologiques, ben c'est la même logique : dépeupler des catégories au potentiel de remplissage trop élevé. Bon, oui, Category:March 2011 in Ariège, n'était pas essentielle, j'aurais pu me contenter de Winter 2010-2011 in Ariège, mais comme j'avais fait plein de photos en mars en Ariège, je l'ai créée (et maintenant remplie aussi, sans compter celles que je n'ai pas encore uploadées). Je vois pas trop ce que tu reproches à Category:Winter 2010-2011 in Midi-Pyrénées. Midi-Pyrénées est qm la plus grande région de France, son potentiel est donc élevé; bon en fait c'est surtout une catégorie navigationnelle pou remonter ds la hiérarchie depuis Category:Winter 2010-2011 in Toulouse qui contient bcp de photos. Veux-tu dire que je pourrais me contenter des mois ? Oui, bah par saison, ça peut être intéressant aussi. (Ce que j'espère aussi en fait, c'est qu'il y ait dans l'avenir outil, du genre de cat-a-lot (appelons le show-a-lot) qui montrerait tout les documents d'une catégorie sans tenir compte des catégories filles.) Category:Winter in Ariège, avec le temps ça peut devenir gros; et ça peut être très intéressant de comparer les différences entre années par saison, on peut voir si l'enneigement change, si les arbres ont encore des feuilles en telle année mais pas une autre, etc. J'avais même vu, mais je sais plus où (dans commons bien sûr), une catégorie du genre Plants photographed in may, j'avais trouvé ça dingue à l'époque, mais j'en suis moins sûr maintenant. - Olybrius (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

hihi, le francais c'est quand même plus clair.
Nous avons la même visions des catégories:
Pour ce qui est des catégories dont le nom contient date/mois/saison + zone géographique, je pense que ca risque d'être compliqué à gèrer. Le créateur peut choisir en fonction de son humeur date, mois, saison ou année. De même il peut choisir la zone géographique qu'il veut (nom du rocher;-)/hameau/ville/département/région/pays. Comment va-t-on ranger ses catégories? Je pense qu'il y a trop de latitude de choix et que ca manque de règle. Sur wikipédia, dès qu'on manque de règle, tout le monde fait nimporte quoi.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
"Bref total bazar" - hey, the Bazaar model is working :) No idea why you are comparing this to :P Rbrausse (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

question regarding cats

Bonjour Liné1,

you as the grandmaster of categories :)

This cute animal has no unambiguous taxon, some claim Callithrix chrysoleuca, others Mico chrysoleucus. How should this represented in the cat-tree?

regards, Rbrausse (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rbrausse
Our source for mammals is Mammal Species of the World. MSW calls this species Callithrix (Mico) chrysoleuca Wagner, 1842.
We don't use the subgenus "(Mico)" part into account as it is not mandatory.
We don't trust MSW about the author (they say "Wagner, 1842" but MSW always forget the parenthesis when the species has been renamed)
So clearly the cat should be called Category:Callithrix chrysoleuca
I created Category:Mico chrysoleucus as a redirect to Category:Callithrix chrysoleuca
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
okay, thanks a lot! Rbrausse (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

APG template

Hi Liné1; Is there a tool to make APG templates, e.g., Polypodium amorphum requires Template:Polypodiaceae (APG)? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
Template:XXXXceae (APG) means following APGX (like APGIII) classification. So it is for Angiosperm only.
In your case it would be Template:Polypodiaceae (Smith) or simply Template:Polypodiaceae.
I do create those kind of template manually, but later, I have a bot that make all Taxonavigation use them.
Do you want me to create the 33 templates ?
Whith what name: Template:XXXXXXceae (Smith) or simply Template:XXXXXXceae
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Liné1; So that is what the "A" abbreviates. I apologize for my ignorance. Just now, I noticed that User:Choess fixed an earlier similar edit of mine.[9] I don't have an opinion on the name of the template although Template:XXXXXXceae (Smith) helps to document the system nicely and is analogous to Template:XXXXceae (APG). Perhaps Choess might have an opinion. If you have a bot planned, I'll be patient. There is no need to act immediately on my account. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Polypodium amorphum![10]] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Image:Hymenophyllum+Hymenoglossum Chiloe.JPG

Dear Liné,

I appreciate if people who know more than I do make improvements to my uploads. I am still somewhat unclear about the desired categorization. I chose Hymenophyllaceae because the picture contains two Hymenophyllaceae genera. However, if the policy is so strict that only the genus is admissable as taxonomic category, I think not only Hymenophyllum but also Hymenoglossum should be a categorie for this picture. I will amend your changes thus.

Kind Regards, Ronald

Hello Ronald. From what I understood, Hymenoglossum has been integrated in Hymenophyllum (See Category:Hymenophyllaceae about Hymenoglossum).
So I suppose the the 2 species must now be HymenoglossumHymenophyllum cruentum and Hymenophyllum caudiculatum.
But I must confess that I did not crossverified it.
Sorry about that and thanks for your kind phrasing.
I will check the 2 names.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I did investigate and created Hymenophyllum cruentum and Hymenophyllum caudiculatum.
If you could check again if I did wrong.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Liné, I'm cool with the changes you made, thanks.


Hi, this category is not well categorized. Regards --JotaCartas (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks a lot. I did a correction. Best regards Liné1 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Phrycodothyris should be Category:Phricodothyris

I was trying to change it, but you were already on it. I made a typo in one of the file names, and of cause chose that one to create a category. But the generic name is wrong in the category and that one file. You seem to be much handier making it right. Kind regards, Ronald

No problem. You are welcome Liné1 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You really are our Trilobit master. thanks for your wonderful photos. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Astragalus brachycalyx

He tomado los datos de aquí. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:1 - Perciformes sp. Kew.jpg

Hi Liné1,

What is your opinion about this fish, File:1 - Perciformes sp. Kew.jpg? It is one of this two sp. or it is neither one? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend, I would say neither one. It has no occelle to be Hemigrammus ocellifer and its tail is not black enough to be Trigonostigma heteromorpha. I will ask for help. Best regards Liné1 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK than, thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Salut Liné1, my gratulation for the 100.000! As you are a young man, you will reach the 1.000.000 also, I think Smiley.svg. Thanks for your wonderful work in commons. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations for u too. 100.4k on Commons n 49.7k on fr.wikipedia is quite a lot, very crazy ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I feel a bit crazy ;-) I my wife hears about that, I am like dead ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request in templates

Salut Liné1, could you change a template please? Is it possible for you to change the template:fohy with the same functions of template:tysp for galleries and categories. I think, that a seperate "title" - function in "fohy" is not required here. The small letters of the authors could be realised.
Formula hybridae: Ophrys insectifera L. (1753) × Ophrys sphegodes Mill. (1768)
Formula hybridae: Ophrys insectifera L. (1753) × Ophrys sphegodes Mill. (1768)
I hope, you understand my wishes (by a man without knowledge of software).
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of that ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Perfect!! It is possible by using "fohy" in categories, that the links lead to the species-category and by using "fohy" in galleries, that the links lead to the species-gallery? like in "tysp"? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


I am confused by this edit. Why did you check NCBI? NCBI is not a taxonomic database; their site has a disclaimer on every page announcing this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I often hear about this disclaimer. It is only a form of modesty. There is the same kind of warning on APWebsite, but we still reference it. (Worst of it, APWebsite is a day to day research book)
The thing is, there are not many website following accurately APGIII.
Like you, I would have prefered to follow Kew garden, because this university is suppose to hold all the botanic knowledge.
But it is only a trap. Kew web site holds multiple databases (You can see them here). They are contradictory, sometimes old, often rarely updated.
'World Checklist' is the more often updated of them. But while I migrated commons families from APGII to APGIII, I discovered that they had not taken the modifications from APGII to APGIII into account at all.
One other thing is: The database look like the data are filled by Kew, but it is not the case: the database is only hosted. In the case of 'World Checklist', just one contributor has worked (or is working?) for kew as professor. Still, been hosted by Kew means certainly a lot in term of quality.
'World Checklist' has more genera, but NCBI follows more APGIII.
As always there is no ultimate source ;-(
We have the same issue with FishBase which is an excellent site in term of number of species, but the unique person in charge of the classification is sssslllloooowwww. I describe some bugs and she replied that she agreed with me but that she was updating the classification. 2 years and the bugs are still there!
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It is more than modestty. INPI uses unpublished groups for certain plants, and some higher taxa that are not accepted for in use in the literature. They also include many defunct and incorrect names, and often do not use minor ranks. They are trying to work towards APG III, but that system is only for flowering plants and not for any other groups.
You do know that the published APG III system includes only orders and families, with a small number of informal higher clade names? It does not cover classification within any family. So, APG III is irrelevant for a discussion about tribes.
So, again, why are you explicitly holding up NCBI as the standard for these tribe categories? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I never meant that NCBI was a standard for tribe. Here I just said the tribe was not widely recognized.
I just wanted to give an example of a source not recognizing this tribe.
This tribe is mostly described by APWebsite & es.wikipedia & GRIN & Wikispecies but there is nothing about tribes in en.wikipedia, GBIF, Tropico, EOL, CoL or in the whole Kew website.
In fact, I think that there are not many reliable sources for tribes on internet.
Do you know any ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Tribes are used most by specialists who work in that particular group. I do not know of any site that tracks tribes as a database. Tribes must be checked group by group in the scientific literature itself. Some are widely used in publication of article titles, and that is the best way to determine whether they are "widely" accepted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
From what you say, it looks like some tribe content are not really accessible to wikipedia. If a contributor cannot precisely precise which source he uses for tribe content for the whole family (or if the source is not widely accessible), then none of the other contributors can verify what the first did.
If there is no "site that tracks tribes as a database", it is, perhaps, because the task is difficult. I don't see how poor wikicommons could succeed where they abandoned.
So maybe, we could keep tribe categories without precise source, for information only, but keep them empty.
I introduced parameter source= in {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}... + parameter classification= to {{Taxonavigation}} + {{Taxasource}} because in the past the rule was "I tell you guys what this taxon content is. You must trust me because I won't provide my source and you won't be able to cross check my work".
This was neither scientific nor colaborativ.
Now, wikicommons follows FishBase for fishes, IOC classification 2.9 for birds, AlgaeBASE for algues, Mammal Species of the World for mammals, ReptileDB for reptils, Smith System for ferns...
Aren't we on the good road ? ;-)
Best regards. Liné1 (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
For small families, it might even be best to just delete the tribes. Tribes are important and most frequently used in large groups like the Asteraceae and Poaceae. When a family has only a dozen genera, the tribes don't usually help much, except when a tribe corresponds to a former family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your work

Salu Liné1, evertime I'm surprised about your perfect work. Gratulation! Yesterday I realized your newest chances (after longer time).
In the moment I spend many time in building my own wiki (only for my own computer) in orchids. My aim: To collect pictures of orchids for my private identification-database with the same kind of commons.
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and for the next New Year 2012 all the best for you.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: {{Taxolang}}

You're wellcome. --DPC (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! DenesFeri (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)