User talk:Liné1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Liné1bot)
Jump to: navigation, search


I just found en:Template:TaxonIds and en:Template:Taxonbar. Anyway we can use some of that code? (Especially that last template, since it uses Wikidata as a source and automaticly flls it out.) Josve05a (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Josve05a:,
I thought a lot about these kind of templates. As a result, I don't like these templates:
  • their display is awfull.
  • they provide no information: no authority, no validity, no accepted name/syn. for synonymy
    • I introduced our templates because each source has a different preferred name, a different authority (See Pulsatilla_vulgaris)
  • they provide only one link when our template provide multiple: mirrors ({{FishBase species}}), subtaxa link ({{WRMS}}, {{Tropicos}}), direct access to repartition...
  • they provide only one link when our template can be called multiple times: See Pulsatilla_vulgaris
  • they use named parameters
    • these are difficult to remember => contributors will copy/paste all of the parameters with empty values then fill them => will dirty the calling categories/galleries
    • they need longer syntax than the current taxon: <{{IUCN|EN|3746|Canis lupus|Linnaeus, 1758}} compared to |rank=species|iucn_id=3746|iucn_category=EN|iucn_name=Canis lupus|iucn_authority=Linnaeus, 1758
    • it will create a conflict among the contributors: those that want all parameters on one line (like MPF) vs those that want one parameter per line (me)
  • Wikipedia performance: each time I improve a template, wikimedia has to recompute 15K articles ({{MSW}} template is used on mammals category only). Here a change on this central template would impact 200.000 calling articles
  • template code: rapidly the code of the template will be so huge that I will have to create a subtemplate per website
  • wikidata: will not be able to help us:
    • category element have no database id (only the article elements have). I really don't want to have to create a gallery for each of our taxon. I would be awfull.
    • They are loosing themselves with strange choices: for one taxon they create as much elements as there are synonyms. Look at d:Q1702151 (Carduelis uropygialis) and d:Q10820719 (Spinus uropygialis) are synonym and should not be merged. So the wikidata of
    • their database properties are not filled by bot but manually or worth by import of en.wikipedia
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your lng an detailed respons. A few reasons as t why I want somethng like this:
  • It will add IDs to those categories which d not have IDs (we also have arbitrary access now; we can therefore use a taxn item on Wikidata, even if not connected to the category).
  • It is "small"/collapsable, and does not add a wall of text/links
Just a few thoughts...Josve05a (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, first again: I admire your fantastic work here!!!
Today one opinion by me: I think it's not a good idea, to take the English Wikipedia from the alphabetical sorting.
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Truth is: it did not work ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC) the way: I find ideal the form in the French WP like [1] with Template:Sous-titre/Taxon.
in commons the other way for the first name for every country of VN.
I tried similar here: [2]
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, I just discovered {{Clist|VN}}. It totally disable every improvments I did on {{VN}}. Liné1 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
...not my way in Epipactis, but the French title is my favorite - form. :-) Orchi (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will investigate the french title. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

wikispecies/commons Braun's bushshrike[edit]

The illustration of the Orange-breasted Bushshrike (Orange-breasted Bush-shrike(6308727070).jpg) is misplaced in wikispecies/commons Braun's bushshrike. How can I move this illustration to the right place? Thanks for help. --HWN 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, this problem is already solved. --HWN 11:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Al no permitir en Lepidópteras la edición de tribus, la he incluido en la subfamilia Category:Oecophorinae, ¿Es correcto o hay una forma diferente de hacerlo?. Perdona las molestias. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @MILEPRI:, I changed {{Lepidoptera}} to manage tribes on Category:Oecophorinae.
You can move the genera in the tribes.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No es posible cambiar los géneros desde subfamilia a tribus, aparece en su lugar Oecophorinae incertae sedis.Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello @MILEPRI:,
With {{Lepidoptera}}, once you allow a subfamily to have tribes, all genera are moved automatically to Category:Oecophorinae incertae sedis.
Just add |tribus= like HERE.


He creado Panurgini porque he editado un género que pertenece a esa tribu y no había sido realizado. Luego he continuado con lo que estaba haciendo. Si edito todas las tribus, luego tendría que realizar todas las subfamilias, géneros, etc. No lo estoy dejando para que Vd. lo termine, con tiempo ya llegaré a esa familia para actualizarla y ponerla al día, pero ahora estoy trabajando en Unidentified insects con casi 2000 entradas que en su mayoría pueden cambiarse a su especie o género. Espero que comprenda y respete mi opción para mejorar commons y no piense que le dejo trabajo por hacer para que Vd. lo edite. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lamento que le cree un trabajo extra, no es mi intención. De las muchas ediciones que hago cada día, el 95% son páginas que hay que rehacer (cosa que podrá comprobar siguiendo mis contribuciones), para mi también es muy molesto que cuando hago un taxon, tengo que seguir mejorando la línea evolutiva de edición y puedo trabajar en ello hasta una semana antes de volver al inicio. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)