User talk:Liné1/2016

Category:Mutillinae

He creado esta subfamilia porque había que incluir al género Mutilla, la otra subfamilia no ha sido creada porque aun no ha aparecido níngun artículo para la misma. La idea es no crear artículos vacíos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

En Schizorhinini están tribus y géneros juntos porque los géneros son de dicha tribu incerta sedis, pendientes de clasificar correctamente segun BioLib--MILEPRI (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Catantopini

De momento hay pocos artículos para las subtribus, pero como han descargado una gran cantidad de información, dentro de uno o dos meses tendríamos que hacerlo. Mejor no tener que repetir el trabajo. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Westringieae category 'small advices'

Hi. Thanks for your comments. So, reverse and/or delete all edits you regard as 'bugs'; same fate for Chloantheae category. Rgds.--philmarin (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Resalut, totalement arrangé. Paix et Salut.--philmarin (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: le link de GRIN renvoi a la liste des Lamiaceae y non pas à celle de la tribu Westringieae.

Dudas

Sobre Category:Eulitopus que es un subgénero. ¿Como puedo ponerlo en el taxón para que figure correctamente?. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @MILEPRI:

• {{Coleoptera}} does not manage subtribus
  I have a plan to suppress {{Coleoptera}} with my bot, but I need to improve {{Taxonavigation}} to do so.
• In wikicommons, we rarely create categories for subgenera.
• In wikicommons, if you want to create a subgenus category, you have too name it Category:Litomeces (Eulitopus).

  This for a simple reason: Category:Litomeces (Litomeces) cannot be named Category:Litomeces because it would create a confusion between genus and subgenus.

  BioLib does not have the same problem: genus Litomeces, subgenus Litomeces (in fact Litomeces (Litomeces))

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pella (Staphylinidae)

¿Como puedo poner Pella (Staphylinidae) en el taxon para que solo aparezca Pella? Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @MILEPRI:

We decided a long time ago not to hide the disambiguation (The disambiguation is useful for the contributor and for the external reader).

So "Pella (Staphylinidae)" should be displayed (not only "Pella")

But as you can see: "(Staphylinidae)" is in small in the title and in the {{Taxonavigation}}

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Cèdre de l'Atlas à catégoriser

Bonjour Liné1, il y aurait sans doute une correction à apporter à la catégorisation de cet arbre (voir cet échange sur fr.wp). D'autant plus que je vois que les anglophones et germanophones ont aussi adopté Cedrus atlantica alors que Commons en est encore à une redirection vers Cedrus libani et une catégorie Category:Cedrus libani subsp. atlantica. Peux-tu faire quelque chose pour actualiser tout ceci ? --Salix (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

PS. Une requête rapide à propos de WBR t'attend ici. Merci d'avance.

@Liné1: As-tu vu ce message ? --Salix (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Salix: I just saw this here! The genetic and morphological evidence does not support species status for atlantica; it is too closely similar to libani type - see File:Cedrus phylogeny.png. Much of the claims for species status for atlantica are based on cultivated plants which have a very limited gene base; when they are examined in their native populations, variation is much greater, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish them. - MPF (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPF: Well, ok, but what do you think of that compared to this, according to Kew WCSP ? --Salix (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Salix: I consider that Kew have made a poor judgement there, quite likely due to force of tradition (a.k.a. "nomenclatural stability") over scientific evidence. There just isn't enough hard evidence to support species rank when a range of natural origin material is investigated. - MPF (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Supertribus

No aparece supertribus en el taxon. ¿Que debo hacer para que aparezca?. Saludos y perdone las molestias.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @MILEPRI:

You should give me example of the problem.

But I can guess: {{Coleoptera}} does not manage supertribus.

But again, is it wise to introduce supertribus ?

Most of the time the tribus have different content depending on the sources. So supertribes are worth.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

error en taxon

En todos los taxones aparece: {{#if:

| [[Category:{{{category}}}]]
| {{#ifeq:Category|||{{#if:
       | {{#if:
           | [[Category:{{{genus}}} |{{{species}}}]]
           | {{#if:

Supongo que es un error del sofware. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@MILEPRI:

I did not understand. Where does that code come from ? Which template or page ?

Liné1 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I found the error. Liné1 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Les contes de GRIN

Bonjour. Peux-tu aller voir ici à l'occasion --Salix (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Hi Liné1 - just found this edit - why not get yourself an account at Wikispecies and edit it yourself to resolve the conflict? We're a bit "short-staffed" at Wikispecies and welcome new editors! :-) MPF (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks my friend,

I fear that I still have a lot of work here.

I am in trouble with User:‎MILEPRI contributions.

He is not careful enough on the wikisyntax, does not speak english.

Hard for me Liné1 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry to hear! Unfortunately my Spanish = nearly zero, so I doubt I can help :-( MPF (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mission creep

Hi Liné1 - I've recently noticed a number of birds where you have greatly extended the headings (e.g. here for Chloris chloris). Unfortunately, this leads to a number of problems:

• (a) several of the synonyms were for another taxon altogether (Todiramphus chloris) and shouldn't have been in at all (the IUCN search is failing you by giving spurious results!);
• (b) the {{SimpleTaxa|sp|Xxxx xxxx}} does not italicise the name, but does add an unwanted circular redirect (clicking on the link just takes you to a redirect to the same page; this is deprecated); and
• (c) a plethora of spammy external links to low-quality sites like itis (and catalogue of life, which just copies itis), which is misleading to readers - we should stick to IOC alone, as that is our definitive authority for birds. All of this stuff is outside of Commons scope, and pushes the real Commons scope material (images!) lower down the page, making it harder to access particularly for people using mobile devices. It is best to stick to just Taxonavigation, Wikispecies link, important synonyms (those in widespread use), VN, a single external link (to IOC for birds) or at most two (with IUCN for conservation status) and interwikis at the end; anything else belongs elsewhere, on Wikispecies or the various language wikipedias, and not here. Merci! - MPF (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @MPF:

• (a) You are right, I was mislead by IUCN website. I will be careful in the future.
• (b) I corrected {{SimpleTaxa}} about italics. Don't worry about potential circular redirections. They are only possible when 2 galleries have a redirect on each other. Here a link + a {{Category redirect}} are involved. There is no risk. But clearly the link are needed: to check if the category already exist, if it contains a correct redirect or even detect the problem I introduced
• (c) I globally agree on that point. But I never understoud your problem with space (You really think that people access wikicommons from mobile devices?): do you have a small screen ? Are you zooming too much. Even in your wiki syntax you avoid carriage returns. Strange.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liné1 - Merci! I still think visible links (which invite everyone to click on them) to redirects are not a good idea; it is easy enough to find out if they exist or not by using the Special:WhatLinksHere link for the category. Screens - sometimes I use a large one, sometimes a small one, depending on context. But it is much better I find to have spaces rather than carriage returns in VN in the editing window :-) MPF (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

DiscoverLife

url=http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Lampsilis. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK--MILEPRI (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomic work on Naturalis donation

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your massive systematic and subtle taxonomic work on the Naturalis donation (275.000+ biological images, subcategories of Category:Naturalis Leiden), creating missing accepted taxon categories, correcting wrong taxons and eliminating double categories etcetera! Hansmuller (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Stenocactus multicostatus

I have a problem with this category. I don't know if it should be redirected to Category:Echinofossulocactus multicostatus... And maybe it should be the opposite? Can you help me, please? Wieralee (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello my friend,

All the sources prefer Stenocactus multicostatus.

So as you said, I inverted the redirect.

The problem is with the genus.

I seems that the genus is still valid.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wieralee:

For Category:Echinofossulocactus crispatus, it is bad.

You have merged 3 species in one. It will be difficult to separate the species back.

Liné1 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Liné1: I'm not merging any category. I'm only moving files from redirected categories, because the should be empty: files in such categories are hidden. But sometimes somebody is creating a redirection wheel: two categories which are redirecting each other :( This time it was User:Uleli... I don't have any knowlege of botany, so I'm asking you. I'd like to know how to fix it.

You'd written: "For Category:Echinofossulocactus crispatus, it is bad." It tells me nothing, I'm sorry :(

Thank you for your patience :-) Wieralee (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been many attempts to favour the name Stenocactus over the earlier Echinofossulocactus. Tjaden (1982) proposed to conserve Stenocactus over Echinofossulocactus. The proposal was rejected by the Spermatophyta Committee (Brummitt 1987). Full citation on wikispecies. In general the number of "species" in Cactaceae reflect their popularity in cultivation. Many species are published by horticulturist and hobby amateurs rather than by trained botanists. It's a dilemma.... the names has been useful in cultivation to describe individual plants but does not serve to describe the variation of the wild populations. The scientific names should describe wild plant populations and many cacti names are published from plants taken out of context. For cultivation there are other ways to describe differences (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), which has hithero not been used often in the cactus family. I have, as far as possible relied on scientific works for the synonymy Uleli (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Uleli and Wieralee: ,

1987 is a long time ago.

Currently a lot of online sources prefer Stenocactus.

I fact I don't really think that naming the category Stenocactus crispatus or Echinofossulocactus crispatus is so important if both names are valid (it is possible in botanic).

The very important part is the {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} and the justification of the redirect.

For Category:Echinofossulocactus crispatus is is more problematic as it contained 3 species. In that case, there is an issue because sorting the species is difficult.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot IUCN-bug

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Adinandra_integerrima&action=history. Is it LC or CD? Josve05a (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Josve05a:

Look at iucn

• "Red List Category & Criteria:" says "Lower Risk/conservation dependent ver 2.3" (CD). It is the real and deprecated level.
• but the big red point says LC. It is the new level.

The reason is that CD is deprecated. They have to reevaluated the species.

So we have to keep CD until they finished the work.

By the way, my bot takes the level from their database ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I like you watching my back.

Sometimes it feels lonely in biology pages ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep up the amazing Biology work, tireless contributors are often under the radar but I just wanted to say thank you. I'm hoping to give a helping hand once I get my projects under control. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Riley Huntley: . Thanks my friend. Yes, I would really like to contribute with you. It is more fun to work in group. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Festuca roemeri

Can you help me with this category, please? Thanks in advance :-) Wieralee (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Wieralee:

Why me? It seems awfully complex ;-)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried something ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you do not leave broken redirect again, then I will not bother you again ;-)

Have a nice day :-) Wieralee (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wieralee: It was not my broken redirect. Liné1 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

TaxonIDs-boxes

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
  • This could be fixed by using {{Collapsed}} on all {{NCBI}} an {{ITIS}} etc.

Just a few thoughts...Josve05a (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:Wikidata4Bio

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)

...by 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

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)

Category:Oecophorinae

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.

Cheers

Tribus

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)

Category:Biology internationalization (sub)templates

Why some with "/title" (or type or i18n) and some without? Sobreira (parlez) 11:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

For Template:LanSwHabitat/title, je ne sais pas quelle liaison: gl:Hábitat ou gl:Biótopo (cf. LA). Sobreira (parlez) 11:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Any way I can see them all together? Sobreira (parlez) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The matter is also where there are used, to know whether state them in lowcase or Uppercase. Sobreira (parlez) 12:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• First line of subtemplates done. Sobreira (parlez) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The second line was not so much, done also. Best wishes, Sobreira (parlez) 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Last revision: I changed all of them into uppercase. Thanks for the page to check them. I see now what they are used for: some for Headlines for sections or markings of gender or kind of biological name in pages. Sobreira (parlez) 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Salu Liné1, could you create a new template please like you suggested: {{LanSwplant}}. (The term "LanSwWholePlants" is better than Plants only). Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Orchi: .  Done Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

....thanks a lot!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Sobreira: . As you said that there was a problem with uppercaseFirst/Lowercase, I documented each template with this information. I will also add 2 columns to Biology internationalization templates: Plural and case. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Orchi:

Would you mind checking Biology internationalization templates and your german version. Particularely the columns Plural and case. Please ? Tell me if you find strange things. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Orchi: .  Done Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

....thanks a lot!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

....not to find strange things! Following proposals:

plural of "pollinium" = "pollinia"

term: "Pseudobulbs" not two own words "PseudoBulbs"

....I think you have worked perfectly again. :-) Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, @Liné1: , I didn't mean it as an error, but as maybe incoherent/inconsistent, but all depends on which context each one of them is used. The new column doesn't match for capsule fruits/t:Fruits and Kew/t:Val, at least in EN. For IUCN I would propose proper name. Sobreira (parlez) 13:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Turnix sylvatic@

I changed your Turnix sylvatica of 2010 into sylvaticus, but why Turnix sylvatica is still in Category:Turnix sylvaticus? Because Template:category redirect in the former? I don't see it happens in for example category:Guttiferae in category:Clusiaceae. Sobreira (parlez) 10:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sobreira: . Corrected. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

language preferences

Do you know whether the possibility of changing the displayed language in the templates is available too for wikispecies? Sobreira (parlez) 12:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sobreira: . Sorry my friend, I don't know much about wikispecies. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep Categories Kawahara collection Naturalis

Dear Liné1,

Thank you for all your work. Just one thing, i saw you threw images out of the donation category Category:Kawahara Collection at Naturalis Biodiversity Center, example. "Suppressed less precise categories", but then the archival function is lost and the donation unravels.

I tried to put them back in, but anyway the donated collection there is now incomplete: ~10-20? images missing of the original 892 that i have to hunt down. Please leave images in this main category so that the donor and users always have an overview of donated Kawahara images plus cropped versions, useful for management of the whole bunch. The purpose of the subcategory Category:Uncertain species in the Kawahara Collection at Naturalis Biodiversity Center was only to single out unidentified images, not to make a logical exclusive categorisation which is risky when cases are hopefully resolved and rightfully taken out of that special category but then lost to the main category. Thank you, best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Hansmuller:

I understand this double categorisation (which is not classical ;-)).

To solve it, just copy all pictures in Category:Uncertain species in the Kawahara Collection at Naturalis Biodiversity Center to Category:Kawahara Collection at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.

I did it but no files were copied.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

this one is about here

Do I suppose right whether (or should I say if?) the template VN drags the vernaculars from Wikidata? Sobreira (parlez) 18:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, yes, I read the doc.

Yes, {{VN}} gets its vernacular names from wikidata. Cool, no?

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeap, it's actually awsome (fourmi-dable). I hope they can manage it with wikispecies and in a future with all the wikipedias. Sobreira (parlez) 14:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

VN worked very fine after we last spoke, accommodating many more languages based on codes! But I see a problem since the last day or so: While importing names from wikidata, it overrides any anternative names that I have added and ONLY uses the wikidata names. Should it not only ADD the wikidata names? Must all names now be in wikidata first? I added many alternative names to VN, separated by commas, which now disappear. JMK (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@JMK: Hello. It is certainly a regression that I certainly introduced recently. I will correct this. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@JMK: Hello, do you have a page with the problem ? Because with the pages I found, I see "<nameFromWikidata>, <namePassedToVN>". Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example[3]. JMK (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@JMK:

Ok, in Category:Lonchura_cucullata, if you replace VN by VN/sandbox (don't save ;-)) you will see the explaination: "- Lang af: parameter af rejected as contained in P1843, Case1bis: [[interwiki|P1843]]"

It means that vn param af=Fret is not displayed because it is contained in wikidata P1843 "Gewone fret".

Seems good so far.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thalictroideae and Isopyroidea

Hello I have altered the circumscription of Ranunculaceae pages on Wikispecies to reflect current usage and knowledge in the scientific literature. Thalictroideae Raf. (1815) has priority over Isopyroideae Schrödinger (1909) and so I have changed this subfamily. Commons still keeps Isopyroideae. In addition, I have made adjustments in the tribes of Ranunculoideae, but have keep a couple of the previous tribes for now as redirects. This is a bit of mess as it is not always clear where priority lies, but as you pointed out with Delphinieae versus Aconiteae the majority of papers use the former. The pages are not finished as I have more data and references to add. Just thought I should let you know. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Andyboorman:

Thanks for notifying me.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chariodema

It is in the category:Question marks now... Wieralee (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Wieralee:

I really don't understand why MILEPRI always try to introduced tribes.

Here Melolonthinae has 3 sources, all listing totaly different tribe lists.

The solution here is to create Category:Melolonthinae incertae sedis

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for WikipediaBioReferences

Hello my friend Liné1,
I always enjoy using your most useful logiciel WBR. Would you like to improve the output of interwikis by using the Template:Interwiki from wikidata? It works very well for categories of higher taxa, if the commons category is linked to a corresponding wikidata-category. Then interwikis for either categories or for pages (when there is no category) are given. For categories at species level, the wikidata ID (Qxxxxxx) has to be added, additionally. Here is an example: Category:Tilia tomentosa. What do you think of this proposal? Kind regards from --Thiotrix (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Liné1, I think the reason for adding the Item ID is, that for many species (and some genera) in commons there exists both a category and a gallery. And usually the species gallery has to be linked to wikidata and receives the interwikis. Then the category is left without interwikis, although it may be much better than some neglected galleries with few images. WBR lists just the main wikipedia interwikis (en, es, de, fr, it, pt).

For higher taxa, commons categories shall be linked to wikidata-categories only (It seems that for species it is accepted meanwhile). But many wikipedias have no categories for genera or subfamilies and are not listed in the interwiki links. TemplateVN does not list interwikis without a vernacular name. The "template:Interwiki from wikidata" works good for such cases, perhaps you may try to add it at the end of WBR?

Thank you for your immense work on plants higher taxa. How far did you get with this huge project? My botanical work on species level can not and should not be fully automatized. (It's enough mess in the 4 bot-written wikipedias ceb, sv, vi, war...). I'm usually working on commons and wikidata simultaneously, adding and linking commons categories and galleries there, or creating new wikidata items, and can also fetch Wikidata ID for commons. But an output of "Template:Interwiki from wikidata|Qxxxxx" for species in WBR would be helpful. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your newest templates

Salu Liné1, I am always astonished at your ingenious abilities. What would be Commons without you? Only a part of now. Thanks!! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Anthozoa

Can you check this edit? I did that to get a lot of categories out of Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Multichill (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Multichill: Hello Multichill,

Thanks a lot for notifying me. I corrected the issue.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)