User talk:MILEPRI

Etiquetando imagen Image:Hoja_bipinnada.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Esta imagen puede ser borrada.

Gracias por subir Image:Hoja_bipinnada.jpg. Me he dado cuenta de que la página de la imagen actualmente no especifica quién creó el contenido, así que el estatus del derecho de autor no está claro. Si no has creado tú mismo esta imagen, entonces es necesario que argumentes por qué la imagen se puede usar en Wikimedia Commons (ver el enlace de etiquetas de derecho de autor abajo); también debes especificar dónde la encontraste; por ejemplo, en la mayoría de los casos, un enlace a la web de donde la tomaste y los términos de uso del contenido de esa web.

Si la imagen no tiene una etiqueta de derecho de autor también debes añadírsela. Si tú creaste la imagen, entonces puedes usar {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} para licenciarla con Creative Commons, o {{PD-self}} para ponerla en el dominio público. Puedes mirar Marcas de derechos de autor para la lista completa de etiquetas que se pueden usar.

Ten en cuenta que cualquier imagen sin fuente o sin etiqueta será borrada una semana después de que haya sido subida, como se describe en criterios para borrado rápido. Si has subido otras imágenes, por favor, comprueba que has especificado también sus orígenes y sus etiquetas de derecho de autor. Puedes encontrar todas los archivos que has subido usando la herramienta Gallery. Gracias. Loco085 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquetando imagen Image:Hoja_pinnada.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

Esta imagen puede ser borrada.

Gracias por subir Image:Hoja_pinnada.jpg. Me he dado cuenta de que la página de la imagen actualmente no especifica quién creó el contenido, así que el estatus del derecho de autor no está claro. Si no has creado tú mismo esta imagen, entonces es necesario que argumentes por qué la imagen se puede usar en Wikimedia Commons (ver el enlace de etiquetas de derecho de autor abajo); también debes especificar dónde la encontraste; por ejemplo, en la mayoría de los casos, un enlace a la web de donde la tomaste y los términos de uso del contenido de esa web.

Si la imagen no tiene una etiqueta de derecho de autor también debes añadírsela. Si tú creaste la imagen, entonces puedes usar {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} para licenciarla con Creative Commons, o {{PD-self}} para ponerla en el dominio público. Puedes mirar Marcas de derechos de autor para la lista completa de etiquetas que se pueden usar.

Ten en cuenta que cualquier imagen sin fuente o sin etiqueta será borrada una semana después de que haya sido subida, como se describe en criterios para borrado rápido. Si has subido otras imágenes, por favor, comprueba que has especificado también sus orígenes y sus etiquetas de derecho de autor. Puedes encontrar todas los archivos que has subido usando la herramienta Gallery. Gracias. Loco085 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Acacia_nilotica.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acacia_nilotica.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Loco085 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Acacia acanthoclada.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Acacia acanthoclada.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. gildemax 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag images

Please tag your images[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. gildemax 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sonchus.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Image:Cervantes_jauregui.jpg[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand

Classification of Narcissus[edit]

Dear MILEPRI,

I see that you are reclassifying the genus Narcissus, according with the World Checklist.

You are right: N. canaliculatus is synonym of N. tazetta subsp. tazetta (not of subsp. italicus). Sorry for having interfered with you! This plant is growing very well in my garden in Belgium.
I have also transferred (again) N. pseudonarcissus subsp. major and N. confusus to N. hispanicus.
Some pictures first identified as N. hispanicus have been later identified as N. muñozii-garmendiae. I have reclassified them accordingly. I will later this day rename them accordingly.

I still try to arbitrate conflicts.
For you info: In the past I have had some troubles with A. Barra, who is e.g. convinced the N. confusus is not a synonym of N. hispanicus, and that N. hispanicus is not a true species.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have renamed the pictures, who were first identified as N. hispanicus and have been later identified as N. muñozii-garmendiae. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astragalus brachycalyx[edit]

Hello,
Do you remember why you did that ?
If it is about synonym, you should have renamed the cat or added a {{SN}}.
But what you did is not very explicit.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Curtis's[edit]

Thank you for adding info to the images! Uleli (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Botanists[edit]

Hi MILEPRI, I see that create many many categories for Botanists. In each case, please also move the birth year, death year and other categories from the single photo to the new category, so these data must not be entered for each future file separately. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up[edit]

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lysimachia arvensis or Anagallis arvensis?[edit]

Dear Milepri,

I have seen that you have reverted one of my edits. There are currently two different categories for the same plant : Lysimachia arvensis and Anagallis arvensis. According to Wikimedia policies, we have to make a choice and redirect the other one.

Please advise, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

little tip[edit]

....here the names above the image: e.g. [1]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Botanical illustrations" categories for algae[edit]

Hello Milepri, I noticed that you made a lot of categories like Category:Bryopsis - botanical illustrations. Please stop making those categories for algal taxa. There are thousands of algal species. Most of them have only illustrations, and for the majority of algae, this will be true for years. It makes no sense to have a double categorization for them! Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Botanical illustrations" for fungi[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, illustrations of fungi are not botanical but mycological illustrations! The Category:Botanical illustrations by taxon is a subcategory of "Plants by taxon", and fungi do not belong to plants. If you like to make categories for mycological illustrations, please sort them unter Category:Illustrations of fungi. Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Botanical illustrations" for conifers[edit]

Hi MILEPRI - be nice if you could stick to the established format and call these categories "Xxxxx xxxxx (illustrations)" rather than "Xxxxx xxxxx - botanical illustrations". Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jahn-Peter_Frahm[edit]

Category:Jahn-Peter_Frahm 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

92.73.70.204 10:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa, subfamiliae, BioLib and categories[edit]

Hello MILEPRI I saw with pleasure that you provide a lot of {{Taxa}} with source and accessdate.
I have some recommendations:

First parameter of {{Taxa}} is "subfamilia" if there is only one or "subfamiliae" (not subfamilias) if there are multiple subtaxa. This parameter is documented in {{Taxa}}
You should use {{BioLib}} which syntax is very easy: {{BioLib|12456}}. It will allow us to change the url easely when the web site will change
Example of correction - even better correction
Category (like [[category:Coreinae]]) are supposed to be at the end of the page, before interwiki (not at beginning). There is a huge consensus on this on all wikis
Look at this: it start with spaces.

Example of correction
* should not be used in {{VN}} (like here), but |
Example of correction
the correct source for species.wikimedia.org is source=species (See here). You can find the source documentation in {{Taxasource}}

Sometimes, you are a bit too quick:

Category:Microcentrum you forgot to create Microcentrini
Category:Issini is not a Subfamilia, but a tribe in subfamily Issinae that you did not create.
Category:Issina same error + do we need subtribes ?

Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too quick[edit]

Microcerotermes what is this subfamily Holmgren, 1912 ?
Megalyra fasciipennis pfff
Megalyra Taxonavigation does not contain Megalyra.

Please take your time. Check the result of your edits.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too quick again[edit]

Bolboceratinae SN with |
Correction
Polybioides Taxonavigation without Polybioides
Correction
Ropalidiini Ropalidiini in Vespidae instead of Polistinae
Correction
Pieris_teutonia starts with spaces because you put category in first
Correction
Schizorhinini lists 2 tribes when they are subribes

Are you planning to pay me for correcting all your errors?
Please slow down and check you work.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partial work[edit]

There is something I don't understand. You seem to want to create all subfamilies and tribes. fine with with me.
But why do you do a partial work ????

Category:Ropalidiini: you created it and move 2 genera in it. Why not the third one Ropalidia ?
Category:Schizorhinini: you created 1 tribe Category:Schizorhinina but not the other (Category:Lomapterina). So now Category:Schizorhinini contains genera and tribes, when it should contain only tribes
Category:Mutillidae: yuu created 1 subfamily Category:Mutillinae but not the others. So now Category:Mutillinae contains subfamilies and genera, when it should contain only subfamilies

Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you look at Category:Mutillidae: Dasymutilla‎ is in Category:Sphaeropthalminae.

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)[reply]

If you look at Category:Schizorhinini: Agestrata‎ (and Category:Agestrata luzonica‎) is in Category:Lomapterina (BioLib).

But I am not sure that providing subtribes is reasonable. Their content differs too much between sources.

[:Category:Macroglossina]: you list 30 genus but don't move them

Excellent work[edit]

Excellent work you did on Acrididae.
No more pictures in Acrididae.
Well done.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the subtribes in Category:Catantopini.

Wouldn't agree not to create subtribes ?

Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another hint[edit]

Hello,
When you find a category which is a synonym, don't ask for its suppression.
Someone will recreate it.
Instead you should use a {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}.
Check this correction as example.
It also explains everything: Beckius is a syn. for Eupatorus.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Could you use source=species, not source=wikispecies, please?
I have 60 categories to correct after this mistake.
You can find these categories in Category:Pages_with_incorrect_biology_template_usage.
By the way, the list of available source is described in {{Taxasource}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coleoptera & Lepidoptera[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
I am trying to improve their documentation.

{{Coleoptera}} & {{Lepidoptera}}
- don't support superfamilia= nor supertribus=
{{Coleoptera}}
- always supports tribus= and subtribus=
{{Lepidoptera}}
- supports tribus= only on certain subfamilies
- does not supports subtribus=

Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage is filled with categories with incorrect {{Coleoptera}} & {{Lepidoptera}} calls.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer here by prefixing your answer with {{Ping|Liné1}}, it will warn me that you answered.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hello my friend,
I saw that you finished with Arthropods.
There is a group that really needs cleaning: Category:Fungi.
Perhaps you could do something ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liné1: OK

DiscoverLife[edit]

Hello,
DiscoverLife is not currently managed as source.
Do you want me to manage it ?
With which url ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added it.

Please be careful: it is DiscoverLife NOT DiscoveryLife

Regards Liné1 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No entiendo[edit]

esta edición, ¿me lo puedes explicar? ese archivo fue extraído de aquí y está en la misma categoría (Category:Coleoptera illustrations). Gracias --Jcfidy (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'd just like to express my appreciation for your tireless work tidying the botany categories. Those of us who take these photos often don;t have the time or the resources to correctly categorise them. Thank you for cleaning up after us and keeping Wikimedia functional. Kudos. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more! Keep up te great work! Josve05a (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical illustrations[edit]

¡Hola MILEPRI,
Por favor: Por ejemplo: sellos and Heráldica etc.= en el arte (in art)
plantas dibujos de libros científicos = - botanical illustrations
gracias! Orchi (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...muchas gracias!! Orchi (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tribes[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Wikicommons has not taxonomy for purpose.

Category:Amelinae, Category:Acromantinae: you should not create a tribe category if its subfamily is monotypique (subfamily has only one tribe). This is unanimously bad.
why did you create subcategories if you don't fill them ?? You are waiting for me to move the genera in the tribes ?

Regards Liné1 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

partial work[edit]

I don't understand: why did you create only Category:Panurgini under Category:Panurginae ? Why not the 6 other tribes ?
Are you waiting for me to do it ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you work on genera, restrict your work to genera. You can do tribes later.

There are thousands of families, you will never finish the partial work you are doing.

I am still working on Category:Oecophorinae for you.

I really don't enjoy cleaning behind you.

It is killing me.

Liné1 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation syntax[edit]

There is a better syntax for disambiguation: see here.
This allows an easy future update of the lists.
Also the disamb: section if copied to all calls to {{Genera}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatela[edit]

¡Hola MILEPRI, pequeños errores en el libro original (número de página):

Gracias y saludos. Orchi (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why Category:Delphinieae in Category:Aconiteae ?[edit]

Hello, why did you rename Category:Delphinieae in Category:Aconiteae ?

Category:Delphinieae has 2 sources, 3 interwikis (even spanish)
Category:Aconiteae has 0 sources, wikispecies

Please provide sources. Regards Liné1 (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Don't worry, I will put it back. Regards Liné1 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucanidae identification, sure?[edit]

Hello, are you sure with [2]? as far i know this species is not living in Chile. and it looks different to the species on the photo. Holger1959 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

answer to [3]:

Lucanus cervus (in Europe)
unidentified beetle (from Chile), which you identified as Lucanus cervus

please compare the 2 images and notice the obvious differences. and please understand that German common names are not necessarily equal to exact species names, especially when a common name is given in quotation marks, which should obviously emphasise the uncertainty and (look-alike) "similarity only". Actually „Hirschkäfer“ may refer to several species within the large Stag beetle (Lucanidae) family. For this usage of the name see eg. de:Australischer Pracht-Hirschkäfer (Phalacrognathus muelleri): a different species. So based on names given in a description/filename only, i hope you would not classify eg. this image as a real elephant ;)

When you only guess a species and images end up misidentified, you do not help Commons. i will revert therefore. Holger1959 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kil" (clay) pumpkin[edit]

Hi. You seem to know a lot on these issues. To which cucurbita category should I place this pic? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ficus_tsjahela[edit]

Ficus tsjahela 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider taxonomy[edit]

Hello MILEPRI, I'm afraid your spider taxonomy is about 50 years outdated. For example you list the taxonomy of Zygoballus as Familia: Salticidae; Subfamilia: Dendryphantinae; Tribus: Zygoballini; Genus: Zygoballus, but the current taxonomy is Familia: Salticidae; Subfamilia: Salticinae; Tribus: Dendryphantini; Subtribus: Dendryphantina; Genus: Zygoballus. Could I ask what source you are using (so that perhaps it could be updated)? Kaldari (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like you've added a whole lot of very ancient spider taxonomy (that is no longer valid) across hundreds of categories. This is going to be a lot of work to try to clean-up. Next time, please ask at WikiProject Spiders or somewhere similar before embarking on such a project. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the family Salticidae (the largest spider family), the most recent taxonomy can found in "A phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae)". This taxonomy is well accepted and not in conflict with any other proposals. The taxonomy you have used seems to mostly be from Eugène Simon's Histoire Naturelle des Araignées (1892-1903), which lost favor around the 1960s. I'm curious what source you used that would have such an old taxonomy. Kaldari (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, we typically just use the family and genus (without subfamiliy, tribe, subtribe, etc.) for spider taxonomy, since the families and genera have been stable for decades, but the taxons between them change frequently. It would be good to keep the taxonomy on Commons less specific, because no one is actually going to maintain the taxonomy here. Wikispecies has the same problem. The taxonomy is very detailed, but no one keeps it up to date. Having fewer taxons is actually better since it requires less maintenance. Kaldari (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and just remove the subfamily and tribe information from the Salticidae categories since this information is wrong for all of them (and very outdated). I hope that is OK. Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipal_District_of_Willow_Creek_No._26[edit]

Municipal District of Willow Creek No. 26 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Petalostylis_labechoides[edit]

Category:Petalostylis_labechoides 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mark Marathon (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source=?[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
You added some source=? like here.
I suppose that the source is Insectoid, so I added source=Insectoid for you.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VN useWikidata[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
About useWikidata=, please don't use it. (See here the rare case when you can use useWikidata)
When I removed it, 2 errors were displayed.
I just solved them in wikidata!
If you don't want to solve the errors, I will do the correction.
But please don't add useWikidata tp hide the errors.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Could you look at the spanish translations in Biology_internationalization_templates.
I am not sure they are good.
Thanks Liné1 (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirect[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
Please don't redirect categories.
Use {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}, {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} or {{Monotypic taxon category redirect}}.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing this. Please stop. --R'n'B (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not asking you to stop creating synonyms. Rather, it is how you are doing it that is the problem. It is an error to redirect a category. See Commons:Redirect and Commons:Category redirects. Instead, you should add an appropriate template to the page:
INCORRECT - #REDIRECT [[:Category:Accepted name]]

CORRECT - {{Category redirect|Accepted name}}

CORRECT - {{Synonym taxon category redirect|Accepted name}}

CORRECT - {{Monotypic taxon category redirect|Accepted name}}

I hope this clears up the confusion. --R'n'B (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not rose buds[edit]

Please explain what you've been doing here, or else stop doing it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK was a error.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images from category Ulmus[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,
I see you have removed multiple images from category 'Ulmus' and added other categories uncluding 'Famous Ulmus'. The tree you added to 'Famous Ulmus' is far from famous.
May I ask why you removed them from Ulmus, rather than keeping it and just adding another category?
Could I ask please that you add back the category 'Ulmus' where you have removed it - after all they're still Ulmus
Thank you, Tom_elm^talk 10:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I owe you an apology, I see the logic of your recategorisation. Some images would be better suited to more than one category though. Have you ever tried using Cat-a-lot? It would save you a huge amount of time. Tom_elm^talk 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus[edit]

Hi MILEPRI - please don't mess up Pinus - you've just created a truly dreadful mess by mixing up Pinus ponderosa subsp. brachyptera and Pinus ponderosa subsp. scopulorum; they are different taxa, and now they will all have to be corrected, file by file - many hours of tedious work created by unthinking mass editing that can't be simply reversed in a single keystroke. Don't just blindly follow the Plant List, it is very out of date. Thanks. - MPF (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note, there's no point in creating category redirects for ancient synonyms that haven't been used for 100 years or more - they just clutter up the category dropdown box and make errors in adding categories much more likely. Category redirects should only exist for synonyms in widespread current use, that people might actually try entering on image files. - MPF (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from my talk page] He cambiado Pinus ponderosa subsp. brachyptera y Pinus ponderosa subsp. scopulorum porque no contenían ninguna referencia que sustentara su inclusión en dicho taxón. En la edición que realicé había incluido varias referencias, entre ellas, las que indicaban que hay otros editores que la incluyen en un taxón diferente. Si tiene datos más modernos, le agradecería que los incluyera para evitar otra nueva revisión que le haga perder el tiempo. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC) [moved here by MPF (talk) to keep discussion together][reply]

Hi MILEPRI - Gracias! The relevant references are at Wikispecies, that is the place for taxonomic references, not here ;-) Commons is just the store for images, it isn't intended to be a detailed taxonomic reference point. PS my apologies that I am not able to reply in Spanish! - MPF (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and others[edit]

Hi MILEPRI - as already mentioned, please stop creating vast numbers of superfluous redirects for synonyms that are not in use. They are not within Commons scope (no images using these long-defunct synonyms have ever been published), and just serve to make the drop-down menus for category addition extremely difficult to use. - Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus[edit]

Hola MPF, me parece una ofensa que borres el trabajo que he realizado con mi tiempo. Los sinónimos no están prescritos en commons, lo que he editado se ajusta a las normas de publicación aceptadas por esta comunidad. He corregido cientos de ediciones donde figuraban como taxón principal sinónimos que según Vd. estaban obsoletos y otros editores lo desconocían. Como es difícil conocer los sinónimos que ya no se usan, los pongo todos para evitar equivocaciones. Si quiere conocer nombres antiguos que se siguen usando, puede entrar en botanical illustrations, donde a diario aparecen de libros e ilustraciones antiguas un gran número de ellos. Lamento no estar de acuerdo en este asunto y espero que lo medite y conjuntamente acordemos una solución que satisfaga a ambas partes. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhododendron_'Cunnianghams_White'[edit]

Category:Rhododendron_'Cunnianghams_White' 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

User-duck (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.06.27 14.40.59 IMG 2862 - Flickr - andrey zharkikh.jpg[edit]

This IS a bad name for this file as it gives no indication of the subject of the image. Please don't remove that category from any more images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia ambrosioides[edit]

Your work here is incorrect base upon an error in Hassler 2017. This error will be corrected in the new year after the festivities. Regards and Happy Christmas. Andy Boormn not logged in!

Eriophyllum ambrosiodes[edit]

Is a synomnym of Bahia ambrosiodes (see WS) could you please sort out the redirects Cheers Andy Boorman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyboorman (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cota_(Cundinamarca)[edit]

Category:Cota_(Cundinamarca) 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jotzet (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eclipta alba[edit]

Why you change the redirect while most refs point to Eclipta prostrata? J e e 16:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipta alba ha sido considerada un sinónimo en enero 2017 por CatalogueofLife que es la renovación más reciente de Asteraceae.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks for the info. J e e 16:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Napoleonic_Wars,_1800-1815--Campaigns--Italy[edit]

Category:Napoleonic_Wars,_1800-1815--Campaigns--Italy 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Themightyquill (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acacia_mitchelii[edit]

Category:Acacia_mitchelii 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

47.151.26.64 07:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actinidia chinensis var. hispida[edit]

Hello Milepri. I have seen that you changed the category in a few photos such as this one from Actinidia deliciosa to Actinidia chinensis var. hispida. I am just curious to know on what basis you concluded that. I have seen that you created the Category:Actinidia chinensis var. hispida, but there is no link to a Wikipedia page. Further you changed the category for the page Actinidia deliciosa (removed Category:Actinidia deliciosa; added Category:Actinidia chinensis var. hispida), which I consider as strange. I says that Actinidia deliciosa is often confused with Actinidia chinensis which is not in general cultivation. I suggest to revert that change. Regards, Wouter (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No habla espanol[edit]

They aren't unidentified. The name is in the file. Famartin (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famartin ed the name of the author of the photografie, but what is the name of this plant Narcissus xxx?--MILEPRI (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?taxonid=251099&isprofile=0& Famartin (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Temples_of_Tamil_Nadu[edit]

Category:Temples_of_Tamil_Nadu 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gymnanthemum mespilifolium[edit]

Hi, you changed Category:Gymnanthemum mespilifolium to Category:Gymnanthemum capense based on a proposal by Manning et al. The name Gymnanthemum capense has not yet been accepted by Kew and your change is premature - would you kindly undo your edit. cheers Paul venter (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Blechnum spicant[edit]

Hi MILEPRI,

Blechnum spicant is the accepted name [4], Struthiopteris spicant is the synonym. DenesFeri (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Los datos de Blechnum spicant están tomados de Catalogue of Life (World Fern) revisión de Hassler M., Nov 2018 y World Ferns, Nov 2018 aquí. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need your presence at Featured video candidates[edit]

		We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
		Dear MILEPRI, Are you Interested in Film Making/Videography/Cinematography or Animated films? We think you are. Featured video candidates needs your help and you can help by reviewing , nominating your videos for the FV Tag. You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome ! -- Eatcha (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirección injustificada[edit]

Hola Milepri: veo que, por razones totalmente incomprensibles hiciste una redirección de categoría:Epilachninae a categoría:Coccinellinae. Dejé este mensaje en la página de discusión "Coccinellinae is a different subfamily. It makes no sense to place the members of the subfamily Epilachninae under that subfamily. See Cocinellinae and Epilachninae"

No se justifica semejante descuido y lleva mucho tiempo y esfuerzo deshacer lo hecho. Espero que no pase de nuevo aunque parece que has hecho cosas similares. Por favor, más cuidado!!! --Polinizador (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epilachninae is a profoundly different subfamily from Coccinellinae. It is herbivorous, while Coccinellinae, like most coccinelids, is carnivorous. It is listed as a separate subfamily in ITIS, NCBI, TPDB, Wikidata, Wikpedia (even you created the page Epilachninae in es:Wikipedia), not to mention, Encyclopedia of Life, Discover Life, Bugguide.net, etc., etc. It is unfortunate you didn't check all those sources. I see you have been told several times to be more careful about the redirections you are creating, and I tell you the same thing. When in doubt, please, refrain. Thanks. --Polinizador (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriana supina & Valeriana saliunca[edit]

Dear MILEPRI,

You have put Valeriana supina as synonym of Valeriana saliunca. I disagree with this change.

Valeriana saliunca is an erect species with small leaves, which is a rare and endangered, endemic plant of acidic grounds, mainly found in the Western Alps.
Valeriana supina is a dwarf and supine species with much broader leaves, which is widespread on lime grounds of the Eastern Alps. This species is sometimes used in rock gardens.

See Valeriana saliunca 001.JPG, which I have photographed in the French Alps (the only picture of this species currently on Commons), and Valeriana supina RHu 02.JPG, which I have photographes in the Dolomites.

See Weidenblättriger Baldrian and Zwerg-Baldrian for a detailed description of the two species.

Please revert your change. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that we are not on the same wave length. Catalogue of Life says the Valeriana supina DC. is synonym of Valeriana saliunca All.

What about Valeriana supina Ard., which is described in Zwerg-Baldrian and to which all pictures on Commons, but Valeriana saliunca 001.JPG, are belonging...

Valeriana supina Ard.
Valeriana saliunca All.

I cannot believe that these two plants with a very different habitus could be considered of the same species. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: According to the Plant List Valeriana supina Ard. is an accepted name. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Valeriana saliunca, but Valeriana supina - botanical illustrations[edit]

Dear MILEPRI,

I am not a "distinguished taxonomist", but I know the flora of the Alps very well.

The pictures in the category Valeriana saliunca - botanical illustrations are obviously not of the rare, endangered Valeriana saliunca, but of the widespraed Valeriana supina (short stems, broad leaves).

The category would thus better be renamed (I am a file-mover, but I am not allowed to rename categories). I have well put it as a sub-category of the category Valeriana supina.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus leptophylla and Eucalyptus foecunda[edit]

Hello MILEPRI,

Thank you for your important work.

You have created a redirect from Eucalyptus leptophylla to Eucalyptus foecunda. However, both are accepted species at both the Australian Plant Census and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Only one image is affected at the moment, but I hope to take more of both species later this year.

There is a similar problem with Eucalyptus tetragona. That name is not accepted by either of the above authorities. There is a hybrid species Eucalyptus × tetragona that is acceptecd at the WCSPF and as a pro parte synonym of Eucalyptus pleurocarpa at APC. (I have listed this for discussion.) Gderrin (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dianthus hyssopifolius, Dianthus superbus and Dianthus gallicus[edit]

Dear MILEPRI,

I have seen that you have put Dianthus hyssopifolius - also called Dianthus monspessulanus - as synonym of Dianthus superbus. In my experience and that of many others (see e.g.: Œillet de Montpellier and Œillet superbe, Prachtnelke), they are different species, with different appearance and size, biotopes and distribution. However, you maintained Dianthus gallicus, an endemic taxon of the Atlantic dunes of France (see: Œillet de France), which is also considered as a subspecies of Dianthus hyssopifolius, as such.

I have contacted Andyboorman, to get an experienced advice about this matter.
He replied that there is, with this group of plants, unfortunately little consensus. Because Wikis can not force judgements, he advises to revert your change to the conservative approach, i.e. to keep all three taxa separate, as Dianthus hyssopifolius, Dianthus superbus and Dianthus gallicus (or Dianthus hyssopifolius subsp. gallicus).

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Andyboorman's advice, I have reverted your redirection of Category:Dianthus hyssopifolius to Category:Dianthus superbus. In addition, I have also redirected the Category:Dianthus monspessulanus to Category:Dianthus hyssopifolius. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Infoboxes[edit]

Hello. Please stop removing {{Wikidata Infobox}} from categories - the bot will only add them back again in its next run. If there is a problem with the content of the infoboxes, let me know what the problem is and I'll look into it. If you don't want to see them, then there are instructions for how to hide them in the infobox documentation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ya instalado. Gracias. Feliz Año.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cupressaceae[edit]

Hi Milepri - please stop changing all the genera around! Hesperocyparis remains a synonym of Cupresssus, etc. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And ditto, please stop putting Neocallitropsis and Actinostrobus into Callitris, this is very premature. The authors of the paper proposing this themselves state "Further molecular data are needed to test these results and explore the cause of the conflict between these estimates of the phylogeny within the group". So while the combinations are available, they are very far from certain yet. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cistus_longifolius_-_botanical_illustrations[edit]

Category:Cistus_longifolius_-_botanical_illustrations 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Estopedist1 (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carex tomentosa L.[edit]

This is accepted species according to Plants of the World online. There is a mistake on outdated and abandoned The Plant List - they stated that it is synonym of Carex filiformis L. according to WCSP, on which page you can read that... "This name is accepted". C. tomentosa and C. montana (syn. C. filiformis) are quite different. Kenraiz (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brombya[edit]

Bromwya or Brombya (subfamilia: Toddalioideae).
Bromwya does not exist.Allforrous (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirect[edit]

Hello, MILEPRI. Can you please comment on User talk:Túrelio#Request? I don't really know what the correct name of the species is, although I see Commons does have Category:Erica walkeri and not Category:Erica walkeria. However, in any case, Category:Erica walkeria var. praestans - botanical illustrations should not be a redirect to a non-existent category. So if the name is wrong, it should be fixed after restoring the old, deleted category that was not a redirect. Hope you agree. --R'n'B (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: & @R'n'B: . Atendiendoi su solicitud he actualizado Category:Erica walkeria y su variedad, en commons y wikispecies, donde encontrarán las referencias correspondientes. Gracias por su aviso. Saludos. --MILEPRI (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnosporia montana = Gymnosporia senegalensis?[edit]

Hola. He visto que has redireccionado Gymnosporia montana a G.senegalensis. ¿De verdad son sinónimos? Estoy viendo las fotos de wikipedia commons y las veo diferentes.

Un saludo. --Nanosanchez (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acacia xanthophloea[edit]

Moving Category:Acacia xanthophloea to Category:Vachellia xanthophloea is not ok. I'm going to move it back as it is still Acacia. I informed myself of the process that was employed in the supposed renaming and came to the conclusion that there was a clear majority vote against renaming, which has even been confirmed by a second vote – all unnecessary and due to fake news being spread. Senegalia is a different matter, no problem with Acacia moves to Senegalia. JMK (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JMK: . I follow PWO as the main reference of Acacia xanthophloea that together with catalog of Life, takes the data from ILDIS and indicates that it is a synonym for Vachellia xanthophloea . I hope you have taken these data into account to proceed with your change and if you are sure of this process, you should indicate the references that endorse said process. Regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They repeat false information, but will check them out. Thank you. JMK (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia tortilis[edit]

The same happens with this species as with Acacia xanthophloea , so as not to repeat myself with the previous species, you should consult wikispecies where I have placed several references that confirm its change to Vachellia tortilis. Regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griffonia physocarpa[edit]

Griffonia physocarpa is accepted by Plant List, World Flora Online and the English Wikipedia. The image shows two species, as I stated in the description. The category should not be deleted. Michel Chauvet (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Michel Chauvet: . As you can see, I have not deleted the page, but only the two images that were classified there. These images are the same as those contained in Griffonia simplicifolia and therefore it is an error that I have corrected. Regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the images show two species, Griffonia simplicifolia and Griffonia physocarpa. They should be in both categories. Michel Chauvet (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Brachylaena nereifolia vs. B. neriifolia[edit]

Hi MILEPRI, On 18 May 2018 you redirect Category Brachylaena neriifolia to Category Brachylaena nereifolia. I suspect you did so because the spelling used by Robert Brown in 1817 when he made the combination in Brachylaena, namely nereifolia, was accepted by "Catalogue of Life". However, Brown misspelled the epithet. When it was first proposed (in Baccharus), Linnaeus (1753) used the correct spelling, namely neriifolia, meaning "having leaves like Nerium". According to Article 60.1 of the Code "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors...". In this case nere- is an obvious orthographical error as it was meant to refer to the genus Nerium, and does not follow the original spelling of Linnaeus. If you agree with this assessment, would you please revert the redirection so as not to further promote this unfortunate error. The spelling neriifolia is, amongst others, accepted by "The Plant List", "Plants of the World" and all botanical institutions in the native range of the species. Thanks for considering this request. Best regards, SAplants (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SAplants: . He revertido la edición. En esa época tomaba los datos de Catalogue of Life, el cual, aun acepta, junto con IPNI Brachylaena nereifolia. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: Thank you very much for making the requested adjustment; much appreciated! I will bring the error to the attention of "Catalogue of Life". Best regards, SAplants (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagetes patula vs Tagetes erecta[edit]

This is not a complaint. It is an attempt to understand. I do not know the taxonomy of plants/flowers. I just take pictures of them and try to put them in the correct category.

Why is the Category:Tagetes patula not allowed? Instead one must use Category:Tagetes erecta which is not the same flower. I am attempting to categorize French Marigold -- October Birthday Flower -- Tagetes patula.jpg

Thank you. -- Jim Evans (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Evans: . Tagetes patula it is considered a synonym of Tagetes erecta according to POWO. The difference of the flower you are looking for may be that this taxon has many hybrids of different colors. You can go into commons on this species and look at hybrids if you find the variety you are looking for. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Jim Evans (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ploiarium alternifolium[edit]

Ploiarium alternifolium 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Eryk Kij (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quercus sessifolia - it is not Quercus sessiliflora[edit]

Hi, Quercus sessifolia is accepted species (and completly different than Q. petraea). You probably mistaken its name for Quercus sessiliflora, which is synonim of Q. petraea. Kenraiz (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenraiz: . Thanks for your warning. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

questions about wikispecies[edit]

I have questions about wikispecies, I am however unable to articulate them into words. I noticed that you were removing wikispecies links here and there and wonder what the reason could be. I have noticed similar elsewhere also. And from way back (~2008) from a talk page "that is not us".

Also, it may or may not be important to know this, but I simply have no strong feelings one way or the other about wikispecies, so, at least for me, don't worry about that. I am bothering you simply because you are an active "plant" person.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RaboKarbakian: : Indeed, there have been more than 5000 taxa without connection. It has already been detected and we are correcting this anomaly. Thanks for your interest. Greetings.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was clearly confused, I thought you were removing them. Someone else was removing them and you were putting them back. Wikidata should be able to put links to the sister projects here so that would end any 'war'ing here.

I was getting notifications from the biology project at wikidata, but my experience was with plants almost entirely so I was unable to participate there as most of the pings were about other branches. And, the notifications from there stopped.

Recently, I did a field guide for fishes at wikisource. The author used a taxonomy different than what is used today. It was very difficult for me not to grab that book and start to transcribe it. Many of the species names used in that book have been reassigned. It was still a challenge to find them!! 10 years later and with wikidata, still a challenge. I suspect that "mergers" kept happening there, to make the data reflect the article. But I appreciated when a reassigned name was to be found at wikidata. It was not so difficult to point the old name to the new name. I put some of the beautiful engravings from the book as images for the old names also, so that was an additional pleasure!

I had wanted to make redirected categories with the old names, to help with the old named PD images that I had access to. It was images with the old names in their name that helped the most with the fishes. Sad, huh? In a managed information environment....

My experience with the various trees of life was used greatly by me, earlier this year when I was looking for the "first publication" of a fairy tale, or marchen, as the germans have a better name for an orally delivered tale that has been written down. Did you know that the first Cinderella was Italian? And that the first Arabian Nights was French? I had no idea. Some of that goes back to the mid- to late-1600s. Like the little plants, the way the information was passed through the years was almost more interesting than the actual tale.

I was also working on the Flora of Antarctica or whatever that title is, one of the Hookes was in there. Several type species, etc. I was making separate pages for the species so that I could put them as the type species at wikidata. Wikidata does not accept anchored links, ie s:en:The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage/Part I/Geraniaceae#Geranium microphyllum (which hasn't been anchored either) but it really did look like an unnecessary mess. Downloading the book via the ebook software will only grab those sections that have links in the Table of Contents, so my extra pages of species and genus did not interfere with the works. They were all deleted. So, no links to type species. And, additionally, I lost the good will of the sourcerers who (many of them) don't like additional style added to mainspace instances.

The little plants were often discovered on very impressive explorations also.

My big failure here was in putting three trees on every category. I wanted the historical information to fit in to where it started. The three trees were interesting together. The additional subdivisions of the Solanacae were a big problem to my efforts. Linea here, wrote a bot that deleted them. Most of the things that I was doing was for the purpose of making it easier, for me, to figure out where the picture of the plant went. Having the "big picture" represented in the two dimensions of a webpage, with links that access a third dimension, that dimension being Time seemed interesting, at the least.

Sorry this is long, I can only say that it could have been longer. Thanks for your patience if you made it here in the reading. Caffiene was not a big part of the slurry that I just wrote.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neobuxbaumia[edit]

Hello. I see that you replace Neobuxbaumia by Cephalocereus. Why? What is your source for this modification ? This modification is not done on english wikipedia. Why? Thanks for your answer. --Tangopaso (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tangopaso: : References are found in wikispecies, where you can check that your change has been accepted by POWO, Tropicos, IPNI, Catalogue of Life, etc. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you![edit]

hello MILEPRI,

I would like to offer MANY SINCERE THANKS for your efforts. You have recategorized many of my botanical photographs, which has made me VERY HAPPY. I know very little about botany (I just take photos) but understand that many things are in flux right now; and I am so glad that you are working hard to keep botany up to date.

with all best wishes for 2022, Daderot (talk)

Category:Ceanothus parviflorus[edit]

Category:Ceanothus parviflorus is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ 日本語 ∙ português ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Palosirkka (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carya alba vs tomentosa[edit]

I’m confused by this change. Most sources I can find say the accepted name is tomentosa, with alba being a non-accepted synonym. Famartin (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Famartin: . I have taken the data from Catalogue of Life [5] and World Plants [6] which have been updated recently. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are only one source, since the first identifies the second as its source. That seems insufficient. Famartin (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Famartin: . In POWO it is where they say that alba is synonymous with tomentosa. I have taken the data from Catalog and World Plants because they say that they give it 100% accuracy and it was updated on 02-18-2022. If you have more recent data that changes what you changed, please include it and undo the edit.Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cleonus[edit]

Cleonus 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Bagous (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Helisoma_trivolvis[edit]

Helisoma trivolvis 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Lmalena (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirection wheel[edit]

Category:Unidentified Solenostemon
Category:Unidentified Coleus
One of them shouldn't be a redirection. Wieralee (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wieralee: The redirection is Coleus but neither with cat-a-lot nor manually, one by one, I can change it, it always shows category:Solenostemon. I would be grateful if you know how to do it, tell me how.--MILEPRI (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:†Quercus[edit]

What is the purpose of Category:†Quercus? - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. Corrected. I should have put †Quercus kobatakei.. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't any clearer to me. Is the "†" just to indicate this is extinct? We don't normally put that in the category name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactamente. The sign means extinct and it is only put in the species, that's why it was a mistake, for putting it in the genus. MILEPRI (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think it is usual Commons practice to put it even on the species category name. There are almost none of these; what few there exist are listed at the start of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AllPages?from=%E2%80%A0&to=&namespace=14. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in Round 1 of the 2022 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2022.

Round 2 will end at 18 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preissia quadrata[edit]

Everything in Category:Preissia quadrata should be moved to Category:Marchantia quadrata. The species was put back into Marchantia in 2016. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por el aviso, ya lo he corregido. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. La página w:es:Preissia quadrata necesita una revisión tambien. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lo lamento, pero en wikipedia tengo prohibido editar. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why redirect?[edit]

Hi, I am trying to understand this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AAllium_polyanthum&diff=258282333&oldid=21886690 redirect. We have two pages on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allium_ampeloprasum and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allium_polyanthum and they seem to be two different species. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 09:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. They are effectively two different species, I have already made the corresponding modification. The reason for being considered a synonym is because in 2017 (when the taxon was created) it appeared as a synonym in POWO. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Podrás hacer una solicitud de desbloqueo en Wikipedia en español[edit]

Hola MILEPRI podrás desbloquear en Wikipedia en español en su página de discusión y ten cuidado para regresar en wikipedia 181.43.226.43 22:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Category:Ficus henneana[edit]

Hi MILEPRI, after your last edit of this category I asked to provide an edit summary if you were going to revert my edit, but you failed to do so. Could you explain why you insist on having two links to the wikispecies page? The duplicate link adds clutter to the page and pushes the images down - and of course it is wanting to see the images which is the major reason that people visit the page. — Junglenut | talk 09:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again MILEPRI. As you have not responded to my question above with a valid reason for your actions, I will removed the duplicate link from the page. Please don't change it again. Cheers — Junglenut | talk 05:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered you on your talk page. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made a comment on my talk page, but you didn't provide am answer to the question of why you think its necessary to have two links to the wikispecies page from the commons page. — Junglenut | talk 08:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep robotically adding this link to commons categories, with no explanation. Why? — Junglenut | talk 11:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you the pertinent explanation. I have not modified the page, I have only added a link to wikispecies (see the history, where my intervention appears, only 7 bit). You have deleted that link and now, whoever wants to see that page cannot connect to wikispecies. That is not the accepted Commons standard.. MILEPRI (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding. There IS another link to Wikispecies in the infobox, your's is a duplicate of that. — Junglenut | talk 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I didn't understand what he was saying because he started by saying that he had turned the page and that made me have another idea of what he wanted to tell me. Regarding the link to wikispecies, I have always put it and there may be thousands of edits that should be corrected. I think the most sensible thing is to ask a bot for help to make those changes. Saludos.. MILEPRI (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]