User talk:Salicyna

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category redirects[edit]

Hi Remedios44; Please see Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Categories.[1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Arthropodium cirrhatum 2016-04-22 8363b.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Arthropodium cirrhatum 2016-04-22 8363b.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Campanula persicifolia 2015-06-20 3402.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Campanula persicifolia 2015-06-20 3402.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)



Czemu usunęłaś z tego pliku licencję "self": (tutaj) i dlaczego twierdzisz, ze prawa do niego przysługują WMF (świadomie ustawiłaś taką licencję, czy to efekt jakiegoś C&P)? Fakt, że został(?) on stworzony przy użyciu oprogramowania MediaWiki nic tu nie ma według mnie do rzeczy (tak jak MS nie ma PA do plików stworzonych przy użyciu MS Excel), a elementów interfejsu, które by podlegały takiemu licencjonowaniu (komunikaty systemowe, elementy graficzne) na tym obrazku nie widzę.

Ja bym sugerował przywrócenie licencji "self" i danie atribution na waszą trójcę (jeśli nie wręcz ustawienie {{PD-text}}) Ankry (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: Nie mam pojęcia, dlaczego tak zrobiłam, to było dawno i nieprawda ;) Pewnie wzorowałam się na jakichś innych screenach Wikiźródłowych na commons. Salicyna (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
E, tam, dawno: raptem 5 lat :-> Ankry (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Ruthven (msg) 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Wniosek o uprawnienia składa się tutaj. Zwykle można je dostać po 2-3 dniach, jeśli nikt nie zgłosi w tym czasie zastrzeżeń. Ankry (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Ech, gupi ja... Wojciech Pędzich Talk 06:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Aster 'Blaubox'[edit]

Cześć, widziałam właśnie tę twoją kategorię i miałam wątpliwości. Na zdjęciu etykiety z ogrodu botanicznego UWr mam wyraźnie Aster 'Blaubox'. W sieci znalazłam na stronie atlas-roś wymienioną tę odmianę, chociaż wzmiankowana jest zdecydowanie rzadziej przez google niż 'Blaubux'. Ostatecznie uznałam, że pozostawię tak jak jest na etykiecie. Co nie wyklucza omyłki na etykiecie, ale pytanie jak to dalej zweryfikować. Nova (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Przy okazji mam wątpliwości czy te zdjęcia 1, 2 i 3 (rośliny były oznaczone etykietą Achillea macrophylla) to nie wrotycz Tanacetum macrophyllum. Jak sądzisz? Nova (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lobelia laxiflora[edit]

✓ Done, Tournasol7 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Asterales - Rudbeckia hirta 1.jpg[edit]

Hi Salicyna,

If this File:Asterales - Rudbeckia hirta 1.jpg is not Rudbeckia hirta, than what could it be? Any idea? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: I don't know what it is (that's why I added this to "Unidentified..."), maybe Arctotis?... but I'm sure it's not Rudbeckia hirta... Salicyna (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Structure of subcategories in categories of plants[edit]

Thanks to your participation! We have to store it somewhere, so, I place result of disscusion here:

after space

(leaves) (flowers) (fruit) (seeds) (buds) (roots) (rhizomes) (stem) (bark) (wood) (seedlings) (thorns) (decaying)

after * (asterisk)

Animals with X
(cultivars) (cultivated) (by country) (non native) (habitat) (diseases and disorders)

after . (dot)

Uses of X/X as food/X as dye/etc
(illustrations) (herbarium specimens) (in art)/(on stamps) (microscopic images) (maps) (low quality) 

In standard/short form (illustrations) not (botanical illustrations) and (maps) not (range maps) or sth else. The most influenced change concerns categories 'close ups of flowers', coz why not close ups of fruits, bark, etc. It can be described in short form, so it should be used in such form. And standardization for 'fruits' - as a botanical term it is plural noun. For further decision relationship of subcategories by country/non native. Kenraiz ([[User talk:|talk]]) 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Where I find the discussion and decision for changing the existing structures of terms, links, categories and articles. Thanks. Orchi (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Truth is, I don't understand what this is about. About sortkeys? Structure is not a clear word.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, Orchi: - please note the word you want is 'fruit'; one fruit, two fruit, a bowl of fruit: there is no 's' in the plural in English. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, Orchi: - also subcategory structure: it is important to separate cultivated from wild first, ahead of any other subdivision by part of plant, so that wild specimens, and non-native / cultivated specimens, are never mixed together in the same category. Additionally, any subcategory including wild specimens should include the Taxonavigation box, while categories with non-native / cultivated specimens should not. This is so that external users (like Encyclopedia of Life) that harvest Commons images by the Taxonavigation do not lose access to the botanically important wild images. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPF, Liné1, Orchi: – Fruit has no plural form when it means sweet and fleshy product of a tree which can be eaten; but as a botanical term it has plural form – fruits (see examples: [2]: leaves, flowers, roots and fruits). Kenraiz (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [edit: we (me and Salicyna) are not native English-speaking people, so we are open on suggestions..., we noteced also differences between Category:Fruit and Category:Fruits ]
@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, Orchi: - I am en-N ;-) and to me, "Category:Genus species (fruit)" is right, while "Category:Genus species (fruits)" just looks strange and quaint - not seriously wrong, but 'what one sees from people not fully immersed in the English language' (like "sheeps"!). 'Fruit' without an -s is also the standard in botanical textbooks, a typical species description will read: "twigs brown ..., buds acutely pointed, ..., leaves ovate ..., flowers yellow with 5 petals ..., fruit green ripening purple, ...": note '-s' for everything except fruit (and, obviously, bark). MPF (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPF: We have checked it again in books, on the Internet and have to agree with you. We were misled also coz (fruit as a botanical term has plural form 'fruits') – but it is not reliable source... Kenraiz (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPF, Liné1, Orchi: – Categorization of morphology of plants: why do you think that cultivated and growing in wild plant of the same species (except cultivars) are different? If you want to find picture of flower, leaf or fruit of specific taxon it does not matter where it grows. Making two categories trees of morphological parts of plants (growing in wild and cultivated) has no sense. Morphological and geographical criteria are independent. The same problem is with taxonomical status of taxa. The species/subspecies/form/ are the same taxa both in wild and in cultivation. Kenraiz (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, Orchi: - Foliage, flowers, fruit, etc., are influenced by environmental factors as well as genetics; they can often be smaller, or larger, on cultivated plants than on plants in the wild, due to different growing conditions. Some odd things remain unexplained, e.g., why is the bark on all cultivated Araucaria araucana very different pattern (example) to that on all wild trees (example)? Also cultivated material (even in botanical collections) is surprisingly often mislabelled. And most importantly, it makes mapping results worthless, by contaminating the distribution generated with non-relevant locations from cultivated specimens. - MPF (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPF: Again I have to agree, that plants cultivated are somehow different from wild one – usually they are in better condition, more dense, greener, less damaged by animals and other factors. But the detailed pics of leaves, flowers, fruit still are representative for the taxa (often except cultivars and subtaxa, but their otherness always is within specific variability). Errors in the designation are often both in pics taken in wild and in gardens... Only the last reason seems to us important/logical, but still we think that utility of morphological categorization is more important. The solution of the problem should be independent morphological and geographical categorization. Now the latter is often a mess and there is no standards: (cultivated only or in general) by country/ non-native/ invasive (often in the same taxa). And most important: usage of pics from Commons to show distribution needs more caution and should not be done automatically. Pics from Commons very often have no geographical information or very general and often there is no information on status of plant (cultivated, introduced, native). Kenraiz (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Josve05a: @Kenraiz: @Liné1: @Kersti Nebelsiek: @MPF: @Orchi: @Pigsonthewing: @Salicyna: @Themightyquill: (alphabetical)
I suggest to continue this discussion here: Commons:WikiProject Plants
with the following discussions also:

Orchi (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are talking about category sortkeys (the term structure is not clear enough) and category naming (2 different subjects).
Remember that we have contributors with different english skills and wikisyntax skill. So we must precise and self explanatory.
I have 2 problems with the sortkey choices:
  • sortkeys have a chance to live on if they are obvious, like: ? (for unknown), † (for extinct), ♂ (for male), ♀ (for femelle). Your choice of . and * are not obvious. How will contributors remind when they must use . or *? Also contrary to template (that have a documentation), you cannot document this choice (except in an page somewhere).
  • . is currently used by automatic categories like Category:Genera of Plantaginaceae and Category:Species of Plantaginaceae. Of course as they are automatic, I can change their sortkey.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Creation of categories[edit]

Thank you for your creations of categories ...(seedlings) and others. Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for uploading File:Clitoria (2401257436) (cropped).jpg. I just wanted to let you know about Commons:CropTool, which automatically transfers existing descriptions and copyright info, and updates the source image with {{extracted}}. It's a lot faster and more efficient than Upload Wizard. All the best! Animalparty (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: It's very helpful, thanks! :) Salicyna (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cissus Alata[edit]

Hello, I'm asking just for curiosity: you moved my image to Category:Cissus alata. I'd like to know your opinion about this identification here[3] and in particular here[4], could these names (Cissus alata or Cissus rhombifolia or Rhoicissus rhombifolia) be all synonyms? Googling gives similarity... thanks. Alex Khimich (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Khimich: Hi! I moved category:Cissus rhombifolia to Cissus alata because ThePlantList says that accepted name is Cissus alata and Cissus rhombifolia is only synonym. Salicyna (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the link and for making files more organised. :) Alex Khimich (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Cześć. Dziękuję bardzo za zwrócenie uwagi. Przyznaję się do dyletanctwa w tym zakresie :/ Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny gdybyś mogła poprawić niewłaściwe kategorie (bądź dopisać). Pozdrawiam. --Zorro2212 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Och, widzę, że już to zrobiłaś. Dzięki. Zaraz spróbuję poprawić opisy. Jak myślisz, czy wpisanie formy "Scillae" w opisie angielskim będzie poprawne? Bo widzę, że w kategoriach taka forma nie występuje. Pozdr. --Zorro2212 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To może wykasować "siberica"?

OK, wykasowałam przymiotnik "siberica" z plików, w których zmieniłaś określenie. Dzięki i pozdrawiam.--Zorro2212 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


Gratuluję pięknych zdjęć róż

Rose at Mont-Royal.JPG

Ta w załączeniu to z Różanego Skwerku, za rogiem ulicy. Pozdrawiam serdecznie Stanisom (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stanisom: Dziękuję, różom trudno się oprzeć :) Salicyna (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Salicyna: :) Stanisom (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Rosa Ingrid Bergman 2018-07-16 6611.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rosa Ingrid Bergman 2018-07-16 6611.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Rosa Berolina 2015-07-01 3989.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rosa Berolina 2015-07-01 3989.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Apple cultivars by name[edit]

Hi Salicyna!

Could you please explain me, why you created all these categories like Category:Apple cultivars A as subcategories to Category:Apple cultivars by name? From my point of view the original structure of putting the different cultivars directly into the Category:Apple cultivars by name without subcategories was better: browsing from one initial letter to another was simpler, and adding a new cultivar was easier.

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frank C. Müller: Hi! I do it in the same way as it is done here: Rosa cultivars by name, Hemerocallis cultivars by name. In my opinion, with a large number of subcategories, this is more convenient. Salicyna (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Salicyna!
Thanks for your explanation!
Your kind of establishing an alphabetical substructure into a category, only because the category contains a lot of subcategories, seems to be rather unique. There are many other categories in Commons with huge numbers of subcategories and without any merely alphabetical substructure, e.g. People by name (474.311 subcategories), Free software by name (720 subcategories), Video games by name (725 subcategories), Female vocalists from the United States (1.231 subcategories), Male names (6.215 subcategories).
I couldn't find any discussions to your alphabetical structure, but I talked with some other wikipedians on the last WikiCon in St. Gallen. They made a proposal: Why not establishing an additional category parallel to Apple cultivars by name (with the same supercategories), for instance called Category:Apple cultivars by alphabet. This new Category contains your alphabetical substructure, and the old Category:Apple cultivars by name remains as it was before without alphabetical substructure.
What do you think of this suggestion?
gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frank C. Müller: It might be a good idea. Salicyna (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Salicyna! Thanks for your cooperation! During the next hour I'll start with this new structure. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Salicyna! I think, I got it now; perhaps still with some minor errors. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)