User talk:Strobilomyces

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Commons, Strobilomyces!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Uso de fotografía[edit]

¿podría yo utilizar su fotografía: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Caretta_caretta#mediaviewer/File:Caretta_caretta_060417w2.jpg para una publicación de difusión? obviamente indicando que usted es el autor. Saludos cordiales --Pangui chileno (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Naturalmente usted puede usar esta imagen según las licencias GNU o "Creative Commons" bajo quienes esta disponible en Commons. Si quiere otro permiso, por favor envieme un E-mail usando el commando "Enviar un mensaje..." que se encuentra en la pagina "user:Strobilomyces". Solo por curiosidad, ¿a qué tipo de publicación de difusión se refiere? Saludos cordiales. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


Commercial App using your photos[edit]

Hi! I am not sure if you have given a permission for this, but there is a Finnish App "Sienikirja" that uses several of your mushroom photographs, including File:Lactarius_torminosus_041031w.jpg and File:Pluteus_cervinus_060902w.jpg. The App is being sold in Finland for 3,59eur, with the info text claiming that photos are by one person only. I started looking around and noticed most of them were in fact stolen from Wikimedia (including the App icon). The App is here https://itunes.apple.com/fi/app/sienikirja/id833470386?mt=8 If you haven't given a permisison, Apple has a form you can fill here for removal of illegal content. Zilppuri (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for informing me of this. No, I have not given permission to use the photos which you mention. However I do not intend to take any action. For me the only real problem with this situation is that somebody might accuse me of having plagiarised the photos. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Image attribution[edit]

Dear Strobilomyces, I'm currently writing a popular science book about the evolution of locomotion, to be published next year by Basic Books. I would very much like to include your wonderful Hemiscyllium ocellatum image: may I ask how you would like the work to be attributed? Many thanks, and best wishes, Matt Wilkinson

I should add that my email is mtw210 at googlemail should you wish to discuss anything further. Thanks, Matt

Hello Matt. I don't wish to make any particular stipulation about how the photo is attributed. When you refer to me, I would prefer you to use my pseudonym "Strobilomyces" (with the quotes). I think you can find any other information you need from pages like Commons:Credit line. If you don't want to conform to the CC or GNU licence in every respect, just tell me and I will send you permission separately by mail. Best wishes. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your gracious permission. That all sounds fine. Best wishes, Matt

Photo Permission[edit]

Hello,

My name is Andrea Bong, and I work at Adventure Publications (www.adventurepublications.net). We’re currently working on a field guide about mushrooms of the Northeastern United States, which is due out next spring.

We’re writing because we’d like to use your image your image of the following species in our book:

Snowy Waxy Cap

As we understand it, you’ve shared the images via a Creative Commons Sharealike License. As we want to live up to the letter—and the spirit—of the license, we wanted to contact you to ask you how you’d like the photo attributed in the book. We will credit your work on the photo credits page, and we’ll also include the required information about the Creative License itself. The book will be going to print shortly, so we’d appreciate it if you’d get back to us as soon as you can.

Please let us know what you think, and thanks.

Andrea Bong Production Coordinator andrea@adventurepublications.net —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.226.144.1 (talk) 22:20, 05 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrea. I would prefer you to refer to me as "Strobilomyces", for instance 'Photo: "Strobilomyces" (Wikimedia Commons)'. However I do not make any definite stipulation - you can vary the attribution if you wish. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

C. dealbata, a species of its own[edit]

Dear Strobilomyces, would you please be so kind to comment the contributions of the page Category talk:Clitocybe rivulosa? Best regards. -- Sacha47 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (CEST)

I put a reply there. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanking for mentioning the algae Acetabularia have (had) a homonymy with a fungus.[edit]

In the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coloured_Figures_of_English_Fungi_or_Mushrooms_-_t._303.png you have let know; a fungus too called as Acetabularia. Great thanks for that.

However, you or any-other user can add a disambiguation hatnote to the algae page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetabularia. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello. The fungus genus name Acetabularia is now considered invalid (the alga takes precedence) and I believe that this name has hardly been used since the 19th century, so I do not think the fungus name is important enough to make a page for it. The equivalent Cyphellopus is a valid genus but has very little in WP about it. I added a sentence on this to the alga etymology section; please change this if you prefer to do it differently. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

If you know how to create species categories from Mushroom Observer here. I posted them to Thiotrix's talkpage...but it seems he is away. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see User:Christian Ferrer has done some. I will look into doing the rest. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, yes when reviewing some files uploaded from Mushroom Observer, I saw red links and then created the categories with the strict minimum, taxonavigation and the parent category. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Great, you're doing a good job. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear Strobilomyces,
  • Feel free to do what you are able to categorise. That is all I ask. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've done all but 3 Amanitas which I do have difficulty categorising, I'll think about it again tomorrow. New genera are coming thick and fast in Species Fungorum, and the various taxonomic trees we have are not always consistent. We need a unique tree of names in Commons so that all the photos of one species are on the same page and we need a unique tree of items in WikiData so that all the wikilinks of a given species are linked together. Do you know if there are any rules governing how the fungus names get updated, or whether anyone takes responsibility for managing this process? According to Species Fungorum, the current name of Amanita manicata is Saproamanita manicata and that of Amanita hesleri is Aspidella hesleri. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
yes, one example en:Amanita persicina; In Commons : older Category:Amanita muscaria var. persicina and newer Category:Amanita persicina Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I merged the categories in this case. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If the current name Amanita hesleri is Aspidella hesleri, then categorise these images as Aspidella hesleri...and remove the Amanita hesleri categories. I have made a few edits here and here so people know it is the same species. I also did this Category:Aspidella hesleri I also did this for Amanita manicata: Category:Saproamanita manicata Unfortunately I am not an expert on fungi...I just upload images of Amanita species which are missing. And I am stopping my work after Amanita. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid that I have given you bad advice with the name Aspidella. Although the current name given in Species Fungorum is Aspidella hesleri (see here), the genus Aspidella as a fungus has been declared illegitimate (it was already used for a fossil which takes priority) and it has been moved to Saproamanita (see here). But the name combination Saproamanita hesleri has not been defined. So I think Species Fungorum is inconsistent and it is best to just keep to Amanita hesleri.
I can just put Amanita manicata under Saproamanita, making Amanita manicata a synonym, so that is what I intend to do.
Amanita fritillaria is not given as a "current species" in the "Species Fungorum" part of "Index Fungorum", but the name seems to be used (see the Amanitaceae.org page), so I think I can create it as a category.Strobilomyces (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Just categorise the remaining Amanita's here if you have the time. That is all I ask. I usually trust only MycoBank as in this case for a species that has not yet been categorised. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Mycobank uses the same identifiers as Index Fungorum and I think it normally follows Species Fungorum. I don't understand your comment with the link (Amanita cinereopannosa); that mushroom is also current in Species Fungorum and I think Mycobank is just copying Species Fungorum. Mycobank has both Amanita hesleri and Aspidella hesleri marked as legitimate, but really Aspidella hesleri is illegitimate. I don't think Mycobank sets the "Current name" field in a consistent way so as to define a preferred taxonomy.
Anyway, I have started on the remaining names, but I won't have time to finish tonight. Bye for now. Strobilomyces (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It is considered bad to have the same file at different levels in the taxonomy, so category "Amanita" should be deleted when there is a species-level category. I was missing that but I will implement it; I hope that is OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I have finished making the categories, now. According to Index Fungorum, Amanita cinereoconia is a synonym of A. chlorinosma, so I merged it into that category. I see that user:Thiotrix is doing A. murinoflammeum. According to Index Fungorum, the species name is wrong and should be murinoflammea. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer[edit]

For Mushroom Observer, at the source click "Show Original Image" to get the MAXIMUM image size possible and save that image before you upload it to Wikicommons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) I did this below for these 2 image files and the image size difference is very large than the small image version you uploaded.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry I forgot to do this. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure. No problem at all. Mushroom Observer is a good source of some quality free images. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter - Spring 2018[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter and contribute to the next issue. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
  • Our dedicated IRC channel: wikimedia-commons-sd webchat
  • Several Commons community members are working on ways to integrate Wikidata in Wikimedia Commons. While this is not full-fledged structured data yet, this work helps to prepare for future conversion of data, and helps to understand how Wikidata and Commons can work better together.
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Discussions held
Events
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research
Development
  • Prototypes will be available for Multilingual Captions soon.
Stay up to date!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Rhodocybe nitellina[edit]

Hello, I saw you created this category and you listed Rhodophana nitellina as a synonym, however Species Fungorum say the current name is Rhodophana nitellina. Do you think we can create Category:Rhodophana nitellina? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I don't have much time at present.
A 2009 paper by Co-David proposed that genus Rhodocybe needs to disappear (as Clitopilus is a clade embedded in it),[1], but they regard Rhodophana as just a section of Entoloma. And they name R. nitellina "Clitopilus nitellinus". Then Kluting et al. did a study where they resurrected genera Clitopilopsis and Rhodophana and also defined a new genus Clitocella.[2] The names of Kluting et al. now seem to be accepted by Species Fungorum and Mycobank (there are still obscure Rhodocybe species marked as current in Species Fungorum but I think these names are problematic or not used since a long time ago). So I think that the current name is now indeed Rhodophana nitellina.
Bringing Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia up to date for all the changes to Rhodocybe species will be a lot of work, and other similar fungus name changes are occurring very frequently. It is important to have one main name for each species in Commons (so all photos are together) and in Wikidata (so that the interwiki links will all connect together), but I am not sure that it is so important that our main name is the latest in Species Fungorum. It has been suggested that Wikidata can support alternative taxonomic trees, but I think that is wrong; one classification has to be selected for the interwiki links. Not everybody wants to move to the newest names and I have been reverted when I tried to make such changes in Wikidata. So far as I know there is no procedure for deciding when to change to the latest taxon names and it might be useful to have one - or even a rule about where to discuss it. Commons seems to be very progressive with its names but Wikidata is more conservative.
Do you have an idea about how to proceed towards having a consistent system? I mean, what pages need to be created or renamed in Commons, Wikidata and perhaps Wikipedia? I will continue to think about it later. I can change over to Rhodophana in Commons, but I am worried about the interactions with WD. Strobilomyces (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we must think to the future specially with Commons:Structured data and with the new means of research that will be associated with it. My first thought is that we need to create here a category for each synonym and a Wikidata item for each of its categories. Then we will decide here on Commons which categories we use as redirect and what taxonomic trees we must have. The Wikidata items will not be changed when we will create a new synonym. And the fact to have an item for each synonym will help the search engine. In summary :
5 synonyms = 4 redirect categories + 1 category that contains the images = 5 Wikidata items

Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, also just one of the Wikidata items is special because it contains the interwiki links and perhaps other important information. I hope that the synonyms are linked together, but according to the taxonomy project tutorial, the way of linking from a synonym to a current name is different from the way of linking the other way. So that is another reason why a special Wikidata item has to be selected, but I don't know whether that will be the item with the interwiki links. This data structure worries me because old synonyms can easily be confused with current names and I think taxonomy software probably needs to distinguish them.
I think that the WD taxonomy project needs to recognize that one of the synonyms has to be selected as the Wikidata main one, even if it isn't the official current one. And if the Wikidata name gets out of date, there should be a procedure to move to the new name. A main Wikidata item for a species should have much more information than a synonym. In fact I think that the main Wikidata item should represent the real mushroom and if the mushroom changes its name, it should be renamed and keep the same Q-number. I think that happened in the case of Imleria badia. I would propose that the WD discussion page of the main Wikidata item should be used to manage updating the current name to another synonym.
Yes, Commons:Structured data is likely to have the same problems as Wikidata. I hope that it will be done well, but I am afraid not enough attention will be paid to this issue. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Your link to "Tutorial taxonomy project tutorial" don't work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I corrected it.Strobilomyces (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I just found this plant species Arequipiopsis hempeliana on Wikidata with many synonym. Each synonym has an item but only the main item has interwiki links. I think with such system we can create as many redirects as we want here. We have just to add to the item of the synonym the property Commons category with a link to the corresponding category, category that would be a redirect category, and to list this item as a synonym of the current main item. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll think about that, perhaps then the main WD item doesn't have to be the same as the main Commons page. I am not sure whether the {{VB}} template will work with that, perhaps I'll try it on R. nitellina. I added genus Rhodophana to the English Wikipedia. Strobilomyces (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm a bit busy but I will take a look later at what we can done, at what was already done, and at the tutorial. If I find a good way to proceed then I will make you aware. The advantage to have a category redirect for each synonym is that it's maybe not necessary to have the same main species name on Commons and on Wikidata, the main thing being to tie the two. See you later. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Not yet read the tutorial but this seems to be a good way:
Existing category changed to a redirect [1]
The property / "Commons category" in the Wikidata item was changed to the new category [2], no matter that the "main" Wikidata item is a synonym. The most important is that our "main" category and gallery is linked to the main item. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In your example of Oreocereus hempelianus, I see that the Russian wikilink is under Arequipa spinosissima, so it is not working 100%. I don't see anything linking from the synonyms back to the main item Oreocereus hempelianus, not even for Arequipiopsis hempeliana, which I suppose is a homotypic synonym. Looking at the Arequipiopsis hempeliana item, how can you tell that this is not an independent species? Strobilomyces (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is a fact that the Wikidata interface is oriented for definition and not for reading information. It is needed code and queries to retrieve information, a pity in this case. When a species on Wikidata is defined as a synonym, the info should be visible and every wikilinks should be redirected on the item of the current species name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, that sounds very good in a way, but I think it gives a lot of power to anyone who adds a synonym. Sometimes people don't agree as to which should be the current item. Presumably you wouldn't be allowed to add a synonym to a synonym or make a loop. It seems a problem to me that you can't tell from the object itself that it is only a synonym. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I made WD items for Rhodophana and Rhodophana nitellina, as well as the Commons pages.Strobilomyces (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks well, I added a few statements Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. (Nov 2009). "Molecular phylogeny and spore evolution of Entolomataceae". Persoonia 23 (2): 147–176. Leiden & Utrecht: National Herbarium of The Netherlands & the CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre. DOI:10.3767/003158509x480944. PMID 20198166. PMC: 2802732. Archived from the original on 2011-07-27.
  2. (2017). "Toward a stable classification of genera within the Entolomataceae: a phylogenetic re-evaluation of the Rhodocybe-Clitopilus clade". Mycologia 106 (6): 1127-1142. Taylor & Francis Group. DOI:10.3852/13-270.