User talk:Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv/2014

Dog photos in Cat:Unidentified Anatidae

Hi Kersti - I removed these dog photos from Cat:Unidentified Anatidae as they are, basically, photos of dogs, with the dead birds being only a minor component of the photo, not the main subject. Just the same as they are not included in categories like Unidentified Poaceae, Unidentified wetland locations, etc., etc. The poor things are also so mangled as to be beyond any realistic hope of identification, so there is little point in having them in the category. They could perhaps though be added to Category:Abused birds, or to some hunting-related category? - MPF (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the natural enemies, hunting and so on, are relevant topics of an article concerning the duck species. Therefore it is good to have photos showing the natural enemies and humans hunting the species in the species categories to illustrate these subtopics of species-articles. Abused ist not correct - hunting ist a natural part of wildlife. Caging and slaughtering birds is more abuse than to carry a dead bird around, who doesn't feel it any longer. Therefore Category:Anseriformes (dead) would be the correct category.--Kersti (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to say, a good solution, thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/2014⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 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 (2013) 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.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Anguis_fragilis_heads

Anguis fragilis heads 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!

109.11.153.163 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Feszty korkep.jpg

File:Feszty korkep.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Qorilla (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Elephants_of_Zambia

Elephants of Zambia 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!

 Biopics 09:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lady_Feodora_Gleichen

Lady Feodora Gleichen 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!

Keith D (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Human skulls

Polski: Nie róbmy bałaganu

Esperanto: Ni ne faru malordo

Polski: Rozumiem, że jesteś przeciwko usunięciu Category:Human skulls z Category:Skulls. Usunąłem Category:Human skulls z Category:Skulls ponieważ Category:Human skulls był w Category:Skulls dwukrotnie. Myślę, że jest bałagan jeśli Category:Human skulls jest jedonczenieśnie w:

1) Category:Human skull -> Category:Homo skulls -> Category:Hominidae skulls -> Category:Primate skulls -> Category:Mammal skulls -> Category:Animal skulls -> Category:Skulls

2) Category:Human skull -> Category:Skulls

Myślę, że musimy wybrać tylko jedną z dwóch ścieżek, nie możemy wybrać ścieżki 2) bo wtedy człowiek nie będzie wśród zwierząt a to błąd.

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto: Mi komprenas ke Vi estas kontraŭ eligi Category:Human skulls el Category:Skulls. Mi eligis Category:Human skulls el Category:Skulls ĉar Category:Human skulls estis en Category:Skulls dufoje. Mi opinias ke estas malordo se Category:Human skulls estas samtempe en:

1) Category:Human skull -> Category:Homo skulls -> Category:Hominidae skulls -> Category:Primate skulls -> Category:Mammal skulls -> Category:Animal skulls -> Category:Skulls

2) Category:Human skull -> Category:Skulls

Mi opinias ke ni devas elekti nur unu el du vojoj, ni ne povas elekti vojo 2) ĉar "homo" ne estos inter "bestoj" kaj tio estos eraro.

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Humans are no animals - therefore this is correct Kersti (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Humans --> Homo ✓

Humans --> Animals --Kersti (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• en:Animal: "The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects, and humans.[3]" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the way, most people think. Therefore people interested in medizine or history won't find the human skulls in animal skulls, people interested in biology would search it primarily there. Both categorysations are nessesary. Kersti (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Insekt?

Wo ist hier das Insekt? --Atamari (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Auch hier.. das sind Ameisen. Ameisen sind keine Raupen! --Atamari (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the seemingly tireless categorization and classification of animals, birds and other creatures, particularly in photos by Keven Law. It is very much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For you!, nice animal cats The Photographer (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sturnus vulgaris (Chester).jpg

Thanks for all of the categorisation work you've been doing on Chester Zoo and the Karoo National Park. :-) I'm afraid that File:Sturnus vulgaris (Chester).jpg by @Biopics: is a bit of a complication, though - it's a bird *at* chester zoo rather than *in* the zoo's collections. Do you think it would be worth renaming Category:Birds in Chester Zoo to Category:Birds at Chester Zoo to deal with this case, or would that then be out of line with other "Birds in" categories? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess my english is not good enough for such decisions as I am German. I would think that it is in the zoo as it is somewhere between the outer walls of the zoo. Therefore I simply would mention the fact that it is a wild bird in the description page of the photo, or if there's a whole category vor wild birds in a zoo in the description of the category, like I did it here: Category:Eudocimus albus at Brevard Zoo. --Kersti (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. "in" could indeed mean somewhere between the outer walls of the zoo, but it is ambiguous. Given that you used "at" in the Brevard Zoo category name, and looking at Category:Birds in zoos by zoo name there's a mix of 'in' or 'at', I think I'll move the category to Category:Birds at Chester Zoo and see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

salut,

suis en ce moment sur wikipédia, et me sens pas capable de reprendre un certain nombre de photo sur commons, suis pas du tout ds le coup pour le moment, je mitraille en boucle mes espèces, mais pas plus de suite désolé. Amicalement Cedricguppy. (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Over-categorisation of fossils

Hi, is there any good reason why we need so many categories that are pretty much interchangeable? Skeletons, fossils, bones, anatomy, of these four, only the two first ones are necessary. The two last ones just make parallel hierarchies that are extremely difficult to navigate through. It may make sense for extant animals to have such categories, but for prehistoric ones, every bone is a fossil, and so is every other anatomical structure. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you ask me, the category which is absolutely NOT Useful is fossils. A fossil may show skeletons, feathers, footprints or even a print of soft tissue. To an article the main question usually is not "Is it a fossil or a painting" but - "Here I am writing about the feathers of this dinosaur - is there a picture showing this feathers?" Therefore I would sort the fossil categories only according to the place where they are found and according to time range. In the species categories I would sort by the informational content of the pictures (teeth, skeletons, bones, anatomy) and think it is not very interesting if it is a fossil or something else. But usually I am working on living species and species extinct after 1600, therefore I am not the one to will decide this. --Kersti (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, as it is now, most paleontology entries here have the genus name, which includes life restorations, and a fossil subcategory, which includes any kinds of fossils, including feathers and similar. That would be the main distinction, which of course is dissimilar to what can be said about extant species. That is what most people writing and searching for images about prehistoric taxa would be interested in finding. Subcategories like "skulls", "feathers", etc., and such are ok, the problem is just having parallel categories. Every such image would have to be categorised as both "bones of" and "fossils of", which would be a waste. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The life restauration categorie is useful. The fossil category mixes up photos of fossils with drawings which schow fossils and drawings which show how a full skeleton might have looked like, even if mankind knows only three different half skeletons (and it is not impossible that they may belong to three different species). Or: someone looks on three different feather prints and draws his ideas how feathers might have evolved. These are not live reconstuctions but some anatomical reconstuctions. --Kersti (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)