Open main menu


Hello, Liné, your new and changed taxonavs without this end: <_br style="clear:both" /> (wihtout the underline at the second position, but otherwise this reading is unpossible for you) destroy the graphic building of many monitors, especially together with the link to wikipecies and cat-links (We had already expieriences and discussions with differt users). Greetings Orchi 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I will correct this
Cheers Liné1 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, but I revert your edit in image:Caiman yacare2.jpg. What's the problem with the category? Congratulations, -- Mateus Hidalgo 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the politics don't say this:

Note the "and/or" above. Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. It is hoped that in the future the software will be updated to merge the functionalities of galleries and categories into one. Automated tools for finding images must dig through categories and gallery articles. (in Commons:Categories).

I like of insert a image in a category and in a gallery, this's my opinion. However, some sysop or other user say for you to do it?
Thanks for the cumpliments, I like the idea of to create the category to the animals of UFMT zoo. Grettings, -- Mateus Hidalgo 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you 're correct about this especific image. In the case of the specie's category to be created, no problem in adding the images in it, correct? I create the category:Zoo of the Federal University of Mato Grosso.

Thanks for help, I acept it :) (unhappyly, I don't have time now). Look user:Mateus Hidalgo/galeria. Everybody animals's images are of the zoo (in description of images it have the confirmation of this). Congratulations! (and sorry for the English, I don't speak very well) -- Mateus Hidalgo 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


The Eukaryota fix is running (I was just doing some other text fixes, so it was trivial to do right now).

For the Zoo category, you should be able to do this yourself with {{Category redirect}}; my understanding is that an automated process will move everything over. (I'd add that it seems the name with lowercase "la" would be preferred, for consistency with the fr.wp article, but that's up to you and whomever else is concerned.) --Davepape 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Zoo de la Palmyre

Tout dabbord félicitation pour ton travail sur commons.
Je voudrais fusionner Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre et Category:Zoo_de_la_Palmyre.
Personnellement je préfère le "La" majuscule, mais je voulais te laisser le choix.
Que préfères-tu, pour le reste je m'en occupe (ou si tu y tiens...)?
Amitié Liné1 8 mars 2007 à 22:20 (CET)

Bonsoir Liné1,
Effectivement, j'avais laissé cette transition en plan. En fait, j'avais changé le nom de la catégorie de Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre en Category:Zoo_de_la_Palmyre, car le site web du zoo avait procédé à cette correction.
Par contre, j'aimerais si c'est possible finir la manipulation à la main, car j'ai profité de la chose pour refaire les fiches de description des images au fur et à mesure que je les recatégorisais, et que donc les descriptions des images dans Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre ne sont pas encore refaites.
Serait-il possible de patienter jusqu'à la fin de ce week-end, que je termine moi-même les transferts, ce qui videra donc la catégorie Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre qu'il ne restera donc plus qu'à supprimer ?
Merci :-). Manchot 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
En fait, si tu es pressé, tu peux transférer le contenu de la catégorie Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre dans la catégorie Category:Zoo_de_la_Palmyre, et supprimer Category:Zoo_de_La_Palmyre, j'ai récupéré une liste des images qu'il me reste à traiter, ce que je fera d'ici la fin de ce week-end. Merci à toi :-) Manchot 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Pas de problème, je te laisse faire. Prends tout ton temps ;-)
Amitié Liné1 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Taxonavigation (again)

Hello my friend,
I have seen you modifications in [1].
Do I understand that:

  • angiosperms, monocots, commelinids should be written with lower case
  • Poales, Bromeliaceae in uppercase ? (to follow the old ways ? ;-))

What do you think of all this Strasburger classification that the germans put in commons?
Liné1 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Liné1,
I noticed you have become active with the taxononavigation!
  • In APG II names such as angiosperms, monocots, commelinids may be written both lower-case and with capitals, at least in english. I prefer lower-case, 1) because of the contrast with scientific names such as Magnoliophyta which MUST be written with a capital letter and 2) because I think it looks better and is easier on the eyes. The two publications of APG (that of 1998 and of 2003) use lower-case.
  • Poales, Bromeliaceae must be written starting with a capital.
As to the classification being used, yes, this is not easy. Most users are happy to have the orders and families according to APG, although there is some question if this should be APG II (2003) or the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Using APG II means that there is a fixed and unambiguous reference, representing the consensus of a known group of scientists. Following the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website means having a more up-to-date classification, but one that is not fixed (what is here today, may be gone tomorrow) and that is the result of a one-person decision (backed up by referring to his network, but ultimately coming down to one person). I think that the most important thing is to be clear what circumscription is used.
The German Wikipedia uses a system that is mixed. On the one hand it uses the classification published by Ehrendorfer in the textbook Strasburger, first in the 34th edition, then in the 35th edition (2002). As I understand it (I have not been able to find the book yet) it is APG (1998) forced into a classification using formal ranks (Rosopsida = eudicots, Magnoliopsida = magnoliids, Liliopsida = monocots). The German Wikipedia follows this classification for ranks above order. On the other hand, for ranks of order and below it follows the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. The classification thus is fairly compatible with the categories in Commons. My first priority would be to make sure that any classification used is consistently named (labeled), so as to be clear what is referred to. If there is one thing I hate it is an unnamed classification (god-given), leaving the user guessing what universe he has entered this time. I do not really know what is the correct name for this classification: I have been naming it the the Strasburger classification (after the book), but the Ehrendorfer classification (after the author) is also an option. I do not know what Germans call it, and they are the most important users. Something of a problem is that it is not exactly the classification in the book but a mix of the book and the website. It thus is an original concept, a mix of two classifications (but two compatible classifications).
On another matter I am not at all sure that it would be a good idea to put in a complete Cronquist classification, 1) as it will be a very great deal of work to get this right and 2) it is likely to confuse the users. The circumscription of families and orders is very different from Cronquist to APG, and getting this right for every plant will result in a lot of crowded text. This works very well in the French wikipedia where a very extensive taxobox is provided, but Commons is there for users who want to find a picture quickly and without fuss. If they want detail they can follow the interwiki to the French wikipedia!
Keep up the good work! Brya 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
My reservations about a Cronquist classification are stronger when it comes to categories than on taxonav. In other words, I feel that putting in a Cronquist taxonav in the category:Cistaceae page may or may not be useful, but that putting the category:Cistaceae in the category:Violales is too much. Brya 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Liné1, do you know, whether Cronquist is deleted? Greeting to you. Orchi 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cronquist was a redirect to Cronquist System.
Cronquist was suppressed by User:Siebrand because Cronquist System has been suppressed by User:Szczepan1990.
That is bad!
Thanks for the news
Liné1 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
beacuse Commons isn't encyclopedia --Szczepan talk 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
hello, Szczepan1990, naturally you are right, but "Cronquist" was a defination part of the Taxonavigation - Tools, like "AGP II" or "Strasburger". Is there a possibility to integrate these terms in the template? Greetings Orchi 21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxonavigation and Wikispecies link

. Why when you are working at the taxonavs not add the templeta to link with wikispecies (template:wikispeciesCompact)? This way already it would remain made... no? Regards and GOOOD WORK!!!!! --Pristigaster 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pristigaster,
Yes, I should do that, it is probably a problem of energy ;-)
The other reason is that the french wikipedists are a bit waiting for wikispecies to make progresses.
Cheers Liné1 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. Lucky with the energy, remember: caffeine X-) --Pristigaster 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pinus identity

Hi Liné1 - your pics Image:Pinus nigra 01 by Line1.jpg, Image:Pinus nigra 02 by Line1.jpg, Image:Pinus nigra cone 01 by Line1.jpg, Image:Pinus nigra trunc 01 by Line1.jpg are Pinus brutia, not Pinus nigra! Maybe you could tell the staff at the garden, if they have the tree labelled wrong - MPF 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I never take a photograph of a species if it has no tag on it and I always take a photograph of the tag ;-)
As soon as my personal computer works (I am currently at work), I will check if I made the error.
What are the differences, I could not figure them out wikipedia :-(
Are you an expert ? (sorry for asking ;-))
If you confirm, I will try to send a mail to Category:Giardino dei Semplici di Firenze (I live in Paris and took this photo during my vacations in Fiorenz.
Thanks a lot,
Cheers Liné1 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I just saw that you are a cone collector!
That is something. ;-)
Forget about my expert question.
Cheers Liné1 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Liné, very reasonable question! (I've actually got a published botanical study on P. brutia [2] ;-) To tell the two apart, the cone was the decisive identifier, with much thicker, woodier scales than P. nigra, and many/most of them long-persistent in the crown (P. nigra cones usually fall within a year of opening; P. brutia cones hang on for 5-10 years or more); the bark (orange-red in P.b., grey or yellow-grey in P.n.) is also distinct, and the more upright branching (more level in P.n.) are also useful. Hope this helps! - MPF 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Restauration des catégories

"Categories and/or galleries?

"Note the "and/or" above. Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. It is hoped that in the future the software will be updated to merge the functionalities of galleries and categories into one. Automated tools for finding images must dig through categories and gallery articles." Source : Commons:Categories

J'ai lu votre commentaire sur ma page de discussion, merci d'avoir expliqué votre retrait des catégories que j'avais ajoutées. Mais ce § explique que deux positions existent : gallerie ET catégorie / galerie OU catégorie. Et que, en tout état de cause, il est demandé de "ne pas retirer de catégories", une fois qu'elles sont mises (sauf si elles sont fausses, bien sûr !). C'est du boulot, merci de ne pas le défaire ! Baronnet 14:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Liné1, please look at your "Itis" - Link. [[: ITIS] There is missing the "s". Greetings. Orchi 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whooo, thanks a lot!
I added a lot of there iti lately!!!
Sadly, I will only be able to correct these when the cache will be updated.
Thanks again
Cheers Liné1 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I will have to try google in this case.
Cheers Liné1 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Liné1, sorry, but I'm here again. You changed the "template:Taxonavigation". Now the automatic word wrap is not correct (My monitor: 1280 x 1024). Just I saw it here: Limnodynastes dumerilii and here Category:Pseudacris maculata. Greetings. Orchi 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have seen this problem.
But I don't see what the error can be because I just factorized the the Taxonavigation code by creating{{Taxonavigation/taxon}}.
Do you have templates skills?
Cheers Liné1 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also a problem of cariage return after the taxonavigation if the taxonavigation is on multiple lines.
I don't know if I introduced the problem or if it was already there.
Liné1 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have not or very rare knowledge in WP syntax. Creating this template I had contact with User:Conti. Orchi 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good idea, I will ask him
Thks Liné1 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there was no space for a line break, I've just modified{{Taxonavigation/taxon}} in order to insert white spaces in the taxo line. This seems to work but you may need to do a fake edit (just edit and save) to see the result. Is there something else that is going wrong? — Xavier, 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Trop cool
J'ai l'impression que ca a aussi corrigé le problème de retour à la ligne après la taxonavigation
Merci Xavier
Liné1 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging {{Bad name}} without a replacement

Hi. I removed 4 times a tag {{Bad name}} because there was no duplicate media file present. If you need to rename, please upload the file(s) first, then tag {{Bad name}}. Cheers! Siebrand 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Category indexing

Hi Liné - when indexing plant species categories (as e.g. here) please use lower case (i.e., [Category:Genus|species], NOT [Category:Genus|Species]) -it is leaving an awful lot of copyediting work for others! Thanks! - MPF 21:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked me the contrary saying that no index is ever printed is small letters.
And you say that there is a special rule for plants ?
Any idea where I can see that written down ?
Cheers Liné1 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Liné1, greetings from Sarre! I want to give my opinion in this question. In biological nomenclature the epithet of species or subspecies are never written in capital letters, because it is definied in the nomenclature rules. Therefore in indexes the epithet should be written in lower cases also. (I think, errors in "copy and paste" should be avoided also). Cheers. Orchi 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you have the majority even if I don't see the difference between plants and other regnum. But what do you mean with copy-paste?
Did I reproduced an error? Are you talking of ?
By the way, what is wrong with the commons search engine. This search of still doesn't work!
Cheers Liné1 08:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Liné1, there must be a big misunderstanding. (Using the english language is not my best). Nothing and nothing should show to "ITIS". That was a kind tip, as I expect it from you also. I meaned with "copy and paste" only the following: When everybody copies the epithet with capital letters in other places of Wikipedia. Cheers. Orchi 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my friend, but I did not understand one word of your last comment.
Truth is I don't really know what an epitet is...hihi
Cheers Liné1 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
....really? Then here a little help. en:Epithet#Biological nomenclature. (That is better as my english). Cheers. Orchi 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)



YA RLY. Yep, made this for Wikipedia's article on this with one of your pictures. Vipersnake151 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the news
cheers Liné1 21:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxonavigation template

Perhaps you could comment on the use of the Taxonavigation template, please.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Liné1, can you check the cat. Asparagales. Is it correct to connect the cat. Asparagales with the Cronquist classification cat. Liliidae? You are the expert. I don't know it. Greetings. Orchi 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orchi
Asparagales appeared with APG so it cannot be assigned to the Cronquist subclassis Liliidae (even if Asparagales is the remain of Liliidae)
Cheers Liné1 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Liné1, do you mean, that the changes of Brya are senseful? (e.g. Removing the categories of others than AGP II classifications) Greetings. Orchi 11:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orchi
I know Brya very well.
He has a big knowledge in botanic classification, but he has wiki limitations.
Very often, when he does strange modifications, in fact, he needs new templates.
But I have see his latest modifications: they are strange.
I will talk to him.
Cheers Liné1 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I have been active with categories. The easy way to do the categories of plants is to use APG II only. This probably is not tenable as people tend to follow the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, which has adopted new taxa (not in APG II), such as new orders such as Vitales, Berberidopsales. In such cases I have put in a taxonav with "APWeb".
I am not so sure about the ITIS links: 1) ITIS is not quite reliable; 2) the information can be found in the interwiki's also, at least at the better Wikipedia's; 3) it really clutters up the space.
I am very reluctant about categories according to Cronquist. This will cause much confusion, as the orders by Cronquist do not have the same component families as the orders in APG (by the same name). The component families in Cronquist do not have the same component genera as the families in APG (by the same name). Categories according to Cronquist will only work if it is rigorously done: that is two categories for each and every plant page. This will be a very great deal of work, indeed.
Then there is the question of how many classifications? If we are going to put in the Cronquist classification, then why not the classification used by the German Wikipedia? And the classification used by the Polish Wikipedia? It will get very complicated. It looks to be complicated enough with just APG II and the APWebsite classifications. Most of the users are able to access the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, and look things up.
But taxonav is a good idea, basically. This too is a lot of work, but if the classification used is mentioned always, it is not confusing. Not even when it is incomplete. Cheers! - Brya 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Liné1, hello Brya, many WPs are using AGP II or + and other taxonomies. (e.g. Orchidales). Therefore should, when we use the taxonavigation in commons further, both ways should be gone. AGP II is not accepted in all areas as the only way.

Liné1, what do you think about the following proposal: Therewith the taxonavigation not become too voluminous, perhaps we should use two ways of taxonavigation. Once from "Familia" up to "Eukaryota" and once downwards from "Familia" to "Species" or lower. This idea was born by my own practice. Rarely I use the navigation from Species to Ordo, especially when I use the navigation not as navigation in taxonomy but in commons navigation. Greetings for today. Orchi 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion occurred recently.[4] Is it ok to append this discussion to that one so it is all in one place? Ies commented in the other discussion and may wish to participate in this one. My impression is that he may be in substantial agreement with the view of Brya above on taxonavigation. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
  1. As to taxonavigations, I feel that the most important thing is to always and consistently add the classifation followed in that taxonav: Strasburger, APG II, etc. A taxonav without a classification suggests that there is an ultimate classification. In reality taxonomists have different insights on the matter. Presenting a taxonav without a specified classification is what is called "PoV".
  2. As to duplication: it would be nice if Wikispecies provided taxonomic information. Unfortunately that is not the case: Wikispecies is engaged in creating an ultimate classification (it is an "Original Research" project). It is not a reference.
  3. Categories are a different matter. Categories should help the users to find pictures. It helps if categories are as clear as possible. Users will be more or less familiar with APG, whether they agree with it or not, and should be able to find their way using this. If we were going to put the category of order Commelinales in the category subclass Commelinidae, then it becomes logical for the reader who is in category Commelinidae (sensu Cronquist) and goes down a level to Commelinales to expect to find the plants that by Cronquist are part of Commelinales. By APG many of these plants belong to order Poales. Putting the plants according to both circumscriptions in the same single category would be terribly confusing to users. This approach would only work if we had separate categories "Commelinales sensu Cronquist" and "Commelinales sensu APG". This could be done, but it is a massive amount of work and likely would not get much support and understanding among users.
So, I would like to keep categories simple, and add taxonovs (with the classification specified). - Brya 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Just wondering, what is the difference between Category:Unidentified Hippocampinae and Category:Unidentified Hippocampus? Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, someone created Category:Seahorse which should probably be merged into one of the latin-named ones (I have no idea...). Thanks :) Deadstar (msg) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


I saw you asked why the German Wikipedia is using Strasburger. That of course is their decision. Basically the Srasburger classification (1998, 2000) is APG forced into the traditional framework of ranks. This means that it is traditional and phylogenetic at the same time. Or that it is neither depending on how these terms are defined. The Strasburger classification is a compromise, and as usual for compromises: it is not a thing of beauty. - Brya 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many categories are somewhat confusing

Thank you Liné1. You’re right that the higher taxonomic categories are no longer necessary and somewhat confusing too, if there is already a lower category mentioned. tea ≈Dl 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Liné1/2007".