Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Dear Liné,

You are still adding species lists for NCBI, which is very confusing (and actually not correct). I wish you wouldn't. Kind regards.  B.p. 17:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I only do that when they have the exact same content as WoRMS. I wouldn't break our deal ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple category redirect.

Hi Liné, why can't we have a multiple category redirect? I don't mind your solution, but I don't see the reason why it is not done. It would be more correct IMO.  B.p. 19:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the purpose of{{Category redirect}} is to allow a bot to move images from the deprecated cat to the valid one. In you case, the bot would take only the first{{Category redirect}} into account.
By the way, did I told you about the biology improvments of{{Category redirect}} (They are based on{{Category redirect}} so there are no duplication):
The last one can be complemented by a{{Single}} on the destination page.
Of course, all these template take usual biology parameters: source, source2, ref, accessdate.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explanation.  B.p. 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

non-biology bot work request

Hi, I noticed your bot removing some category tags that weren't about biology, such as [[Google]]. I wonder if you'd like to help me with something.

I noticed that a lot of the 5,000-odd files in Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream are tagged with [[Category:Wallpaper]]. Many of them would make nice backgrounds for a computer screen (some, in my opinion, would not--for example File:Brucoli-Syracuse-Italy_-_Creative_Commons_by_gnuckx_(3491845253).jpg), but that's what Category:Computer_wallpaper seems to be for. Category:Wallpaper seems to be about paper for gluing to the inside of a building. I made Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream a sub-category of Category:Computer_wallpaper so that people who want 5,000 pictures of Italy to put on their screen can find them. I think it would be a good thing if the [[Category:Wallpaper]] tag could be removed from the photos in Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream.

I'm new here and haven't asked anyone else about this. Rybec (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As you noticed, my bot is supposely limited to biology. But I won't let you down with your problem.
Give me a couple a day to finish my current bot run and I will help you.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, here is how my bot works: it scans all pictures from a specific category (Here Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream) and requests its categories.
If one category (Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream) is in another (Category:Wallpaper) it removes the second from the picture.
So I temporarely added Category:Wallpaper to Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream.
My bot is currently running on Category:Flickr images reviewed by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) which happens to contain all Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream files.
Hopefully, that will do the work.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and the help! Rybec (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Liné. Maybe it is a bit premature to add a complete taxonavigation for this suborder. WoRMS is not yet up-to-date concerning non-Sendicaudata taxa. I will contact Jim Lowry this weekend for more information and I'm seeing the guys from WoRMS tonight and will ask them to update their database ASAP. Cheers.  B.p. 15:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, perfect. In that case, I will add a small comment in Category:Amphipoda. Could you review it ?*
Thanks for the info. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Keeping you up-to-date. There is progress on WoRMS on Gammaridea. I will try to repair the taxo soon. Cheers  B.p. 06:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Corrected VN" by Linébot

Hi Liné - could you change Linébot so that when it sorts VN, it uses a space, not a carriage return, between languages, please. It is very annoying when adding a pic to a gallery, to have to scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, and scroll all the way to Australia to get down past that very cumbersome format. With spaces, VN is far more compact, making editing of the page much easier, and the appearance of the resulting page is exactly the same. Both of these appear the same on a page, but ask yourself, which is easier to edit something after it at the end?:

{{VN |aa=xx |ab=xx |ac=xx |ad=xx |ae=xx |af=xx |ag=xx |ah=xx |ai=xx |aj=xx |ak=xx |al=xx |am=xx |an=xx |ao=xx |ap=xx |aq=xx |ar=xx |as=xx |at=xx |au=xx 
|av=xx |aw=xx |ax=xx |ay=xx |az=xx |ba=xx |bb=xx |bc=xx |bd=xx |be=xx |bf=xx |bg=xx |bh=xx |bi=xx |bj=xx |bk=xx |bl=xx |bm=xx |bn=xx |bo=xx |bp=xx |bq=xx 
|br=xx |bs=xx |bt=xx |bu=xx |bv=xx |bw=xx |bx=xx |by=xx |bz=xx |ca=xx |cb=xx |cc=xx |cd=xx |ce=xx |cf=xx |cg=xx |ch=xx |ci=xx |cj=xx |ck=xx |cl=xx |cm=xx 
|cn=xx |co=xx |cp=xx |cq=xx |cr=xx |cs=xx |ct=xx |cu=xx |cv=xx |cw=xx |cx=xx |cy=xx |cz=xx |da=xx |db=xx |dc=xx |dd=xx |de=xx |df=xx |dg=xx |dh=xx |di=xx 
|dj=xx |dk=xx |dl=xx |dm=xx |dn=xx |do=xx |dp=xx |dq=xx |dr=xx |ds=xx |dt=xx |du=xx |dv=xx |dw=xx |dx=xx |dy=xx |dz=xx |ea=xx |eb=xx |ec=xx |ed=xx |ee=xx 
|ef=xx |eg=xx |eh=xx |ei=xx |ej=xx |ek=xx |el=xx |em=xx |en=xx |eo=xx |ep=xx |eq=xx |er=xx |es=xx |et=xx |eu=xx |ev=xx |ew=xx |ex=xx |ey=xx |ez=xx |fa=xx 
|fb=xx |fc=xx |fd=xx |fe=xx |ff=xx |fg=xx |fh=xx |fi=xx |fj=xx |fk=xx |fl=xx |fm=xx |fn=xx |fo=xx |fp=xx |fq=xx |fr=xx |fs=xx |ft=xx |fu=xx |fv=xx |fw=xx 
|fx=xx |fy=xx |fz=xx |gg=xx |gb=xx |gc=xx |gd=xx |ge=xx |gf=xx |gg=xx |gh=xx |gi=xx |gj=xx |gk=xx |gl=xx |gm=xx |gn=xx |go=xx |gp=xx |gq=xx |gr=xx |gs=xx 
|gt=xx |gu=xx |gv=xx |gw=xx |gx=xx |gy=xx |gz=xx |ha=xx |hb=xx |hc=xx |hd=xx |he=xx |hf=xx |hg=xx |hh=xx |hi=xx |hj=xx |hk=xx |hl=xx |hm=xx |hn=xx |ho=xx 
|hp=xx |hq=xx |hr=xx |hs=xx |ht=xx |hu=xx |hv=xx |hw=xx |hx=xx |hy=xx |hz=xx |ii=xx |ib=xx |ic=xx |id=xx |ie=xx |if=xx |ig=xx |ih=xx |ii=xx |ij=xx |ik=xx 
|il=xx |im=xx |in=xx |io=xx |ip=xx |iq=xx |ir=xx |is=xx |it=xx |iu=xx |iv=xx |iw=xx |ix=xx |iy=xx |iz=xx |ja=xx |jb=xx |jc=xx |jd=xx |je=xx |jf=xx |jg=xx 
|jh=xx |ji=xx |jj=xx |jk=xx |jl=xx |jm=xx |jn=xx |jo=xx |jp=xx |jq=xx |jr=xx |js=xx |jt=xx |ju=xx |jv=xx |jw=xx |jx=xx |jy=xx |jz=xx |kk=xx |kb=xx |kc=xx 
|kd=xx |ke=xx |kf=xx |kg=xx |kh=xx |ki=xx |kj=xx |kk=xx |kl=xx |km=xx |kn=xx |ko=xx |kp=xx |kq=xx |kr=xx |ks=xx |kt=xx |ku=xx |kv=xx |kw=xx |kx=xx |ky=xx 
|kz=xx }}



Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
99,9% of the VN are multi-lines, even before my bot existed. Even{{Translation table}} is always multi-line. I can see many reasons for that:
  1. most people follow for{{VN}} the same rule as for interwiki.
  2. If both VN and interwiki are multi-line it is easy to compare them to see if some entries are missing (I do that often)
And very much easier if the VN and interwiki were both separated by spaces instead. But of course often, they do not match, such as where wikipedia articles use the scientific name as the title - MPF (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. It it more easy to merge existing VN multiline with VN returned by external tools (I also do that often)
You remember that I tried to obtain some consensus on the way to write commons article/categories (position of Taxonavigation,VN,SN ...). But no consensus was found.
You are the only one I know writing compact VN. I suppose that you don't modify them. So you don't need them to be readable.
The prime purpose of Commons is the images, they need to be easily accessible! If VN was at the end below the gallery, it (like interwikis) would not matter so much. - MPF (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Good News: But all this is maybe temporary. Wikidata does not manage wikicommons yet. But in the near future interwiki will be provided by Wikidata. Later VN content could also be managed by Wikidata (This is not planed yet). That would help us both as I am not really fond of that non-biologic stuff.
Sorry again. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What's "Wikidata" and how does it work? - MPF (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Our solution ;-)
en:Wikidata is a new wikipedia companion website. It is meant to store structured data usable in all wikisites.
  • Interwiki automatically usable in all wikisites.
  • additional informations like 'taxon rank' or 'IUCN status'.
    • That way if a bot modifies the 'IUCN status' in wikidata:Q140, all wikisite using that info (with a syntax that I don't know yet) will received the modification.
    • That could kill wikispecies ?!?
  • The limitations:
    • currently commons ans species are not managed (but it is planned of course)
    • additional informations are only link to other wikidata article (Lion rank=wikidata:Q7432=Species in english)(Lion UICNStatus=wikidata:Q278113=Vulnerable in english...). So they cannot store a property like scientificName='Panthera leo'
Cool, and a bit young. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi, I disagree with the removals of categories done by your bot, like [1] (there are both a bank and an automatic teller machine in the photo9, [2] (there is not only a prohibitory road sign but also a speed limit sign in the photo), [3] (there is Lake Bled in the photo). --Eleassar (t/p) 07:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend
Sorry if my bot did a bad modification.
My bot simply enforce the main commons' rule: a picture should not be in two categories if one of the category is categorized in the other one.
That is why the comment is "Suppressed less precise categories"
In your case, the picture was categorized in Category:Banks in Slovenia and Category:Automatic teller machines in Slovenia which is categorized in Category:Banks in Slovenia.
So my bot removed Category:Banks in Slovenia.
But the problem is certainly arround these two categories: 'Automatic teller machines' are not really banks but own by a bank, right ?
Tell me what you think best.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
About the second picture:
the picture is in Category:Speed limit signs in Slovenia, Category:Prohibitory road signs in Slovenia and Category:Road signs in Slovenia. The last one is less precise than the first two. Perhaps this picture should only been categorized in Category:Road signs in Slovenia.
About the third pictures:
the picture is in Category:Assumption of Mary Church, Bled and Category:Lake Bled, the last one been less precise. The issue here is that the Church cat should not be in the lake cat. The fact that the curch is near the lake is already enforced by the common father category:Bled.
and the picture is in Category:Water reflections of buildings in Slovenia and Category:Water reflections in Slovenia, the last one been less precise.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So, here, my bot faces 2 types of problems:
OK, the last one really is problematic. and I need to find a solution. I blocked my bot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd appreciate it if your 'bot didn't do this. It's a real waste of human effort to have to go round cleaning up after them.
This simple guideline (it's not a rule) is one of the most misunderstood aspects of MediaWiki. Because categorization is not a powerful ontological definition, there are many situations where this "rule" fails. It's certainly not a simple situation where a 'bot can remove categories reliably without damage.
If the categories are left untrimmed, there is little damage. At most it's "wasteful" of a few bytes. It doesn't mislead readers though, or lose information. If the 'bot trims them inappropriately though, information is lost and this is subtle information that requires a subject-knowledgeable human to add it. Those are some of the most difficult edits to achieve: they need not only humans, but humans who know the subject too. If all Commons or WP edits could be performed by 'bots like this, then there'd be no need for human editors.
Please stop your 'bot doing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, I stopped my bot.
About the need for human editors, we are still needed for category creation ;-)
I ran this bot, because the Flickr import bots do a bad job.
If you look at this optimisation, you can see what bad work the import bot did.
It added Category:Coleoptera (twice?), Category:Cerambycidae, Category:Stenurella, Category:Stenurella septempunctata when all these categories are included in each other.
The solution I will implement is simply to optimize only categories categoried in Category:Taxon categories (categories involving a Taxon, having a Taxonavigation).
Sorry for the disturbance.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That's the sort of edit I'm not qualified to judge, because I'm not an entomologist. However it does appear to be one of those cases where the relationship between those categories is indeed a defining one (i.e. every subchild is-a parent class). In that case, it's OK to remove supercats automatically. The trouble is that these relationships are rather the exception than the rule, despite the assumption of most editors reading WP:OVERCAT. Technically, we also don't annotate each child's membership to indicate that specific relationships are defining like this. If we did (and systems like OWL allow this), then 'bots would be able to do such reasoning and trimming. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I do disagree, too. My bot simply enforce the main commons' rule: a picture should not be in two categories if one of the category is categorized in the other one. That is why the comment is "Suppressed less precise categories"
These are blind edits. Sometimes there are reasons for this "double" categorisation. A picture does not only show one object. Please look further into it. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is also our conclusion.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought that the problem caused by COM:OVERCAT fundamentalists was mostly gone, and then the bot takes it over. But I think that in many cases, such category elimination can be done when starting from generic main categories, such as countries, districts, provinces, vehicles, painters, sculptures, painters, music, art, people, ... that can be dropped if the images contains equally sub(-sub)- categories of the same branch. That would already be a nice cleanup, especially the uploads from File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (talk · contributions · Number of edits) (or other bots that uses Commeonsense). --Foroa (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Now I see: you stopped the bot yesterday. The edits showed up on my watch-list today are from the 25th. So I think the problem is solved. Sorry for the disturbance. --PigeonIP (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. You are welcome. Liné1 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Most non-biology edits have been helpful too, but a lot of them not. Here's one thing that will almost never be helpful: Deleting regular categories just because the file is in a hidden maintenance subcategory. Examples: [4] [5] and many similar ones. I'm afraid you'll have to go back and check all your edits. --X-Weinzar (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Plant taxonomy

Do you know the source we should follow for plant taxonomy or is that an ad hoc decision depending on the species? See this change? Regards.  B.p. 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a diplomatic edit ;-) but it doesn't answer my question...  B.p. 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello my friend,
I fear as you fear that there is no easy response to your question.
Anytime I asked someone, he answered: you must mix between Tropicos and ThePlantList.
One thing, I am sure of, there should be some references in Category:Juniperus communis subsp. alpina + a{{Synonym taxon category redirect}} in the redirect page.
I will try to add some references (the diplomatic edit ;-))
Sorry. Liné1 (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Liné - on the recent additions to the Juniperus communis subsp. alpina category, the term 'invalid' is not being used correctly here; in botany that term has a very different meaning to what it does in zoology. Both Juniperus communis subsp. alpina and Juniperus communis var. saxatilis are valid names; the difference between them is simply a matter of preference between different botanists. An invalid name in botany is one that cannot be used at all by anyone, because it contravenes the rules of the ICBN. Can you change the wording to something like 'considered a synonym at this source', and for the site's preferred name, something like 'the preferred name at this source', please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand.
What shortest phrase could we display for the synonym (in bold):
  • 'considered a Synonym' (bit too long)
  • 'considered a Syn.' (shorter but less clear)
  • 'not accepted' (Tropicas displays 'Accepted Names' meaning that this one is not accepted?)
For the preferred name, I don't think that we need to display anything (as the previous phrase is in bold)
Look at Category:Juniperus communis subsp. alpina to see a proposal about the format:
  • Considered a synonym
  • considered a synonym
  • (Considered a synonym)
Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Liné :) I've had trouble with |nv as well. In fact none of the names have turned out to be invalid for the taxon I was searching for. The problem is that the WikipediaBioReferences picks the first name returned, which might indeed be invalid but the same name could be valid for another taxon! :) For example, search for Amanita. It gets some results from Index Fungorum:

  • Amanita Dill. ex Boehm. 1760, (also see Species Fungorum: Agaricus); Agaricaceae
  • Amanita Adans. 1763; Agaricales
  • Amanita Pers. 1797, (also see Species Fungorum: Amanita); Amanitaceae
  • etc...

Amanita Dill. ex Boehm. 1760 is indeed invalid because, I guess, he uses it for a genus for which Agaricus L. has precedence.
Amanita Pers. 1797 is the one we want, the accepted and valid name.
So wikipediabioreferences returns:

So we need to watch that and correct manually:
16:17, 26 November 2012‎ Mcitsci (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,289 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (fix fungorum link: Amanita Dill. ex Boehm. 1760 is "Nom. rejic., see Art. 14.7", changed to Amanita Pers. 1797 "Nom. cons., see Art. 14") (undo)
Mcitsci (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
I have the same difficulty with all the sources ;-)
But I must say that Fungorum is pretty hard to use and understand.
So from you explaination, WBR behavior is correct only if there was only the first line: Amanita Dill. is invalid but Agaricus is valid.
What should WBR do ?
  • Amanita Adans. 1763 and Amanita Pers. 1797 are both good candidate, how should WBR choose ?
  • Return both ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

transformation d'un texte

Bonjour, donc je te demande des conseils de programmation... Je ne sais pas si ça compte comme de la programmation, mais on ne sait jamais... Je voudrais remplacer le très vilain Template:Louvre rooms par un un peu moins vilain Module:Louvre rooms. Le problème c'esr qu'il faut convertir le format. C'est une simple histoire de "find and replace" à part deux chose chose : il faudrait ajouter ", à la fin des lignes contenant une valeur de paramètre, et effacer les lignes dans lesquelles le paramètre est vide. Concrètement, il faut changer des centaines de trucs comme :

|2 = {{#switch: {{{query|}}}
  |name= La peinture à Bologne et à Rome au XVIIe siècle 
  |unit= Peintures italiennes
  |category= Italian paintings in the Louvre - Room 15
  |wing= Denon
  |floor= 1


        [2] = {     
            name = "La peinture à Bologne et à Rome au XVIIe siècle ",
            unit = "Peintures italiennes",
            commonscat = "Italian paintings in the Louvre - Room 15",
            wing = "Denon",
            level = "1"

Tu sais faire ça ? Sinon c'est pas très grave, on peut garder le vilain modèle. --Zolo (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

hihi, ce n'est pas de la programmation, mais c'est aussi le genre de chose que je fais tous les jours.
J'utilise Notepad++ et avec des chercher/remplacer (et peut être de regex) je fais 3/4 substitutions globales.
Je m'en occupe dès que j'ai 5 min.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Voila, c'est fait.
Par contre tu as remplacé floor par level, ce qui est moins correct en anglais.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup ! "floor" est un mot mot clé en Lua pour désigner la partie entière d'un nombre, l'utiliser a l'air de faire bugger le truc, donc j'ai essayé de trouver un autre mot. --Zolo (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot for creating Taxonavigations where information exists on WikiSpecies

Hi Liné,

I see you've done some good work on taxonavigation bots. I've noticed that there are some Commons images, such as File:Allactaga_major.jpg which are used as the main image on WikiSpecies, but which do not have a taxonavigation box in their Commons category (e.g. see Category:Allactaga_major, versus Category:Mus_musculus). Wikispecies usually has (what I assume is) an appropriate Taxonavigation box that could be used. Would it be a simple bot job to copy the Wikispecies Taxonavigation to the Wikimedia Commons image category, for image categories that do not have a Taxonavigation box already?

I haven't written any wiki bots before, so I wondered if you might have time to do this, or know someone who could? If not, I was thinking of posting a request to Commons:Bots/Work_requests.

Not only would a bot like this mean better tagging of species images on Commons, but it would also allow them to be harvested automatically by the Encyclopedia of Life, something I'm interested in.

Cheers, HYanWong (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
Sadly things are more complex than that:
Taxonavigation is not a Taxobox: Taxobox describe a complete classification with all the ranks and names wanted. Taxonavigation is only a help to navigate to the parent taxon categories. So Taxonavigation is supposed to contain no red link and to contain the names of the existing categories (not the names of synonyms. For example, Taxonavigation must contain Marsupialia even if everyone uses Metatheria)
So clearly it it difficult to automatically create a Taxonavigation out of a classification.

But I am thinking of another algorithm for a bot to create species Taxonavigation.
As you might have seen, I am currently going through all the higher taxa categories to provide Taxonavigation + list of subtaxa + references (Like Allactaga.
But I am lazy ;-) because I don't go to species categories (I do create a lot to move cat but empty).
So my idea of a bot is to go through all genus, look at the subtaxa list. If they match a sub-category wich has no Taxonavigation => the bot would create the Taxonavigation in the sub-category.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liné,
Thanks for the quick reply! I think there are three things going on here, and I'm getting mixed up between the various terminologies, so let me summarize for my own benefit:
  • On Wikimedia Commons - the Taxonavigation template is used both for species and for higher-level taxa, but it is not intended to be a scientifically precise classification, merely a set of helpful links (however, this is the metadata which is mined by Encyclopedia of Life to check if an image is suitable for import as a picture of a species).
  • On Wikipedia page, a more detailed {{Taxobox}} template is used instead, which is more scientifically precise.
  • On WikiSpecies pages (which I don't think you've mentioned), the taxonomic hierarchy is done through a long list of transcluded templates, e.g. {{Allactaga}} transcludes {{Allactaginae}}, which itself transcludes {{Dipodidae}} etc. This allows easy changing of the classification, if necessary, by just changing the parent template transcluded into a lower-level template - any such change automatically changes all relevant pages.
  • There are problems converting between these three separate classifications. For example, it is not easy to create a Taxonavigation from a Taxobox because (1) it is unclear which names & levels to include and (2) names which do not exist as pages, or which refer synonyms, are used in Taxoboxes, but are not acceptable in a Taxonavigation.
Your method basically stays entirely within Commons. You are thinking of taking an existing, filled-out Taxonavigation template at the genus level, and look for subtaxa (hopefully species), append each subtaxon name as the last level to the Taxonavigation template, and insert this template onto the category page for that subtaxon, if there is no template there already. That seems like a nice thing to do.
A few thoughts:
  • One might hope that all 3 hierarchies should be maintained in sync somehow. This might be easier than it appears. Although it's tough to make a Taxonavigation from a Taxobox, it should be relatively easy to check that an existing Taxonavigation is compatible with an existing Taxobox: simply follow the redirects for all the links in both the Taxobox and the Taxonavigation, then check that final targets in the Taxonavigation are a subset of those in the Taxobox. Perhaps this could serve as a check that the heirarchies in the two are congruent?
  • If you trust the WikiSpecies classification, it might be possible to insert some invisible markup into, say the {{Allactaga}} template which flags it up as a level to be inserted into a WikiCommons Taxonavigation box. Then all that needs to be done to create a missing Taxonavigation in Commons is to locate the species page on WikiSpecies, parse the taxonomic hierarchy at the top of the page to find the flagged classification levels, follow any redirects, and construct a Taxonavigation. This has the advantage that it maintains WikiSpecies and WikiCommons classifications in sync. But obviously that's also rather constraining - you want them to have different classifications, or there may be a lot of Commons species that are absent or unclassified on WikiSpecies.
  • It might also be possible to check which taxa categories are missing Taxonavigation templates by following the linked images from WikiSpecies. If they are being missed by your bot, it (presumably) means that they have not correctly been assigned as a subtaxon of an appropriate genus. These can then be flagged up for correction by hand (or I guess it could be automated, since the correct genus is known).
Of course, it's probably more difficult than that, because names are changed or misspelt, taxonomies change over time, and so on. But something along these lines might be possible.
By the way, I see that Category:Allactaga_major now has a Taxonavigation template. Did you do that by hand, or is a a trial of your bot? Thanks, either way.
HYanWong (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed One step during my explanation. In the genus category, I will be looking for the{{Species}} calls that lists species (look at Category:Allactaga which contains 2{{Species}} calls for ITIS & MSW).
If a species exists in{{Species}} and a corresponding category exists without Taxonavigation then my bot would add the Taxonavigation to the species category. (In my example Allactaga elater is described in{{Species}} and Category:Allactaga elater exists without Taxonavigation).
That way I am sure not to create a Taxonavigation in Category:Allactaga fossils (where 'Allactaga fossils' is english and no valid species name ;-))

About wikispecies, you must know that it is extremely difficult for a bot to extract anything: the information is contained in the article + in a lot of templates. So it almost unusable programmatically.

For Category:Allactaga_major I did create the Taxonavigation by hand but for the{{VN}},{{wikispecies}},{{ITIS}},{{MSW}} and interwiki I have a tool: Utilisateur:Liné1/WikipediaBioReferences.
It is a free tool that I wrote, with english display, used by 30 contributors. You type a scientific name, it searches on 91 web sites for infomation and displays wikicommons syntax that you just need to copy in the page.
It is not a bot because you still need to merge the returned syntax with the current article/category code.
You should try it. No difficult istallation steps. Simple java interface.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with your automation. For wikispecies nested templates, I guess you'd need to work on a page version where the templates have all been transcluded, rather than use the plain wikitext on the page. I've been working with the WikiSpecies and WikiCommons XML dumps, and I suspect I could get work out how to do this. I like the general idea of nested templates, but I agree that it makes automation difficult, if you are working from the original page. It might be that this all gets imported into WikiData eventually anyway - I don't know what the plans are for this.
Good tip about your tool (not actually very relevant to me, I'm afraid, as I'm trying to do this for 5000+ species). But useful for others, I imagine.
Thanks for all your hard work on the biology sections of Commons. HYanWong (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh - and I forgot - do you think it would be possible when you implement your new bot to add Taxonavigation templates to the appropriate galleries (if they exist) as well as to the plain category pages? 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I already though about that ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at my talkpage and/or that of Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita

Hi Liné, I have responded to your query on my talkpage. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Please check categories again. -- Ies (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can do better. Liné1 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Prompting the bot

Hi Liné1, I saw your bot copying the taxonavigation templates from genus to species level and had set up species-level categories under Category:Trigonopterus for that purpose. However, it seems that the bot worked off a predefined list rather than existing categories, so I am wondering how I can prompt the bot to run over categories not on that list, or how to get the categories on the list for future runs. Thanks and cheers,

-- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
Liné1bot does not copy Taxonavigation blindly from genus to its subcategories.
Imagine that Category:Panthera (genus) contains Category:Panthera maps (Not a species cat!). Liné1bot should not copy the Taxonavigation from Category:Panthera to Category:Panthera maps. But Liné1bot has no way to determine if "Panthera maps" is a species.
So Liné1bot looks at the content of{{Species}} in the genus category to determine with subcategories describe a species.

I added a{{Species}} to Category:Trigonopterus but discovered another problem:
Category:Trigonopterus, like most Coleoptera uses{{Coleoptera}} instead on Taxonavigation.
{{Coleoptera}} is the work of my friend Rocket000.
But sadly later I added the parameter include= to Taxonavigation which does a much better work +{{Coleoptera}} is used 3400 times when Taxonavigation includes are used 105000 times.
I do not intended to extend Liné1bot to propagate{{Coleoptera}}.
But I will propose (later) the community to modify my bot to replace{{Coleoptera}} and{{Lepidoptera}} by Taxonavigation + include=
You can see here the 27 include managing the 27 other orders of insects
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
D'accord, merci. Je le comprends mieux maintenant. A+ Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirected galleries

Recently, Linébot inserted taxonavigation information in 20 or so redirected galleries (some are still in Special:UncategorizedPages), which broke the redirects. I reverted them, so nothing to worry about anymore. --Foroa (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

whooo. I did not think about that. Thanks a lot for letting me know. I will correct Linébot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
And the latest harvest in Special:UncategorizedPages. --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Fu..k. I did correct my bot to take into account the different{{category redirect}} and friends.
But I forgot the simple #REDIRECT
Thanks for this link. I did clean the mess and will remember this link. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Parastagmatoptera serricornis

Good Day!   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for showing me this MantodeaSpeciesFile.
I did create{{MantodeaSF}} that I will integrate in my software WikiBioReferences.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


I wonder if you, again, could help me with this template? I am afraid to touch the code as I probably would mess things up. Today there are two options: "Formula hybridae" and "Sport of". I wish to add a third... "Selection of", working in the same way as the "sport-option". Could you spare the time? I would be grateful Uleli (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, with pleasure. I will prepare a proposition. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello my friend.
I added a parameter selectionof=
Could you try it in some article/category ?
Then tell me were you tested it + what display you want instead of "Selection of".
As usual, The translation of "Selection of" is stored in{{Taxolang}}
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is working perfectly, thank you. I appreciate your help - Category:Chaenomeles speciosa 'Moerloosei'. Uleli (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tulips miscellaneous group

Dear Liné1, please could you take a look at this discussion: [6]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Best wishes for "41".

Sadly, my friend, I have no knowledge of cultivars.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurystyles gardneri

Salu Liné1, you created a redirect from Eurystyles gardneri to Eurystyles actinosophila. According to KEW and MBG [7]] [[8]] and [9]] is Eurystyles gardneri an accepted species. I repaired the gallery and put Pseudoeurystyles gardneri as synonym of Eurystyles gardneri. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Pfff, how lucky I am that you could correct my mistake. Sorry again. Liné1 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken IOC link

Hi Liné - the IOC Warblers page URL has changed (and also Sylviidae moved from it to the Babblers page), so the IOC template needs adjusting (I can't work out how to do it). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I tried a correction. Seems to work. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Also just now found that Category:Taeniopygia was linked to the wrong IOC page (n-dippers instead of n-weavers), maybe other genera in families on the n-weavers page might need checking in case they've been moved about. - MPF (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You just showed me a flaw in my IOC upgrading process.
I am always checking for taxonomic name changes.
But I never checked for web site url change.
Next IOC upgrade, I will also check that.
Thanks a lot. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, I need your help again. I filled the template above with the term: Nothogenera.
Here: Category:Laeliinae, I tried it. You see the result of a greenhorn in your specialty. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, nothogenus and nothogenera are now managed. But I prefer {{Genera|rank=nothogenus...
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Salu Liné1, merci beaucoup Monsieur Genius. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


Hello my friend,
About this modification: shouldn't you create the page Народно име ? Even very small ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rightly observed. I am aware that anything that appears so often ought to have an article. I had in mind to write it, but other things took me away from it. Now I've written it: Народно име. It's not so small either, just enough to give some idea abot common names. We have biologists involved through our wikiprojects, so I invite them and their mighty literature to develop it further. What I seem to notice is that most languages don't have this article, including some very major ones. A bit strange, is it not? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work. Thanks a lot. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Red spiders

Cher ami, il y a plein de Strimigeny rouges qui attendent ton bot avec impatience.] Bon amusement. --Foroa (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
Sadly my bot is only capable of adding the Taxonavigation to a category or an article in rare cases :
  • The Taxonavigation is copied it genus category to species category and article => So the genus needs a Taxonavigation (I just added Taxonavigation to Category:Strumigenys)
  • The genus category needs to contain a{{Species}} entry (I just added one to Category:Strumigenys, sadly only ITIS has info on Strumigenys)
  • The species must be listed in the{{Species}} entry. (That won't be the case as ITIS does not know a lot of species)
Do you have a good online source for Hymenoptera ? (I created{{MantodeaSF}} and{{OrthopteraSF}} for those 2 orders)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Taxon categories

Bonjour Liné1 !

As you're the supreme authority (:P) for taxon categories - two short questions:

  • Category:Boiga ranawanei: RDB lists the reptile as conspecific synonym for B. beddomei (not even recognized as subspecies), IUCN accepts the snake as distinct species. Is the created category correct or should I place the map in Category:Boiga beddomei
  • Category:Boiga ochracea walli and other trinomial categories: I'm not sure if those cats are "legal" according to Commons policies, or if subspecies files belong in the species cat.

Thanks & greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend. You are the authority as you discovered the 2 issues ;-)
The truth is that I am using a tool: WikiBioReferences. Simple, free, you simply type the taxon name and it returns Wikisyntax for commons. You should try it.
  • Yes RDB recognizes only B. beddomei when IUCN recognizes both B. beddomei and B. ranawanei. You don't need to choose between those two points of view, but you should explain both point of view. I just did the explaination in both categories. That should be enough.
  • trinomial subspecies categories are totally legal. And as you did it should be put in the species cat.
Great jobs!
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the axplanation!
I will keep WBR in mind (it's nearly impossible not to notice it when active with the fr.WP Bio crowd) - but probably I'm too lazy to add taxonavigations myself... (and I'm getting paid to administrate large steaming piles of Java junk called business-critical systems; I'll pass Java software when possible in my free time, hope you don't mind :)) Rbrausse (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
lol. I know what you mean with those Java junk ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spider NOT by Maria Sibylla Merian


this picture has not been painted by M. S. Merian (no matter what is written on the cited website). This ist Merian's Avicularia-pciture. Maybe the above picture was adapted from Merian's. But the style is totally different (see and other sources for pictures from the Suriname Insects Book). Renate

Hello my friend, I just changed the category of this picture but I don't know much more about this picture.
I added a comment to the picture telling what you just told me.
Is my comment clear enough for you ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Language order

I had no idea about the bot, but I did wonder why they seem to follow this strange order, by the codes (unlike on Wikipedia, for instance). What is the rationale for that? It makes no sense Suomi to go together with Français and Magyar with Hrvatski, even if we let Japanese (Nihongo) sneak through as ambiguous case because of the writing system. Seems illogical to me...after all, as all this is meant for human reading. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


You created Category:Trochoidea (superfamily) and added it in some Taxonavigations.
But Category:Trochoidea (superfamily) is still empty. Could you:

  • put some members in Trochoidea (at least Category:Trochidae)
  • perhaps provide en interwiki (as they provide interesting classifications)
  • perhaps provide Taxonavigation (that way it will be easier to copy the Taxonavigation to its sub-categories)
  • perhaps provide{{Taxa}}

Thanks in advance. 08:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for [10], but shouldn't have remplaced Category Vetigastropoda by your category ?
Now Category:Trochidae is in 2 cagtegories!
CheersLiné1 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think the best way is to rearrange the complete Vetigastropoda, i.e. the Vetigastropoda are divided in superfamilies as categories, and each superfamily in families (At the moment we have all the families in the category Vetigastropoda, no superfamilies with the exception of the Trochoidea). So we will have the follwing hirarchy: Vetigastropoda - superfamilies (12) - families. This rearrangement will last some time, please give me some days. --Llez (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you add a{{Taxa}} in Category:Trochoidea (superfamily), because the families you did put in it does not correspond to 'Bouchet & Rocroi (2005)' nor 'Williams et al. (2008)'.
Which is fine, if everyone knows which classicification you follow.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Distribution maps

Hi Liné

I'm trying to help the Encyclopedia of Life to harvest images etc from Commons. One problem they have is confusing images of species with maps of their distribution. Distribution maps often get stuck in the image gallery for a certain species, e.g. Trichechus inunguis. I think this might also be confusing for people looking at the commons gallery for images of the actual organism. As someone who works a lot with this sort of categorization in Commons do you think it's reasonable to separate out the maps into another gallery section on the same page, as, e.g. has been done for Desmodus rotundus? Giving this gallery a caption of "Distribution", or maybe "Maps" might be clearer to visitors to these wiki pages, as well as allow EoL to distinguish maps from actual photos/drawings

If this seems like a good idea, how easy / desirable would it be to write a bot that looked at whether an image for a species image was nested within the category of, say Category:Maps (or if more specificity was required, Category:Biogeographical_maps or Category:Distributional_maps_of_organisms), and move those images to another <gallery> section on the same page. Would such a bot meet with general approval, or is this an unreasonable thing to do?


HYanWong (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole idea is good. Beware that the distribution maps are often already separated in their own gallery.
But personally I am not really interested in galleries since categories have won (I can explain)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know of any simple way to get a bot to see if a page belongs in a higher-level category (e.g. if File:GemeinerVampirWorld.png is categorized within Category:Maps?
I'd also be interested to know what you think categories have won out over galleries. It seems to me that galleries provide a good place to collect the best of the images available. I know EoL are only harvesting from galleries, not category pages, so if galleries for taxa are on the way out, it would be useful to know.
A problem for me is that I don't know if there is an easy way to implement a system to distinguish distribution maps from images on the category page.
Thanks for the quick response, by the way, HYanWong (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
About the bot: Do you have a complex bot (I have a java bot so I can do complex things) ? Because with a simple bot, it won't be easy.
But on a complex bot, you could have a function isADistributionMapCategory(catName)
  • It would have a cache (to avoid calculating multiple time the same thing)
  • It would check the catName for 'distribution maps'
  • It would check the category parents recursively

About the category vs galleries war (only for species): There has been a huge war (read the following with the 'once apon a time' flavor):
  • Some preferred species galleries because they can be followed (Warning: these contributors did not want any species categories => images would not be in categories.)
  • Other preferred species category because they wanted their pictures in categories + they found it normal to have species categories as we have higher taxon categories.
At the end, they could not decide much except:
  • you cannot forbid someone to put a more precise category on pictures and categories.
  • you cannot remove this precise category.
So, even if they did not decide much, species categories won because they are a more precise category.
In the fact, for any species there is always a species category and sometimes a species gallery.
And as you pointed out, species gallery are dedicated to present the best pictures of a species + add comments to those picture.
But sadly 'best pictures' means not much.
Saw this here, and thought I'd comment: even if harvesting to EoL from categories were possible (currently, it isn't), it would be difficult as in many cases, the content of species categories has been deeply divided into numerous (and often poorly thought-out) subcategories. Where would one stop the onward harvesting of subcategories? They often work into categories not appropriate to EoL; example: Category:Ovis aries is a category which EoL would want to harvest, as is its subcategory Category:Sheep, but another of its subcategories Category:Aries (constellation) is not. Galleries do remain valuable too for EoL, as they allow selection of which files are harvested by EoL; e.g. low-quality (very small, blurred, etc. images) can be omitted from a gallery, but they will still be in the category. - MPF (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liné. I've never written a wiki bot before, so no, I don't have a complex one. Ideally I'd ask you (or some other expert) for help. I don't even know how big a task this is, so I'm just testing the water. Do you know anyone who would be willing to help?
With respect to galleries, I'm happy just to modify those for the time being, even if they are underused in some way. I agree with MPF that some sort of human input to sanitize the category levels is helpful here.
HYanWong (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry my friend, I cannot help you. My development PC is down, I am rebuilding one. I am contributing at work ;-)
Cheers 15:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No problems - you've already done a huge amount in this area anyway. I might post something on the request for bots page. HYanWong (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata error

Hi Liné - found an error in wikidata, which I don't know how to correct: [11] and [12] are the same taxon, and need to be merged; also the currently accepted name is Frangula alnus, not Rhamnus frangula (though not all wikipedias have taken this up yet). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I heard about a merging tool. Or perhaps a page to ask for merging. I will look at it. Cheers 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Found it: to be activated in your preferences. I will try it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
After activating it in the preferences, refreshing the page, I found at the top right a small menu containing "Fusionner avec..." (merge with...)
Seems to have worked. Look at my contribution, you will see that it did a lot of things.
In fact, you dont need to choose a better name, because it merges everything + add a deletion request.
There is even a button 'keep the smallest Qid' which is meant to preserve the database (sadly I did not click on it).
Try it. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Liné1. Is there a chance you could remove this template from Category:Language templates with no text displayed? --Leyo 23:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Sorry for the convenience. cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 08:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Template:Lepidoptera2

Hi Liné,

I think {{Template:Lepidoptera2}} which you created as a test can now be removed, can't it? Cheers HYanWong (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't remove it.
I am still testing it.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I won't remove it.
By the way, thanks for sorting out Category:Serpentes Navigational Templates. Re: the{{Lepidoptera}} problem, I guess it might be possible to do a bulk substitution of all categories and galleries containing{{Lepidoptera}}, switching it for an appropriately filled-out Taxonavigation template, referencing{{Lepidoptera (include)}}. Once no pages use{{Lepidoptera}}, you could then replace it with a copy of{{Lepidoptera (include)}}. That way you don't get problems like this: Dryadula_phaetusa. I'm guessing a plan something like this is what you are intending for{{Lepidoptera2}}?
Doing a similar thing for{{Coleoptera}} would mean that there would be no templates left which transclude Taxonavigation, which would presumably help your bot (and also the code I am developing for HYanWong (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is exactly what I had in mind ! Are you telepath ? ;-)
With my bot, I intend to replace {{Lepidoptera by {{subst:Lepidoptera2.
But{{Lepidoptera2}} still has 2 bugs.
Try to replace the content of User:Liné1/sandbox4 with:
|auth=[[:wikispecies:Wilhelm Ferdinand Erichson|Erichson]], 1834}}
  • there is a small issue with a space between the genus and the genus-disambig
  • there is a small issue with the carriage returns (in the page resulting syntax)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with that - it's a useful thing to try and do. I'm sure you are much better versed in wiki syntax than I am, so I'm not sure I can help with the bugs. I think I would just try to do a direct search and replace of {{Lepidoptera | ***}} with {{Taxonavigation| include=Lepidoptera (include) | ***}}, but I guess the problem is more complicated than that, and you have a grand plan. HYanWong (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


You put the taxoconflict template on category: Lissomphalia. This is correct. I'm working at the moment on the superfamily Trochoidea in the en.wikipedia, trying to adopt all the changes (and there are many) made in recent years. This is a work of many months to come. As to Skeneidae, this is a somewhat grey area as this family is loosely defined. Even recently it used to be accepted as Skeneinae, a subfamily of Turbinidae. Some genera in Skeneidae may now even belong to Seguenzioidae or other families. Placement and content have yet to be determined with certainty. I'll deal with this when I come to review Turbinidae, as I am working alphabetically (aided by the Ganeshbot), starting with Calliostomatidae. So, other taxoconflicts are likely to arise. JoJan (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for warning me. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Alopex lagopus

When I started categorizing animal species I was following the example of others, not just here but on Wikipedia. Look at Category:Mammals of Pakistan on Commons and en:Category:Mammals of the United States on English Wikipedia. Those species are not all restricted to Pakistan or the United States and I did not put all those species in those categories. If "Animals of [geographic area]" means animals endemic to [geographic area] then maybe you should get the categories renamed to "Animals endemic to [geographic area]". Homo lupus (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Sorry for not replying earlier; I don't have any strong views on these templates as I don't know whether I am likely to use Animalbase as a source in future. I only stumbled on it by accident while uploading some non-marine molluscs. I'm not even sure how good a source it is, compared to specialised sources like WoRMS or Avibase.--Keith Edkins (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lepidoptera cleanup

Done! Thanks for getting it started!

I have also cleaned up "Butterflies" and "Moths" categories. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Liamdavies (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


In reply to your message on my userpage. Both categories are subfamilies of the family NOTODROMADIDAE Kaufmann, 1900.

Sources for those two subfamilies (categories):

  • Martens, K. & S. Savatenalinton, 2011. A subjective checklist of the Recent, free-living, non-marine Ostracoda (Crustacea). Zootaxa 2855: 1-79. (See p. 12).
  • Karanovic, I., 2012. Recent freshwater Ostracoda of the world. Springer, 608 pp. (See p. 187)

And also my own book:

  • Meisch, C. 2000. Freshwater Ostracoda of Western and Central Europe. Spektrum, Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, 522 pp. (see pp. 261 and 265).

I'm studying and publishing on the Ostracoda since 1979. Best wishes, --Cayambe (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cabbage et Brassica oleracea

Bonjour Liné1, merci d'avoir corrigé en supprimant dans Category:Brassica oleracea mon ajout de Category:Cabbage, j'ai en effet remplacé dans cette dernière Caterory:Brassica oleracea var. capitata par Category:Brassica oleracea, ce qui y mettait le lien (vandalism était peut-être un peu fort...) Minerv (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Pages that haven't yet been converted to Taxonavigation


I've just created Category:Biological_taxonomies_requiring_conversion_to_taxonavigation, as I couldn't find any other obvious way to flag up these pages. Let me know if it's a bad idea, and I'll delete the category.

HYanWong (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea/work.
I really needed such a category.
I am working at having all categories for regnum to genus to have a Taxonavigation.
Then I already have a bot that copies Taxonavigation from genus category to species category.
Thanks a lot. Cheers 11:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Great. I'm only categorizing a few pages by hand, as I come across them, so I won't be filling up the category very quickly. Hopefully it'll be useful for others though, especially if such pages can be automatically identified and flagged as such by a bot.
HYanWong (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fossil taxa with ⇒ rather than named levels

Hi Liné, I'm coming across a good number of fossil categories that have had changes made like this. Have you any idea why it would be better to remove the classification levels (Classis, Familia, etc.) and replace them with ⇒ signs? HYanWong (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Truth is, first time I saw that, I was shocked.
But now, I am used to it.
I even modified Taxonavigation to accept ⇒ as a valid rank (please don't shoot me ;-))
I even created include={{Fossil reptiles}},{{Fossil Bivalvia}},{{Fossil Synapsida}} (now you hate me ;-))
All 'Fossil XXX' categories are like this !
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd find it hard to hate you :) But I don't understand why, if we know that (say) "Fossil Tyrannosauridae" is classification at the family level, we can't label it "Familia|Fossil Tyrannosauridae|"? I would have thought ⇒ should be reserved for unknown levels (i.e. a synonym for "rank"). As things stand, I can't construct a decent DarwinCore entry for these fossil groups. HYanWong (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange text in Taxonavigation ([[[Category:Taxon galleries]])

Hi Liné, any idea what's going on with the Classis: part of the Taxonav box for Hirondellea_gigas? HYanWong (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

....and behind "Cladus: angiosperms" only in galleries (not in categories). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have an idea: I messed up ;-)
It is corrected. Sorry guys.
Cheers 07:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Great - fast response as always! Thanks. HYanWong (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, could you have a look please. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem ?
Cheers 14:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
....I saw: "genera Aethridae, Belliidae" and I thought " familiae Aethridae, Belliidae" would be correct in the last version. Pardon, best greetings and merci beaucoup for your VN - actions. Orchi (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Clade level categories or not

Dear Liné1, Perhaps you would care to take a look at my comment on here. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aquarium de Nancy


j'ai versé quelques photos de l'aquarium de Nancy mais je n'ais pas de légende ou de catégorisation à y adjoindre, peut-être est-ce dans tes cordes que d'améliorer cette organisation ?

Merci Garitan (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bien sur, je peux vous aider.
Ou sont vos photos ?
Dans Category:Muséum-aquarium de Nancy ?
Amitiés 15:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Oui tout à fait, elle datent de 2010 si celà peut aider . J'y ai mis des photos plus générales pour montrer la muséeographie du rez de chaussée.

Garitan (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Voila, j'ai fait ce que j'ai pu. Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Help! :)

Bonjour Liné1,

I'm out of my depth - I uploaded a few maps and not only the genus cat was missing but also the family one: How can I place Category:Dipsadidae correctly in the category tree?

Thanks, Rbrausse (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

lesson learnt - thank you very much ;) rbrausse (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I am working on it.
I think there is a lot of work to do.
Cheers 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Salu Liné1, new and a good way is the possibility of connection of Commons galleries and categories with Wikidata. Also the link to wikispecies. (You see my test here e.g.: Platanthera
Now my question to the expert: Do you see any way to copy the wikilinks for the vernacular names from Wikidata? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting feature: we will get rid of interwiki that were boring.
But: It will reintroduce a war between categories and galleries: If you look at Category:Platanthera you will see 5 interwiki-links when there is 23 for Platanthera.
For your question, I am trying to modify{{VN}} (more precisely a temporare clone{{VN2}}) to retrieve automatically the vernaculare names with their link.
But I failed to find the wikipedia syntax {{#property:de}} is not working.
I will investigate.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC) war!!! The part in which you placed "Category:Plathanthera" is only for galleries. The Link to categories is further up in the structure of the page.
Thanks for your effort. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I did some Lua to implement it.
Look at Category:Platanthera and Platanthera: The blue link come from Wikidata!
It is implemented in{{VN2}} with an option useWikidata.
I will copy the{{VN2}} into{{VN}} but there is an issue:
Look at Category:Platanthera: there are only 5 interwiki => there is only 1 blue link in the VN2 (fi:Lehdokit)
It is what I called category war.
As fr.wikipedia have categories only for orders and families => there will rarely be french interwiki in categories!
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    The Software-Specialist

Salu Liné1,
I'm proud to know a genius!!!
Thank you very much for your excellent work!!!
You did more, than I hoped in my dreams!!!
For you one of the rarest orchids and a quality barnstar for recognition!!!

And now I test all the possibilities of your new software. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Salu Liné1,
proposal to "It is what I called category war":
What do you think to connect the categories in animals and plants with the wikilinks of the gallery (wikipedia articles by countries)?
a) here we find the common names.
b) e.g. Liliaceae we had the possibility the link to the articles of Wikipedias in VN and could put the category links of Wikipedias to the wikilinks by Wikidata.
Do I think wrong or other problems?
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Salu Liné1,
can you help me please? Why is your VN-work completely here: Orchidaceae and in the category Orchidaceae also and not e.g. in the category: Platanthera ?
Do I make mistakes? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
You did no error: this is the category-gallery war I was talking about:
Currently{{VN}} in Category:Platanthera cannot access the wikidata of wikidata:Q161849
But as soon as it is possible, I will change{{VN}} to access wikidata:Q8765698 and wikidata:Q161849.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
....I would like to praise you every day! And now I wait for your next step in{{VN}}. Then I hope, that we find in categories the wikilinks of categories and in{{VN}} find the (wiki)links to the corresponding gallery. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Salu Liné1, you have an idea, what happened with VN here? Paphiopedilum victoria-regina (in Wikidata was the name Paphiopedilum victoria) and Paphiopedilum glanduliferum (here was in Wikidata for the spain Wikipedia the wrong link). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The labels in wikidata are incorrect (the edit box at the top). You can add explain=True to{{VN}} to know where each value comes from. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Salu Liné1,
Thank you very much, that you spent so much time and your knowledge in my question. Yesterday I followed your activity until 23.00 clock: then I was too tired. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A german spy? I knew it ;-) Cheers 14:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
....I'm only interested in the activity of intelligent people. Maybe I can learn something. :-).
By the way: I let delete six defect or twice Wikidata files and created new ones. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Salu Liné1,
..... here I'm again to kill your valuable time. Here is a little bug obviously: e.g. Dianthus Wikidata with Hebrew wikilink produce in your VN all names forwards of Hebrew in Hebrew language also. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact it seems to be normal. There seems to be a sot of magic:
Impressive, no ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Salu Liné1,
I changed Ranunculus to Dianthus in this last section. The problem I saw seems to be in wikilinks e.g. with: av, fa, he, pbn when in the title of these wikipedias are used brackets. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Salu Liné1,
first question: Can you sleep and dream without VN?? :-) Excellent your work!!!
second question: In the past was in VN the first position in bold the name of plants or animals of the home land of users. Now, when VN is automatically (without names), there is no more the name of the home-country in VN. Make I mistakes? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

home-country language should be first. Do you have an example ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
eg. Viola (Violaceae). When i use "deutsch" there is not "Veilchen". When I use eg. language hsb, there ist not "hornjoserbsce: Fijałka" in VN. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Corrected. Small bug of mine ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
....thank you!, Mr. Perfect. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello my friend,
Did you see that I am solving our very little disagreement arround{{VN}}:
Look at Caridea:

  • all the interwiki comes from wikidata.
  • all the blue links in the{{VN}} comes from wikidata.

We will soon get rid of all syntax about languages.
But the process of suppressing interwiki and lines in{{VN}} must be done carefully by a bot. This because all the info missing in wikidata must be left in commons.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liné - thanks for the note! I can see it solving many problems, but also creating some new ones. First, one in the example you gave, the category has lost its interwiki to Simple English (which it should have, as the page exists, but it does not have a taxobox to trigger wikidata inclusion?), but also Simple English has an entry in the VN list (which should not be there, as it is not a separate language from English). The French interwiki is also lost. More problems I can see also in that there has been a concerted attack in en:wiki against the use of capitalised English names in favour of a rather random but mainly lower-case style favoured by newspapers, despite capitalisation being the standard in most authoritative name databases (e.g. BSBI) and books; I strongly feel that in commons (and also wikispecies), we should follow the style of the official naming authrities like BSBI and not the newspaper style now enforced at en:wiki. Can you set wikidata so that any English names follow the official capitalised style? Also, one other thing I have noticed a couple of times in wikidata is it setting a single image as the 'standard' image for that taxon. I don't think this is a good idea; in one case I saw it resulted in the image displayed on a wiki not matching the existing image caption (in this case, I changed the image shown by wikidata). Also I think different wikis will often wish to use a different image, e.g. fr:wiki will want to have a specimen at a location in France, da:wiki a specimen in Denmark, es:wiki a specimen in Spain, and so on. So I think it would perhaps be best if wikidata did not include an image in its listings. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it has lost the simple english. But is worse than that: they associated wikidata category with commons category and wikidata article with commons gallery. So they did reintroduced the war category vs gallery. This is under discussion somewhere, but I cannot find where. As fr.wikipedia can only have categories for order and families => 90% of commons categories won't have a fr interwiki
  • Do you want me to merge english and simple-english in the{{VN}} ?
  • Could you give me example of this capitalisation error ? So that I can try do something ?
  • About the image, it is an error of the taxobox template writer: he should take wikidata image only if an image is not provided as parameter.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liné - sorry, been forgetting to reply. First point, yes, could you merge Simple English into English, please. What would be a useful addition though would be en-us (or just 'us'?) for American language (where it differs from normal English, as at e.g. Uria lomvia, I have just put it in there), it isn't currently available. Second point; see the discussion here, where decapitalisation was rather railroaded in without good consensus; for an example recently decapitalised page, here. Thanks for the clarification on the category vs gallery problem, and the images, too. - MPF (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I added en-us for you.
I suppressed parameter simple from{{VN}}
and merged en= and simple= in their usage. The parameter simple was often wrong:
  • same as en (not wrong but useless)
  • scientific name
  • the vernacular name of only one of the subtaxon (scientificaly incorrect)
  • a shortcut of the vernacular name (without the 'american' part: a typical behavior to forget other part of the world)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Avoid deceptive titles

Hello. You recently used a deceptive title in a post that you wrote to another editor, and that title was modified. To avoid this, please refrain from false titles in the future. The meaning of the word "misuse" is when an editor uses one of our features in an illegitimate way. Orrlingtalk 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Breure & Romero

That looks fine for the limited amount of references I expect this source will get. I don't think I'm likely to use it again. Thanks for your work.--Keith Edkins (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Names in local scripts

Hi, could you create a script to disply names in local script as in Module:Wikidata4Bio to disply local names for other entries like Template:Chennai.--Praveen:talk 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

With pleasure. But you must be more precise as Template:Chennai does not exist ;-). Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I want to create Template for Chennai. :-) But it is not possible to copy-paste names from interwikis from wikipedia page. Some similar templates are {{Paris}}, {{Thiruvananthapuram}}, {{Kerala}} etc.--Praveen:talk 03:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you need, but:
  • you can access wikidata data only for 1 element. For example Paris can only access wikidata:Q90. And you cannot access wikidata:Q90 from an image for example.
  • my tool has many biology specificity.
Sorry Liné1 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata error

Hi Liné - Ailanthus altissima on commons is wrongly Wikidata-linked to the genus en:Ailanthus (and similarly for other wikipedias), where it should be linked to en:Ailanthus altissima etc. I can't work out how to correct it, can you do it please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done with pleasure.
First I have found all the elements:
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

IOC list revision

Hi Liné - just noticed IOC have re-done at least one page: the n-dippers page has been split, with part moved to a new page n-weavers. I guess a whole lot more link editing needed! - MPF (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will run my bot to correct these changes.
I just need to find some time.
Happy Chritsmas to you and your family.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Dear Liné1,
I wish you and your family a peaceful and Merry Christmas and for the New Year 2014 all the best for you.
I thank you very much for your excellent work in VN in this year. It's brilliant!
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello my friend.
I wish you all the best and know that you will have it.
I know how important and fun Christmas is in Germany.
Happy feasts my friend.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Liné1/2013".