Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MargaretRDonald!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

adding speciesEdit

MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC) A frustrating process with many species descriptions in Wikipedia not talking to the categories of wikispecies. Thus, my entry for Bryan Alwyn Barlow in wikispecies cannot be referenced in wikipedia. The entry for Muellerina eucalyptoides in Wikipedia cannot utilise the categories of wikispecies (which allow the capacity to see authorship), and the species described in wikispecies do not talk to those in wikipedia, and vice versa. Or am I missing some neat little trick?? Hoping for some advice.....


Hello Margaret, thanks for all your uploads! As a suggestion, there's no point in categorising photos into large categories like "Plantae" as this is obviously a gigantic category which is hard to sort through. It's also not worth categorising a photo of a mistletoe species as a "parasitic plant"-all mistletoe photos are in a subcategory of this already, as far as I know. Just keep it simple and give your photos the category of their species or genus, and if the category isn't established yet don't worry, just give them that category anyway and ask me, I'll be happy to create a category for you. I've done that for Dendrophthoe glabrescens just now. (But it's quite simple-all you have to do is go the blank page and put in the category of the larger family it's in.)

I don't know whether or not you have professional qualifications in botany, but in any case it's often a good idea to document in the caption how you know what species a photo is of if possible. Blythwood (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Margaret, please do not overcategorize your photos! (example). Just use the most detailed category, e.g. Category:Korthalsella rubra and Category:Atalaya hemiglauca. The species categories are already subcategories of the genus, which are a subcategories of the family, and so on. Only if there is not yet a species category, use should use the genus category. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Thiotrix. Very helpful (and will use up less of my time..) MargaretRDonald (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello Margaret,
I discovered you contribution on Scaevola.
In many templates source= is for a limited list of web sites (You can see the list HERE).
Instead you can always use ref=[].
But this website seems intersting, so I added it in the list of managed sources.
So if you look again at Category:Scaevola you will see that plantsoftheworldonline is now a link to the Scaevola page.
BestRegards Liné1 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Liné1. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Distribution mapsEdit

Hi - thanks for contribution distribution maps of organisms. Could you possibly place them into subcategories of rather than into, so they aren't confused with e.g. maps of age of consent in different countries, etc. Thanks! HYanWong (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

If you know a neat way of doing this for the hundreds of maps I have already contributed, I would be most grateful. But I am happy to categorise all future maps as you wish, Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk)!
@HYanWong: I am currently working on finding my many species maps and recategorising them. Slow work, though. MargaretRDonald (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: Apologies about the slow reply - I'm not very active here. Thanks for any recategorizing you can do. HYanWong (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding these, File:Macrozamia riedlei Dist Map21.png show the occurrence in NSW for a WA endemic species. Not wrong I suppose, but I'm assuming that someone may demur at including it as a range map (me this time). I'm assuming that it shows a specimen, living or otherwise, in a the state's herbarium? Has this come up before? cygnis insignis 00:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Cygnis insignis:. They are occurrence maps and at this point they show all occurrences whether cultivated or not (although I have looked for an appropriate field.) I simply hope that people will recognise them for what they are. In the meantime the text of an article is something of a correction... MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved it to cultivation, although that only shows Australia. Do you mean the article provides context? Do you think something like 'specimen records' will cover what we are showing? cygnis insignis 01:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Cygnis insignis:. (Just wondering What you have moved to "cultivation".) The majority of the records are uncultivated and show the native range. The outliers are always dubious!! "Occurrence data" is the usage of both GBIF and of AVH so I don't believe "occurrence data" needs to be changed to 'specimen records', though this is indeed what they are. (But by all means go ahead and change to "specimen records" if you wish.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The map was moved to cultivation, but poking around I see there is specimen records from Au institutions included. I applied a filter 'human observation' to produce this. Maybe that is what we want for the usual concept of a range map. cygnis insignis 01:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Cygnis insignis: Thanks for letting me know. I don't think the move is appropriate at all. These are not records of cultivation. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This is why I'm asking. I expect that readers would assume it was something like the one at The records of "preserved specimens" are included, unless you filtered them out, they are not 'dubious outlier' records. cygnis insignis 01:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Any outlier is dubious. They are indeed true specimens of the species. They are "dubious" in the sense that the geographic data are clearly outliers, which makes them dubious in representing the native range. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We can put aside the word outlier for a moment, I must be failing to communicate something effectively. I'm now asserting that the records in NSW are of preserved specimens in a herbarium. Do you wish me to take the time to prove that? If a range map includes any record, including specimens preserved or cultivated, then it needs to be a world map; I've never seen the range map field used in this way. cygnis insignis 02:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course not, what you assert has never been in doubt.!!!!!. They were collected in NSW by one of the contributing herbaria. That has never been in doubt. Howeever, as a result of this discussion I have now used the field "establishmentMeans" in the download (given in the description page for the image file) and excluded all AVH records for which this field is empty, "cultivated" or "unknown". This produces a new range map with the same name, and the range map now includes only WA records. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Margaret, "collected in NSW", this is making my head spin. My intention was to introduce some new material, instead I am negotiating this matter because the article needs to be stable for the DYK proposal. I presume the preserved specimen was collected where it only occurred for millennia, SWA not NSW, any other source would be from a cultivated specimen; it is an endemic species of SWA according to sources and the maps do not accord with any published map. Please ping me somewhere when this is resolved with a third opinion, I'll be working on another article. cygnis insignis 03:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The data giving the current range map (check it out) are attested by professional botanists working from the contributing herbaria. I have used the data (and GBIF uses AVH) and now excluded records where the specimens were cultivated and those for which the establishment means were not known (i.e., only records in the native range are now shown). These data give the graph shown. If you downloaded the data tomorrow (or in six months time) as opposed to the day on which they were downloaded, the map would be essentially the same: a few additional points will make no difference to the crudity of the map. (There is no reason why this article should not be stable, if you are content to accept the methodology - with which as a statistician, I fail to see a problem.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I can only suppose that what you know about statistics has complicated the terminology and your interpretation of the source, but also note you have invested a lot in uploading and adding this content with might be indiscriminate data selection; I have less invested if I am wrong and the article gets corrected. The salient point, from the pov of 'range' and 'distribution' (ecology), is where the collection was made. Like an outlier in statistics, they can sometimes be accounted for; these are physical objects and not abstractions of data. There is a reason why the datum point exists, not because it was found in an isolated population there, but because that is where the specimen is placed. Herbaria have collections, workers make collections, locations are identified on collections. What I think may be wrong, the article will be improved, if you were incorrect there is some back-tracking to do with uploads (and someone annoyed at the equivocation). cygnis insignis 08:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I have made NO interpretation of the data. I have mapped the points as given in the DOIs. On the other hand "outlier" is a statistical term and in the original map, the non-native NSW points are clearly spatial outliers.... The data are a fact of life, and we simply have to live with them. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I mildly resent what you have implied about my position in the course of this, perhaps a result of similar resentment to my objections; I'm not sure this was avoidable as I take an obstinate position on my interpretation of policy. One of these reasons for this is avoiding OR, which you rightly pointed out was needed to eliminate the data that "I did NOT like"; I never thought the map could be used at all and the data selection is a result of continued commitment to your investment in content creation. What I do like is properly sourced information, such as that produced by statisticians or a worker at FloraBase, not selection of data, which is not the business of wikipedia editors (our avocation, not profession). While not as simple as using AVH to generate a map, source + map + paint = distribution map only involves a couple of steps I discovered. The other option was to disassociate myself from the content that would appear on the front page, which would be problematic considering my commitment and investment in the content. I also did not like that data directly contradicted properly sourced information in the article, and that your tendentious position was that those datum points were facts and that was my tough luck. I see one uncritical endorsement of these maps in a drive-by comment elsewhere, and one other query on the content they contain; please seek a broader consensus for these. cygnis insignis 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have been trying to seek a consensus, by using the talk page of Macrozamia riedlei and the talk page of Cas Liber. And I have been very careful to engage with you respectfully. On the other hand, I note that you have now replaced the map on Macrozamia riedlei without using the talk page to justify your failure to use all the data available to you, that is, the data from herbaria other than PERTH. Your action in ignoring data requires justification and an appropriate place for it would surely be the talk page of Macrozamia riedlei. (It is perfectly appropriate for you to look at each of the points you have rejected in making your map and say why you believe they are invalid. And this is what I believe you should do). MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC) (not sure what a drive-by comment is: could you please explain? Also how is it tendentious to accept that datum points are facts? I don't understand. I was not implying that it was your tough luck at all. Simply that they were data and have to be accounted for. I am sorry that you took offence at what I thought was a simple statement of fact....) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you have to try to be respectful? Do you have some other evidence of me doing what I am accused of, what I regard as amongst the most serious allegation you could make of another editor? You presented that accusation to an admin, the response was that they had noticed the same thing about AVH maps. The only endorsement was a 'drive-by comment' from an editor who glanced at a map on the half million pages he watches and said the equivalent of 'a picture, very nice, dear'. I would prefer that you either withdraw the accusation, seek a consensus that I am wrong, or avoid crossing my path with your tendentious engagement. cygnis insignis 03:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There is NO indiscriminate data selection on my part: I have not used ALA but AVH as you would see if you checked the DOI, and AVH data consists ONLY of identifications by professional botanists and records from the contributing herbaria. (Hardly indiscriminate data) I had religiously NOT eliminated points in order to faithfully reflect the data source, until you were unhappy with points lying in NSW. However, it probably is APPROPRIATE to eliminate points where the establishmentMeans field is empty or takes the value "unknown" or "cultivated". Yet this too results in a map you are unhappy with.... MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Map 1.
Map 2.
Map 3.

Range map for Macrozamia riedleiEdit

Different range maps are used in the following two versions of the article Macrozamia riedlei: Macrozamia riedlei (oldid=875850228) the map of which is shown in Map 1., and Macrozamia riedlei (oldid=875873175) the map of which is shown in Map 2.

These two maps differ significantly: The first uses the downloaded data from The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei, downloaded via the doi:10.26197/5c2736e141e89, a download and a map which contains details of all the specimens of Macrozamia riedlei held in Australasian herbaria The second derives from the map in FloraBase for Macrozamia riedlei with the referenced map being based on specimens from the PERTH herbarium only.

Both maps derive from well respected reference sources, but they show slightly different things, with the referenced map from FloraBase using a subset of the Australasian Virtual Herbarium data. The maps differ significantly, and their differences need to be resolved before one map is preferred to the other.

Data Quality VariablesEdit

The data download (doi:10.26197/5c2736e141e89) from the AVH map included all the AVH curated data quality variables. The following variables were checked for all data with spatial coordinates: coordinates are out of range for species, Cultivated / escapee, Habitat incorrect for species, Suspected outlier. (Apparently) no specimen record failed these tests. However, despite downloading the AVH data quality variables, the variable, DETECTED_OUTLIER_JACKKNIFE was not downloaded (but may or may not be visible on inspection of the record using the map), and it was found that all the easterly points (listed below) failed this test for a moisture index.

Comparisons with stated IHRA regions and subregions given in FloraBaseEdit

The following table was found by clicking on the easternmost West Austalian points in The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei Note that they all occur in the Esperance Plains IBRA region, a region in which they are said to be found in the FloraBase for Macrozamia riedlei. (Note that the article for Esperance Plains shows agricultural land lying between these apparent easternmost outliers and the points in its westerly parts. Each of these points has been detected as an outlier based on a moisture index (CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences) using a reverse jackknife algorithm (Atlas of Living Australia).

Data taken from The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei
Institution Specimen Record Collector Date IBRA region IBRA subregion Outlier
AD AD 173457 A.E. Orchard 1/10/1968 Esperance Plains Recherche Yes
AD AD 173456 A.E. Orchard 1/10/1968 Esperance Plains Recherche Yes
AD AD 9653045 R.H. Kuchel 11/10/1964 Esperance Plains Recherche Yes
AD AD 96951032 E.N.S. Jackson 19/09/1968 Esperance Plains Recherche Yes
MEL MEL 1558252A A.N. Rodd 19/09/1968 Esperance Plains Recherche Yes

The second table gives a summary of the data which had spatial coordinates, and where specimens were collected in Australia (from The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei)

Summary of Australian Data taken from The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei
Institution Number of Records Cumulative Number
AD 9 9
CANB 134 143
HO 2 145
MEL 10 155
NSW 38 193
PERTH 192 385

Thus we can see that a map made from only PERTH data, neglects the information given by a further 193 specimens held by other Australasian herbaria. Map 3. shows just what we have missed. The blue points in Map 3 show records held by CANB (the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research), and show that the range appears to be slightly more northerly than the range shown in Map 2. Scientists who exclude data without giving reasons are rightly castigated.

Reasons should be given here, too, for a decision made which excludes half the data. (The NSW points shown in Map 3. should be excluded because these are outside the native range as given by FloraBase and other sources.)

The description in FloraBase for Macrozamia riedlei gives the IBRA Regions: Esperance Plains, Jarrah Forest, Swan Coastal Plain, Warren; the IBRA Subregions: Fitzgerald, Northern Jarrah Forest, Perth, Southern Jarrah Forest, Warren; and Local Government Areas (LGAs): Albany, Armadale, Augusta-Margaret River, Beverley, Boddington, Boyup Brook, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Busselton, Capel, Collie, Cranbrook, Denmark, Donnybrook-Balingup, Gosnells, Harvey, Kalamunda, Mandurah, Manjimup, Mundaring, Murray, Nannup, Northam, Plantagenet, Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Swan, Toodyay, Wandering, Waroona, West Arthur, Williams, York.

Using the capacity to select parts of the AVH map, together with its capacity to filter on IBRA regions and subregions, the easterlymost points in the Esperance Plains IBRA region are found to be in the Recherche subregion, which is not listed in the Florabase description.

The two most northerly points MEL 0033468A and CBG 9711554.1 are in the Lesueur Sandplain IBRA subregion, which is not listed in the FloraBase description. However, all the points excluded from Map 2 and included in Map 1 belong to IBRA regions listed in the FloraBase description. It remains unclear whether the most northerly and most easterly points are excluded from the FloraBase description because only PERTH data were used in making that description, or are excluded by intent.

Data taken from The Australasian Virtual Herbarium – Occurrence data for Macrozamia riedlei (Some northernmost points)
Institution Specimen Record Collector Date IBRA region IBRA subregion Outlier
CANB CANB 637023.2 D.L. Jones 5/10/1991 Jarrah Forest Northern Jarrah Forest Yes
CANB CANB 637023.4 D.L. Jones 5/10/1991 Jarrah Forest Northern Jarrah Forest (tested?)
MEL MEL 0033468A R.B. Filson 2/09/1966 Geraldton Sandplains Lesueur Sandplain (tested?)
CBG CBG 9711554.1 D.L. Jones 3/10/1993 Geraldton Sandplains Lesueur Sandplain Yes
AD AD 96629038 N.N. Donner 2/10/1965 Swan Coastal Plain Dandaragan Plateau (tested?)


Map 2. is probably to be preferred since the jackknife tests on a moisture variables how the most easterly points of Map 1. are outliers, and that some of the more northerly points of Map 1 are also outliers. The fact that a point is marked as a detected outlier may be insufficient for its exclusion: a competent botanist would need to check the specimens themselves. Map 1 contains points which are not in the IBRA subregions listed by Florabase but this is irrelevant to the argument since the subregions listed were based on PERTH specimens only. Therefore it remains unclear whether Map 2 is to be preferred. MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Archive of your Flickr photosEdit

Your photos have been archived at by emijrp. It's not the most interactive format, but preservation and browsability are now ensured for those who know you. Thank you, Nemo 06:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thamks, @Nemo bis: Do you mean the photos already transferred from Flickr to commons. (And what about any future transfers?) Does a bot go around regularly archiving Flickr photos?? MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Dark Gully Park.jpgEdit

could you find a better name, like the art of that plant or where it is realy? best --LutzBruno (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it not possible to delete it? MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC
It would, if you provited uploaded a file without permission... for example...--LutzBruno (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Species categoriesEdit

Hi Margaret - just to mention, species categories (e.g. Category:Araucaria columnaris) have a Taxonavigation template, not an infobox: please don't add the latter. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: Thanks for this. Hoping that you will point me to the consensus on this issue. (I believe it to be useful in that it can show contradictions between wikidata and the taxonavigation, which is useful for correcting/checking wikidata.) In the meantime I will cool my enthusiasm for infoboxes. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It is buried somewhere in the archives, I can't find where unfortunately. Maybe @Liné1: will know. I did find some mention on User talk:Frettiebot though, which you can have a check through in the meantime. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Margaret, you can find further discussions to this topic at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Wikidata Infobox and taxons. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit


Hi MargaretRDonald, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | Українська | 中文(臺灣) | +/− Taivo (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Very scary. MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Rebecca RoanhorseIMG 20181008 210356.jpgEdit

File:Rebecca RoanhorseIMG 20181008 210356.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Following your message I'm afraid you were wrong by proposing Rebecca Roanhorse to "an email to me saying so, together with the photo would enable me to put it in the commons for use in the article about you" since Commons doesn't accept licenses from third parties or forwarded emails. Besides and since this permission can't be for Wikipedia only but for other uses, since the image appeared elsewhere under an unfree license Rebecca Roanhorse must send directly a permission using COM:OTRS. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:BeechwoodKMS4580-e1533206440813.jpgEdit

Copyright status: File:BeechwoodKMS4580-e1533206440813.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:BeechwoodKMS4580-e1533206440813.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MargaretRDonald".