User talk:Kevmin

Archives Archive 1 2008-2010 Archive 2 2011-2014

Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

---

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page.

This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.

Thanks.

---

Category:Gigantosaurus

Category:Gigantosaurus has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Reid,iain james (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ainigmapsychops inexspectatus SRUI 99-96-76.jpg

File:Ainigmapsychops inexspectatus SRUI 99-96-76.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on license of fossil plants

Hi Kevmin, I noticed you've recently uploaded several images of fossil plants (Category:Notoscyphus balticus and Category:Rhizomnium dentatum). I think the CC-license needs to be clarified- the images appear to be used in modified form in Heinrichs et al 2015], and Heinrichs et al 2014 which do not appear to have CC-BY licenses. Can you clarify the license, with a link or other evidence of permission? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs)

@Animalparty: The images were donated by A. Schmidt after I emailed the authors asking if they would be willing to donate any. I did not copy the images from the papers and modify them.--Kevmin § 23:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In that case, please see Commons:OTRS: If you are not the copyright holder. You should have A. Schmidt email a declaration of consent, specifying which images are released, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; after this has been done add {{OTRS pending}} to the file pages. Animalparty (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Done and waiting for a reply from Alexander. Apologies, this was my first attempt at asking authors for images of holotype fossils--Kevmin § 05:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pieridae

Hi Kevmin, regarding this: we put all categories of Lepidoptera families in Category:Lepidoptera, as done automatically by the template {{Lepidoptera}}. The categorization by superfamily comes additionally, but it is too unstable to rely exclusively on it. --LamBoet (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per whom?--Kevmin § 18:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevmin and LamBoet

Having all families under Category:Lepidoptera is not the standard behavior in taxon categories.

If you want the list of all Lepidoptera families, you have Category:Families of Lepidoptera which is described in Category:Lepidoptera + is filled automatically even if {{Lepidoptera}} is not used.

Clearly there is no need to have all families also in Category:Lepidoptera

Regards Liné1 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liné1 and Kevmin,

OK, but if you think we should switch to having only superfamilies in Category:Lepidoptera, then let's make the change for all family categories at once, in a consistent way...

As hinted above, I am worried that this will not be straightforward, because the superfamily-level classification has been evolving a lot lately. --LamBoet (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right, we should not change only one family.

I think as a first step, I need to check/update the list provided in Families of Lepidoptera.

Don't you think that we can follow Lepidoptera Names Index for superfamilies ?

Best Regards Liné1 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liné1, I just checked a few superfamilies on that website, and indeed, it looks like a reasonably up-to-date reference. It just has a few problems that we can solve case-by-case (for example Hesperioidea is not used anymore, and I am not sure what is happening with Adeloidea=Incurvarioidea). Best regards --LamBoet (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Coleoptera

Hello Kevmin,
I don't really know what you are doing with Coleoptera categories.
But clearly your are not strong enough in wikimedia syntax (I am trying to be polite and nice, you broke thousands of pages).
So please stop.
You can ask me what you want to do.
But your recent contributions are quite a disaster. !!! Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Now how do we correct all the {{Taxonavigation}} including Coleoptera and leading to a loop error ?

Liné1 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Liné1: I do know what I was doing, actually. If you took a moment, (instead of throwing a drama-fest), you would have seen my self revert of Template:Coleoptera. It was NOT a "disaster" so please do not act as such. I fully inderstand the wiki syntax (I have been working on EN and commons for over 10 years afterall). Template:coleoptera as it stands now is not functional to nearly the same capacity as the Taxonavigation template and needs to be removed in favor of taxonav. It does not support a number of taxon ranks and does not link correctly when † is placed to denote an extinct taxon. I WAS working at the categories before you mass reverted everything that i had done without looking at anything that I had done. (Correcting is easy....).--Kevmin § 13:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about replacing {{Coleoptera}} by {{Taxonavigation}}, which is is also my goal.

You did 2 problematic things:

• you changed {{Coleoptera}} without checking the effect on thousands of pages using it (big error "loop detected")
• When you reverted your {{Coleoptera}} changes, you left all the pages you changed to include Coleoptera unchanged (big error "loop detected"). I had to correct them. When I was doing something else.

I corrected the problem, so no harm was done (except my time)

Just, please, in the future, don't modify heavily used templates without my help.

The actual situation is better

• Category:Coleoptera contains only the 4 suborders
• the 4 suborders, infraorders, superfamilies are now migrated to {{Taxonavigation}} (I am checking that currently)
• I am migrating the families to {{Taxonavigation}} (I take each superfamily then iterate on all its families)

I will stop there.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Disposition

Hello Kevmin,
About this commit.
Clearly there is no voted decision on ordering of {{Taxonavigation}}, {{Wikispecies}}, {{VN}}, {{SN}}.
But (there is always one):

• user:MPF (I began to follow his preference) prefers {{Taxonavigation}}, {{Wikispecies}}, {{SN}}, {{VN}} (Taxonavigation first phylosophy)
• Orchi prefers {{VN}}, {{SN}}, {{Taxonavigation}}, {{Wikispecies}} (VN first phylosophy)
• I have never seen in any category {{Wikispecies}} nor {{VN}} at the end (never, and I looked a lot)
• all contributors I talked to agreed that {{Taxonavigation}} and {{SN}} should be next to each other (whatever the order)

So for the sake of homogeneity, wouldn't you agree to leave {{Wikispecies}} and {{VN}} near the top, please ? regards Liné1 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to give your reasons:

• {{VN}} and {{SN}} have the same look so they should be near (no matter what order)
• When {{VN}} is at the end, {{Species}},
  Included genera:

and {{Taxa}} are far from the category content (the categories). I always compare the content of {{Taxa}} with the content of the category.

• homogeneity (I swear that you are the first contributor I see to move VN to the end).
• Orchi thinks that people are looking for Vernacular Names first ({{VN}} at the top) (I think that they are looking for classification first ;-)({{Taxonavigation}} first).

Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that people who are using the category structure are most likely looking at the taxonomy first, since most use of the categories are for taxon specific image searching. :D I would agree with homogeny, except that the VN feild is not homogenous with itself, as seen by comparing Category:Diptera with Category:Archaeorthoptera, the large shifts in size contradict the homogeny. I place WS and VN also as they are external links that take people off commons, something that always placed at the bottom of a page on en.wiki. I agree that TN then SN should be at the top.--Kevmin § 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Can you show me even a few categories (not modified by you) where VN and wikispecies are at the bottom ?

Liné1 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disposition again

Hello Kevmin,

1. this change is considered rude in wikicommons. You change nothing, just change the ordering of informations provided by others. Its automatically leads to a revert war (which is the case here). If I ask an admin, he will agree with me.
2. There can be many arguments for each kind of formating. I even told you what other contributor think. Your argument is not stronger than Orchi's or MPF, ‎MILEPRI (which are huge contributors). But for me homogeneity is more important.
3. Last time I asked you where you saw VN and wikispecies at the bottom of a category. You did not answer. The purpose of the question is to know if you saw that order somewhere else or if try to impose a new ordering.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Rude by what rules? I get that you personally don't like the structure, but you do not dictate page structures, and you already stated further up this page that there arent any set rules on who a page should be arranged. I have always put external links (which is exactly what VN< DATA, & WS are) at the bottom of pages, as is done at En.wiki and on other areas since any click on the links in them takes a user OFF commons with no warning.--Kevmin § 16:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, there is no rule on ordering.

Rudeness is to change wikisyntax without adding any information. That is the reason why I did not revert your revert.

VN is not about external links. (I added external links recently for convenience). VN is about vernaculare names. vernaculare names are very used by pictures provider.

Liné1 (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Wikidata infobox}} and {{Wikidata}}

Hello Kevmin,

About this edit: please don't remove the {{Wikidata infobox}} template, it is meant to provide much more than taxonomy (external links, common names, etc.) and it helps spotting errors in Wikidata too. It is already in many taxon categories and there are plans to ultimately add it to all of them (see here). If it is useful to other people, it's reason enough to keep it.

Please also notice that the {{Wikidata}} template that you added was useless: since you didn't specify any parameter, it just pointed to the home page of Wikidata. To get the correct link, you would have had to specify the Wikidata item number, but even then, it would have been useless because there is already a "Wikidata item" link in the left column of the page anyway.

Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That shows that the plan to add the template to pages was contested and you yourself showed reluctance to immediate usage. The authorship issue is only ONE problem with data, the major problem is that wikidata makes absolutely no effort at taxonomy, but simply collects every piece of "data" from every project regardless of accuracy or current taxonomic status. It also makes no effort to state what system is being used for a specific taxon is it Clade Aves as used by vertebrate paleontologists to denote the derived theropods that survived the K-T extinction event or is it Class Aves as defined by modern Avian taxonomists to ONLY talk about birds? Is it Clade Syphonaptera as used when recognizing the derived mecopteran origins of fleas? Or is it Order Syphonaptera when only discussing the modern parasites? Is it genus Blechnum sensu PPG1 or is it genus Blechnum sensu Christenhusz and Chase (2014)? Wikidata doest have any of that, making it taxonomically useless. I personally feel that WD should not be linked at all at this point due to the fallacious nature of the data there at this point. Also, what exactly is being added to Eogeometer by having it in the first place? Driving traffic to a different website that has LESS information then the commons page or the articles in the respective wikis have is NOT a good goal.--Kevmin § 03:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin, did you really read carefully what I wrote?

You seem to be getting very angry over issues that are partially off-topic w.r.t. my message. First, don’t misquote me, I gave support to the proposal and expressed concern about a possible subsequent step (taxonavigation removal). Second, you don’t seem to realize that the Wikidata Infobox is not primarily a taxobox; it is a general-use infobox that is present on many kinds of categories, and when on taxon categories it happens to provide (among other things) a taxonomy function, which is obviously still imperfect, as you point out. But:

1. Believe or not, some people do care about improving Wikidata taxonomy. At my modest level, I use the infobox to quickly check that the classification on Wikidata is up-to-date, and fix it when needed. This is doable with Lepidoptera, and your bringing up complex (but ultimately solvable) examples from unrelated taxons just to trash talk the whole project isn’t particularly helpful.
2. Again, the infobox provides other functions than taxonomy. For example, external links will gradually appear in the Eogemeter category page when the new taxon is propagated to taxonomic databases and links are added to the Wikidata item. Such a function would still make sense even if the taxonomy part of the box was discarded.

Maybe you don’t find any of this useful, and this is fine. What is not fine is that you are going out of your way to delete something that you have been told is useful to other contributors. I think you can understand that this goes against the collaborative attitude that is needed on Commons. If you find the taxonomy part of the infobox so horrible, please either contribute to related discussions or just be patient, but don’t spitefully remove the infobox from category pages. --LamBoet (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I did read it carefully. And it is a topic that has been discussed a number of times on en.wiki which is why i bring up the problems I do. That they are complex and that they are other taxa is not the point I was making. Im making the point that data does not deal in taxonomy, thats not its purpose, and a major problem is that ther is no one overarching approved taxonomy, only circumscriptions with varying levels of acceptance. data does not deal in that. If the box did not have the taxonomy part I would not have an issue with it, though it should be at the bottom of the page as other external links on wikipedia have always been. but as long as the box trys to mimic or supplant the taxonavigation system it will not be viable. Removing bad data from the projects is fully in line with how commons works.--Kevmin § 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I do understand what you say about the lack of absolute taxonomy, I don't think Wikidata is so incapable of improving in this area, but I am just not interested in discussing these very general issues here. Sensible, project-wide responses to your concerns could either be to improve Wikidata taxonomy, or to improve its display in the Infobox, or to stop displaying it in the Infobox. But removing whole infoboxes here and there as an isolated initiative doesn't go in the right direction, for the reasons I already explained.

About location on the page, Wikimedia Commons category pages are just structured like Wikipedia category pages: text (including links) at the top and list of category contents (articles/categories/files) at the bottom. This is unrelated to the Wikidata infobox. --LamBoet (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Palmacites species USNM 43258.png

File:Palmacites species USNM 43258.png has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: None) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Mitar.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Rivne_amber

Rivne amber has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Chelyderpeton

Chelyderpeton has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Propriety of moving File:PSM V73 D126 Fossil incense cedar Libocedrus coloradensis (syn heyderia coloradensis).png

You have recently moved this file to Libocedrus over Heyderia; however, the original caption (from which this file derives its name) uses the original generic name. I don’t have the most experience with the situations of name changes for most files, but where there already exists a correct caption from PSM, I don’t think it’s proper to change the name. If you have made other changes along those lines or know of others &c. and could restore them that would be nice. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: The file name uses an incorrect name for the fossil taxon pictured, I added the current name and kept the synonym in it. The caption is also using the incorrect outdated name. Current botanists and paleontologists use Libocedrus coloradensis and have done for over 100 years.--Kevmin § 18:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If I may come in on this, are you sure that current botanists and paleontologists use Libocedrus? The genus name Heyderia K.Koch [1873, nom. inval., non (Fr.) Link 1797] is currently treated as a synonym of Calocedrus, not of Libocedrus, an entirely Southern Hemisphere genus in a clade with no Northern Hemisphere fossil representation - MPF (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did more digging and found a missed citation by MacGinitie (1953) which synonymized this name into Chamaecyparis linguaefolia. This work was missed by LaMotte (1952) due to still being in prep when he published. Due to the 1953 synonymy the mentions of Libocedrus coloradensis drop out of the palaeobotanical literature. Additionally the higher prominence of LaMottes North American Compendium wor, compared to MacGinities regional flora resulted in the combination being overlooked by me. I have corrected the image and the category.--Kevmin § 16:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleting content from category pages

Fagus Wikidata box

Hi Kevmin - please don't delete all the information headers from categories as you have been. It is not redundant to wikidata as you claim. Personally I am less bothered about the lists of authorities and species lists, but some other people are; they value having this information at commons. If you think it hasn't been maintained, maintain it - it is just as likely to be unmaintained at wikidata, as at commons. But most importantly, the {{Wikispecies}} and {{VN }} templates should not be removed, as they are not otherwise readily accessible. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Both the VN and WS templates are redundant to the WD nav box. Taking a look at Category:Fagus We have the nav box at the top right with an image, then WP and WS links directly under it. The link is more accessable then as the floating lin placed randomly on a page. Directly under those two links is the common names section with better coverage then having to maintain the lists in every page here. Im not sure why you feel that {{Wikispecies}} and {{VN }} are more accessable then the highly promanent links in the nav box, but having both serves only to clutter and overburden pages.--Kevmin § 18:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply not true. On Category:Fagus without {{Wikispecies}} or {{VN }}, there is only a hard-to-find link to Category:Fagus (Q8442560) hidden somewhere half-way down the list at the left side, and no link to Wikispecies, and no link to Fagus (Q25403), which people are far more likely to want to go to than Category:Fagus (Q8442560). Adding {{Wikispecies}} and {{VN }} results in links to both; please do not remove them, they are very important for linking. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Im not sure why you say there is NO wikispecies link, as this image shows the FIRST two links in the box are for Wikipedia and WIKISPECIES, and three lines down from that are the vernacular names. I feel that you have not truely looked at the infobox in a while. Additionally VN should not be used as wikidata linking in the first place.--Kevmin § 17:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Pinus macrophylla" Berry

Hi Kevmin - Category:Pinus macrophylla Berry is a problem, in that Pinus macrophylla Berry (1929) is an invalid later homonym of Pinus macrophylla Lindley (1839), described 90 years earlier. Do you know if Berry's taxon has been renamed, and if so, what to? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @MPF: , I do know that Berry's 1929 name is a jr homonym, to both Lindley (1839, now a synonym of Pinus devoniana) and Engelmann (1848, and replaced with Pinus engelmannii in 1854). Unfortunately Berry's homonym is still unresolved 95 years after it was published, and thus why I named the category with Berry included, though I know its a less than optimal solution.

We are likely stuck waiting for someone to research an publish a revision of the Ypresian w:Eocene Okanagan Highlands Pinaceae to determine what names should be retained for the 3 and 5 needle compression species found from the Driftwood shales southeast though the Klondike Mountain Formation (KMF). There are 2 older names that have been applied to the BC pine fossils, Pinus trunculus (Dawson, 1890; a 3 needle species) and Pinus tulameenensis (Penhallow, 1908; a 5 needle form), but the descriptions are both of short needles (max 8cm and 3.5cm respectively) while the Republic/KMF needles are much longer on average.--Kevmin § 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There's yet another Pinus macrophylla, from Torrey in 1853 from Colorado, it must be one of the most over-used names in the genus :-) Have you thought of publishing a replacement nom. nov. yourself? It is quite easy to do now with e-publishing being accepted by ICN. Something like Pinus berryana might work - MPF (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I had missed the 3rd, it really is a popular name for any pine with floppy needles isn't it? To be honest I have a running manuscript that I have been working on slowly for several years with occasional input from paleobotanists that work on fossils from the region. I haven't had experience with publishing now and it would need to meet ICBN publishing standards so I've never moved forward with it.--Kevmin § 18:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)