Missing images of magnoliophyta in northwest Europe

Below is a list of en:magnoliophyta in northwest Europe flowering in March and/or April.

With Northwest Europa I mean largely the area from en:Iceland to the en:Alpes.

This list is intended to help spotting missing images. I have compiled it from 2 paper sources. I havent gone to the trouble of eliminating double entries due to the use of different taxonomic systems. A comparison with the english wiki might be helful in this respect.

Note that I have deleted all species not flowering in march or april on purpose, this list is intended as a help in the spring of 2006.

Please note that the actual flowering season may vary due to location and weather.

Interesting flower photos collection

I accidentally found interesting flower photos collection on flickr.com under {tl|cc-by-2.0}}. These images are definitely worth uploading on Commons. And many of them are classified already.

Will be good if someone who knows weak points of Commons botanical section will review images and upload them.

EugeneZelenko 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have doubled the Cat Botanical illustrations and cleaned out all the photo doubles, created many new species articles and uploaded new photos. I have been going through every family in the Plantae categopry and cleaning up the photos and information. WayneRay 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Plant photo collection - no IDs though

I have about 150 WP quality plant and flower photos sitting on my computer that I was thinking of uploading to commons. Does this WikiProject provide a similar "identification" service to the Anthropod project? (Note: crossposted to en and commons). --Cfp 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in an organized way, I fear, but we try in the Category:Unidentified plants. -- Ayacop 10:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Scanning the PLANTS Gallery

Is anyone interested in scanning systematically the PLANTS database and uploading useful pictures here? See what I wrote at the Village pump. Most of the free images are either black line drawings, or photographs of seeds. Some of the reviewing/checking/uploading work may be a bit dull, but I think it can be very useful for comparison between species, and for making Wikimedia as complete as possible. – Tintazul ^talk 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the village punmp archive, and this sounds like a good initiative to me. I say: go ahead! TeunSpaans 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazonia

While looking through the many pictures I have on the computer, I realised that sometimes I can't even tell if the thing on the photo is a flower or something else entirely. I've uploaded two photos this evening (in Category:Unidentified trees and Category:Unknown flowers); I'll be uploading more tomorrow when I'll have more time. Marialadouce 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of pictures from my first weeks in Kourou have been uploaded. They are in Category:Unidentified plants, Category:Unknown flowers, Category:Unidentified Convolvulaceae, Category:Unknown fruits and vegetables, Category:Unidentified Arecaceae... Marialadouce 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

articles

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm writing on the right place, but I'm quite interested in the WikiProject Plants because I'm already working some time on articles like "vegetables", "herbs", "flower", "trees",... and therefore I wanted to know, what's your idea/plan about articles.

In my opinion it's a great idea to categorise all plants with there latin names. But as a "normal persons" not knowing a lot about botanic it's difficult for me find pictures of a plant if I have to look for the latin name. In addition I think connections between completely different categories as example beeing interested in food and then wanting to know how the plant of some vegetable/fruit looks like is easier to make...

--Anna reg 17:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree. Many people do not know the latin name, so it is useful to insert the species into other categories than a single category based only on the family or the genus. p.a. I think that Lactuca sativa must be categorized into Category:Lactuca and Category:Vegetables either, because there are people which search in botanic context but also many people whiche search in other contexts.

IMHO the impediment of search based on the latin name can be passed: if the latin name is necessary to have a standard title instead of English, we can insert in the articles a section which lists the common names in various languages. p.a. look at the structure of Quercus ilex article (at the bottom of the page): if you are Italian and do not know the latin name of the holm oak, you can write Leccio in the Search form and click on "Search". The internal search engine will give a list containing the article of Quercus ilex. The page will be longer with the list of common names but the search of media will be easier for many people. --gian_d 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A personal milestone

According to my personal tracking tools, I've now crossed the 700-taxa mark, with User:Stan Shebs/Plant taxa listing 701 types (not counting roses) for which I've uploaded pictures. I'm sure I've still got a ways to go to catch up with Kurt Stueber though. :-) Stan Shebs 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Stan! Wsiegmund 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

+1 --Überraschungsbilder 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 

Flower name

Please see my photo at: I hope an expert can tell me the name of it so I can upload it to wikipedia with a proper name. Thanks, --Orlovic (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for taxonavigation

I edited Galium aparine using ITIS for the taxonavigation entries. However, enwiki places it in Gentianales rather than in Rubiales as ITIS. Which is correct? Why? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, having no flora with me, but my sources sais it belongs to Rubiaceae:

• at Biolib
• via W3TROPICOS - Missurri Botanical Garden
• via GRIN USDA taxonomy--Juan de Vojníkov 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brya italicizing higher taxa

Has it been decided that User:Brya should italicize all higher taxa of plants on Commons as he/she is currently doing? Or is this a non-issue at Commons? I suspect that it has not been agreed upon simply because Brya is going about it in the same way he/she did on en.wiki, namely, hidiing the italicization of higher taxa edits in other edits and not mentioning them in the edit summaries (which says "recat" not (italicize higher taxa"), and because it is mentioned explicitly on the project page that "higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized." If it has been decided to italicize higher taxa, and move to APG II, let me know, and change the project page.

User:Brya has moved on to creating sock accounts on en.wiki to italicize higher taxa and insert jargon-laced taxonomy comments. It appears that Brya is intentioned to do whatsoever he/she wants regardless of community consensus on en.wiki and Commons, though.

This is what this project says:

Article titles and common names The scientific name should be used wherever possible. Even if there are generally accepted english names, remember that this is an international project. Note that

• Names of genera are always italicized and capitalized: Butia, Rosa, Santalum.
• en:Species epithets are always italicized and preceded by the name of the genus Magnolia virginiana (the shorthand M. virginiana should preferably be avoided), and never plain virginiana, since such identifiers need not be unique. They are never capitalized.
• Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized: Fagaceae, Rosales, Plantae.

Brya sock puppet edits on en.wiki--note these are four different sock accounts found thus far:

So, has the practice of italicizing higher taxa been changed on Wikipedia Commons, to a style of italicizing them, or is is the style as stated on the WikiProject Plants page, namely, that the higher taxa should not be italicized, and Brya should not be italicizing them within his/her other edits?

KP Botany 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Read first. I realize now, that I should have checked if Brya was doing this on other pages, as I was just checking the Asparagales for something else. This may simply have been an editing slip on Brya's part from managing the various sock accounts on en.wiki--in other words, he/she may not be doing this on Commons routinely, but may have simply done this one in between going back and forth on the various sock puppet accounts he/she is using to edit en.wiki, but it should be checked if this is the case. KP Botany 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, here we go again with Brya, eh? He doesn't seem to be doing it to the actual taxonavs, just the text. For those not "in the know" about this, Brya was eventually community banned on en.wp for this and similar habits, as well as being rather nasty on talk pages.

I do wonder why we need so much (English) text on a category in any case... shouldn't that be reserved for the 'pedias, etc.? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably don't want to ask me any category questions--I'll assume it's for everyone else. Eventually 12 socks were confirmed on en.wiki--I assume they'll keep cropping up. KP Botany 04:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Cronquist System article

Cronquist System was deleted recently because it doesn't contain any media, i.e., it is not a gallery page. Instead, it provides interwikilinks to articles on the classification system, in various languages. It is referenced (typically via a redirect from Cronquist) by the "classification" parameter of {{Taxonavigation}}. That is why I'm posting on this page. Cronquist System has been restored temporarily to provide an opportunity to discuss a resolution of the problem.

APG II, used in an analogous fashion, is consistent with guidelines because it contains a gallery of several diagrams of that system.

Regarding Cronquist System, the following possibilities come to mind.

1. Add illustrations of the system to the page. That would make it compliant with the guidelines. I have asked Fanghong if s/he has any interest in making illustrations like the ones on the APG II gallery page for Cronquist System thereby turning it into a proper gallery page.
2. Move "Cronquist System" into another namespace, e.g., Commons, perhaps making it a subpage of Commons:WikiProject_Plants.
3. Follow the guidance of Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life, to wit, use the taxonomy of Wikispecies. That moves discussions over which system to use out of Commons, which is ill-suited to deal with such questions in my judgement, and makes this wikiproject consistent with its parent. It simplifies taxonavigation since only one bar would be displayed. It does not solve the problem of providing an explanatory link for the classification system, but may simplify it somewhat. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cronquist System is a gallery page with an illustration that User_talk:Fanghong added recently. That should prevent its deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Latin names and italics?

A simple question. Why all plant latin names are not written in italics?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In what context? Aconitum napellus italicizes, as do many other pages. Since this is an image repository, people aren't always going to be energetic about fixing up every occurrence. Stan Shebs 17:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean higher taxa than genus. They are not in italics. E.g. Aconitum napellus:)--Juan de Vojníkov 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The tradition in taxonomy is not to use italics above the level of genus. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, but you should add in that it si a tradition of English Wikipedia. The International Code for Botanical Nomenclature sais something different. So I am asking what is the reason in here. If it is just copied from en or what. It is important to understand that WC is not used just by English thinking people, but also others.--Juan de Vojníkov 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In the german and other WPs are the rules accepted also.Orchi

Can you point us to where the ICBN requires italics? Nobody has ever said that before, that I can recall. Stan Shebs 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the ICBN says that they use italics for all ranks, but that is their typographical choice, and not a standard. Other publications are free to make other choices. /130.237.205.46 10:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeas. You are right. It is ICBN´s typographical choice, but as a leading organization on the level of plant taxonomy some cultures are copying their way.--Juan de Vojníkov 12:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

wikifrance also uses italic for all scientific taxon names. Cheers Liné1 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazonia - Salvation Islands

Hello,
A few months ago I went to the Salvation Islands for a few days's vacation. I took lots of photos, but because I am botany-illiterate I have many plants (and some animals) that need identifying. They are all in this gallery of mine: User:Arria Belli/Salut (along with various photos of the old prison buildings). Any help in identifying these would be lovely.
Thank you and happy editing,
Arria Belli | parlami 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Plant identifications needed

A new user has uploaded a large number of unknown plant requests at v:Bloom Clock/Unknown Plants. The logs are from somewhere in India, and I'm afraid we don't have anyone around who knows the flora of that region. If anyone could venture some guesses, please do! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Angiosperms main clade uppercase or lowercase in {{Taxonavigation}} ?

Hello, User:Brya always said 'Main botanic clades angiosperms, magnoliids, monocots, commelinids, eudicots, core eudicots, rosids, eurosids I, eurosids II, asterids, euasterids I, euasterids II should be lowercase because it is now allowed (it was not in the past for Ordo,familia...) and because APG uses lowercase'.
I verified in APGIII document, and there are only EUDICOTS and eudicots, no Eudicots.
But when I look in commons, I find both:

• Alcea rugosa using lowercase 'angiosperms'
• Ajuga reptans using uppercase 'Angiosperms'

What do you prefer in {{Taxonavigation}} ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these cherry stones or kernels?

Source: http://plants.usda.gov/java/largeImage?imageID=prma_002_ahp.tif

I don't know if I'm looking at whole cherry stones (pits), or just the inner kernels (seeds).

This will affect whether the image is appropriate for the en:Mahlab article. (While I'm at it, the article currently includes the phrase "seed kernel"; is that redundant?)

Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Those appear to be pits/stones (endocarps with the fleshy parts of the fruits removed). Prunus seeds ordinarily have a thin, dark seed coat (think almonds).--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thanks! Melchoir (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Category redirect}} improvments

Hello my friends,
I added a new parameter |reason= to {{Category redirect}}
This to allow contributors to explain/justify the redirect.

If you look at {{Category redirect}} you will see that I created 3 templates that uses {{Category redirect}} but provide an automatic and translated reason for the 3 main cases in biology:

• {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} to redirect a taxon to a synonym taxon (strict synonymy)
• {{Invalid taxon category redirect}} to redirect an invalid taxon to its valid equivalent (not exact synonymy)
• {{Monotypic taxon category redirect}} to redirect a monotypic taxon to its unique subtaxon (like redirect genus cat to its unique species)

The last one can be complemented by a {{Single}} on the destination page.
Of course, all these templates take usual biology parameters: source, source2, ref, accessdate.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't use it for now at the redirection doesn't seem to work with Russbot and SieBot. --Foroa (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Foroa it works now. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Damaged plants

Hi, I started to categorise files into Category:Damaged plants, and Category:Diseases and disorders of plants grows rapidly. I am aware that it may be botanicaly incorrect, but, in any case, botanists can refer to taxa. So the goal is to make it clear to common people, and enable them to use categories easily to compare contents with there own photographs or gardening problems. As I'm not speaking nativ English, can you check up category names I started to fill. Are they correctely labeled ? By the way, if no term easily understandable to all can be found, it could be necessary to write a warning to botanistes... --Salix (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Liné1 es-tu là par hasard ? --Salix (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am ;-) Be welcome my friend. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

11,000 unsorted biology images at Category:Uploaded by Amada44 (unsorted)

There is a treasure trove (11,000+) of unsorted but well labeled images at Category:Uploaded by Amada44 (unsorted), which appears dominated by photos of insects, plants, and vertebrates. I've been chipping away at it using Cat-a-lot, (moving images out of the unsorted category and into a genus or species category) and any additional help would be welcome. Due to the shear number of files, perhaps a bot-assisted move could be implemented, since species names are in many cases present in the file name, but I'm less knowledgeable about bot-requests. Cheers! Animalparty (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Latests changes in templates

Hello, let me present you the latest changes in commons biology templates:

• source= provided to {{Taxoconflict}}, {{Single}}, {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}, {{Subspecies}} now can be any combinaison of the previously managed sources.

  Example: {{Genera|Craniolaria|...|accessdate=2012-03-29|source=ADW & ITIS & BioLib & FishBase}}

• in categories, {{VN}} now reads vernacular names from its attached category wikidata item + its species wikidata item
• All our templates now generate a red error when they are incorrectly used + this cat is also added. See Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage
  • dates provided to {{Taxoconflict}}, {{Single}}, {{Taxa}}, {{Genera}}, {{Species}}, {{Subspecies}} are now checked
  • many templates now detect when they are called with badly written parameters. Like autharity= in {{Taxonavigation}} or nonexisting em= in {{VN}}
• There is now a syntax to list taxon in {{SN}}: See {{Syn}} and {{SN}}

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Latests changes in templates

Now {{VN}} also adds Interwiki.
If a category Category:Kirkiaceae is linked to Q9482231 Category:Kirkiaceae which subject is Q132988 Kirkiaceae, then Category:Kirkiaceae receives the interwiki from Q9482231 Category:Kirkiaceae and Q132988 Kirkiaceae!
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Interwiki from Wikidata}} included in {{VN}}

Hello,
Recently BotMultichill ran to add {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} to many categories.
You should know that {{VN}} does the same thing as {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}.
But {{VN}} does much more: retrieving and displaying vernacular names from the 2 attached wikidata items + checking the presence/validity of multiple properties on the 2 attached wikidata items.
The problem is that {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (and its equivalent in {{VN}} ;-)) are quite expensive.
Could you help me remove {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} from pages having a {{VN}} ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Images of plants on Flickr (Jean-Michel Moullec)

In case anyone here is interested, Flickr-user Jean-Michel Moullec has albums filled with high quality images of various plants, so if anyone is interested in importing images of plants from Flickr (using a tool like Flickr2Commons) they could. I'm just adding this here in case no-one was aware of this user as these images look of remarkable quality.

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. Cheers --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal related to gallery pages

See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Redirect_undermaintained_Species_Galleries_to_Category_pages, Sadads (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)