User talk:Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv/2016

Northern Cape

>:)< hug -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:People by name

User talk:Jtcurses#Category:People by name.--JT Curses (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC).--JT Curses (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your categorizing of my uploaded images. Thank you! Josve05a (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Oggetto MuSe 023.JPG

It does stop to be taxidermied if it is identified as a replica. --Niccolò Caranti (MUSE) (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I didin't notice this. --Kersti (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Just letting you know that I am refining or changing some of your type categories. Some reasons are to make the English terminology more accurate, other reasons are because the lines between, say, "draft" or "light draft" or "cob" or "heavy warmblood" are not 100% clear, so a horse breed can be in more than one category. I think this will help more people find the breeds they are looking for. Montanabw (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Add location

Template:Add location 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 template, 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. 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!

 Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

HotCat

Do you know the gadget HotCat? It makesmakes adding categories a lot easierVera ^(talk) 07:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I once tried it it it is not the tool I need. Ich think I am faster by hand as in many cases I add two categories at once. --Kersti (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I started using it a lot more once I "placed categories above content, but below image on file description pages. This is a setting about the UI you can change in the gadget menu. Do you know Cat-A-Lot and VisualFilechanger? I often use a combination of the two to move stuff around, especially when I'm adding more than one category. --Vera ^(talk) 21:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not my problem. I have a bad internet connection and HotCat doesn't work with enough speed here. If I try this I am always waiting for the computer. --Kersti (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Macaca skulls

Dear Kersti,

Thanks for you work on Macaca skulls, using Naturalis images i uploaded. As these individual images already reside in the Category:Media donated by Naturalis, only meant for maintenance and statistics, i removed your new category from that category. The poor macaca's were already in. Best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add this category. The name of the catwegory is "Category:Macaca skulls" not "Macaca skulls in Naturalis" therefore the Museum is not a mothercategory for it. --Kersti (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Centennial Park

Congratulations on all the work you did on the animal life in Centennial Park. Fabulous. Have you been to Cent Park?

Sardaka (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No, i only visited the category. Australia is far away form Germany where I live. --Kersti (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Garrulax formosus - front-6.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Garrulax formosus - front-6.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 VRT 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.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Da bin ich die falsche. Ich habe nichts an der Lizenz geändet und das steht mit auch nicht zu. Kersti (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

categorizing my pic

why did you remove the category frome my pic?

• File:Green bee-eater (Merops orientalis).jpg‏

if you think its not Merops orientalis - prove it plz. if you can't dont change it again. --מינוזיג (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed to the subspecies category Category:Merops orientalis cyanophrys, and you are right, all birds in the caqtegory Category:Merops orientalis cyanophrys are Merops orientalis, but this is exactly the reason, why the Category:Merops orientalis is not nessesary. --Kersti (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Umkategorisierungen

Hallo Kersti. Sag mal, nutzt du eigentlich weder HotCat noch Cat-a-lot? --Leyo 13:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nein, wie ich schon öfter erklärt habe, habe ich beides ausprobiert und es war nur unpraktisch. Hängt mit der langsamen Internetverbindung zusammen. --Kersti (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm, bei deinem Vorgehen ist hingegen der fehlende Bearbeitungskommentar für alle anderen unpraktisch. :-( --Leyo 16:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ich versuche mich mal wieder mehr darauf zu trainieren, die Kategorien auch in den Bearbeitungskommentar einzufügen. Kersti (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Zwei Bilder hast du in die rote Category:Mammals of Tortuguero National Park einsortiert. Magst du dir das anschauen? --Leyo 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Wallacea Fauna (cropped).png

File:Wallacea Fauna (cropped).png 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!

Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

{{VN}}

Hello,
Just a quick word to tell you that {{VN}} useally does not need a useWikidata=<qcode> (like you did here).
Providing the qcode means that the link wikicommons<->wikidata is duplicated on both side.
I will document the 2 cases where useWikidata= is needed:

• for species category (But I will solve this soon in {{VN}} by searching the wikidata item)
• for genus gallery with {{VN}} for each species

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Kersti Nebelsiek/Archiv,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Subcategories under species level categories

Hi, I notice that you're moving files from a species category to further categories like Category:Papilio demoleus on flowers. I wonder how it will affect the visibility. I think we had some reusers like eol.org and gbif.org which only looks for images in species category; not one level under it. Pinging MPF for opinion. Jee 17:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Jkadavoor: ! Yes, this is a problem. Re-users like eol and gbif search using the Taxonavigation template, so when creating subcategories like this, it is essential to copy the Taxonavigation template into the new subcategory. But first, before creating subcategories like this, it is far more valuable to subdivide by useful categories first, such as Category:Papilio demoleus (illustrations), Category:Papilio demoleus (museum specimens) and Category:Papilio demoleus (captive), which split out files which are fundamentally different to photos of live individuals in nature (and, being of less interest to reusers like eol, don't need the Taxonavigation template adding). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPF and Jkadavoor: I start a XXX on flowers category when the main category has more than 200 pictures and there is no type of fundamentally different pictures like XXX (caterpillar) which would help to reduce the category size under the 200 pictures border. The reasson for this is

• a one-picture-category usually is not very helpful, if there is one map, one informational graphic, one photo of a head of the animal. Therefore I need to find them in the main category. If the main category is bigger than 200 pictures I won't find them even if they are in the category. The hundrets of pictures are too distracting, too many, to find through, therefore I make up a big category of very similar "normal" pictures to make the special pictures in the main category better findable.
• In sorting pictures I think of the organisation of an Wikipedia article. There are several subtopics, which are relevant

• 1.What does the animal look like? In insects a photo of the (a) imago, (b) egg, (c) caterpillar, (d) chrysalis is relevant in this category of topics. Separate categories for photos of imago, egg, caterpillar, chrysalis are nice, if there are enough photos.

It is not a good idea to hide the egg painting in a (illustrations) category or in a (captive) category, as long as there is no eggs category as some people won't find them there.

• 2. Distribution map of the species

In short species articles no more photos are needed after this. If it is somewhat longer more specialised photos start to become relevant. The next relevant topics are biologic

• 3. life of the species: What does it eat, how does it mate and care for its offspring, how does it develop?
• 4. Details of anatomy and morphology - it is not a good idea to hide them in a "museum specimens" or "illustrations" category as long as there is no anatomy category
• 5. ecological relationships: here the butterfly on flowers categories, or the caterpillar on tis hostplant, damage on the hostplant, are relevant for itself, and the photos in the "with other species" categories are interesting.
• 6. relations to humans are interesting if the species is domesticated, often exploited for food or a threat for humans, domesticated plants or animals

In very long articles or books illustrations for even more specialisized topics are relevant. Here the "illustrations" and "museum specimens" categories start to become relevant for itself

• history of science: a illustration of the original description or the type specimen would be interesting
• literature, culture an art: stamps, artworks which are no scientific illustrations, illustrations of poems are nice here

Generally one would prefer a good photo of a typically looking wild animal over a photo of a captive animal and this over an illustration. But a good illustration might be prefered over a bad photo of a wild animal or a photo which is very good for itself but lacks the diagnostic details, one needs to look for to identify the animal. A photo of a captive animal which is wild-colored and looks typical for the wild animal would be prefered over a photo of a wild animal which lacks the diagnostic details or looks atypical. We won't put the raven with white spots in the Taxobox of the Corvus corax article even if it is the only photo of a wild animal we have. We would prefer a captive animal, a museum specimen ro an illustration which shows a typical black raven in this case.

Illustrations, captive and museum specimens categories for shorter articles are not relevant for itself. They are mainly sorting out the less interesting pictures, as the "on flowers" category does too. This is the reason, why in the case of having only three pictures of eggs of a butterfly, there should be an eggs category if otherwise one would be in the museum speciemens category, another in the illustrations category, the third one in a main category with more than 200 pictures, it would be difficult to find the best example for an egg.

Indepently the on flowers categories are part of the process in which I mark the flowers for identification, so that the typical pollinators can be found in the species categories of the plants.

Category:Papilio demoleus on flowers is an example, which is not perfect as there were only a few pictures more than 200 before I startet the in flowers category and if I looked at it another day perhaps I wouldn't have started the on flowers category.

--Kersti (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

FrescoBot

Hi! I noticed this [1], is there a problem? Apparently keeping empty galleries is not a great deal. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Usually Galleries are made up because there are pictures which need a gallery and if the pictures are deleted next time someone would invent a different categorisation sheme, as the pictures are not the same an therefore a different categorisation sheme is better. Therefore keeping them is not useful. In these gallery pages it is strictly one gallery per species. If a species lacks pictures wikipedians seek thoroughly for a free picture of the species and in many cases next time one looks on the page there are photos but someone has deleted the gallery. The gallery usually is needed some time later and therefore should be kept. --Kersti (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I can try to preserve that kind of empty galleries. If you have a problem with FrescoBot you can write me. Placing {{bots}} will prevent the bot from fixing the mistakes. For example there was a typo on that page. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons Conference project

Hello Kersti,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around. But since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wiki Science Competition

Hi, I am contacting all active commons users I can find more interested in the management of pictures related to scientific or technical topics. If you have time, could you take a look in Commons:Village_pump#Upcoming_Wiki_Science_Competition. Thank you. If were already informed, sorry to bother you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Giraffen putz

Moin moin! Danke für's putzen meiner Giraffen! Hatte beim Hochladen einiger Fotos Zweifel ob ich Masai Mara annehmen soll oder nicht. Die Koordinaten zeigen den Standort knapp daneben. Aber anyway: DAnke nochmals!

Wieso hast Du eigentlich keine Dateiverschieber Rechte? Keine Verwendung dafür? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ich denke schon daß das sinnvoll wäre, schon für eindeutig falsch bestimmte Pflanzen und Tiere, hatte nur nie darüber nachgedacht. Was ich hier so mache, ist eine Nebenbeschäftigung beim Telefonieren während meiner Arbeit als Geistheilerin, was heißt, daß alles, wofür man schreiben können muß, eindeutig zu kurz kommt. Wie beispielsweise Anfragen auf meiner Diskussionsseite beantworten oder andere Leute ansprechen. Das geht nämlich nur in den Telefonpausen, weil sich schreiben und spechen beißt und die nutze ich für andere Dinge. --Kersti (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ich habe Dich einfach mal zum Dateienverschieber gemacht. Macht Sinn, mMn. LG, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Danke, --Kersti (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Apthona

Category:Apthona 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!

Taketa (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)