User talk:Sminthopsis84

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Sminthopsis84!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Doi thong 2 mo.jpg

Hi Sminthopsis - guesswork that unfortunately hasn't paid off; they aren't Pinus dalatensis (which occurs in dense high altitude mountain forests well away from Dalat city itself). The most likely pines there are P. kesiya and P. latteri (fairly frequent at lower altitudes in Vietnam), but the pic isn't good enough quality to verify this. Could you take the pic off the en:Pinus dalatensis page, please! - MPF (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, I was hoping that someone with more knowledge of the local area would step in. The guesswork seemed too good to be true, but I couldn't resist. Thanks very much for setting me straight. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hylotelephium erythrostictum.JPG

Hello Sminthopsis84,
I just saw that you changed the category of this file (and the two others in that gallery - 2 & 3), but you didn't ask for renaming and left them in the gallery, thus creating a confusing situation (should I leave them in the gallery or remove them?). In my opinion, it would be best if you could do all three - request to rename the file (with {{rename|newname.jpg|3|reason (optional)}}), change wrong categories and galleries - if you are sure about your identification. In case you are unsure, I would suggest a comment in the file description (e.g. erythrostictum wrong identification, probably ...).
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna, yes, I really have little idea what to do about misidentified plant photos, and I'm sorry that I haven't been considering galleries very much because that is more work than I can spare the time for. Sometimes when I've changed a category on a misidentified plant the creator has come back to make what further alterations are inspired by having it identified. In this case, I fear that it could be disappointing to the creator that the plant they have photographed appears to have escaped from a garden rather then being the rather rare species native to that area. I've removed the photos from the gallery. Does it really matter what the name of the photo is? It is incredibly common for plant photos (and herbarium specimens) to be initially identified as one thing, but on further study to turn out to be something else. I suspect that the overwhelming nature of the task is why few botanists make a start on identifying photos here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right that many plant pictures are uploaded without identification or with a wrong one - I'm no botanist and can therefore only identify really easy plants, do some general clean-up (remove the genus category or the category 'flowers' of plants with a species category), and of course maintain galleries. But if file name, description, category name, and the use in galleries and on wikipedia differ, I will be unsure which one to believe (and I think the same will be the case for other non-botanist users).

I can of course check by looking at the file history (how did the difference come about) and comparing the picture to both possibilities, but that takes time and doesn't always clear it up. As users can't change file names by themselves, and most people don't maintain galleries, a change in category and file description should be enough to 'prove' that the category change wasn't a mistake (which happens often enough - especially with tools like cat-a-lot - useful, but prone to mistakes). The gallery maintenance can be left to people like me who can't correct the identifications... ;->

But if you are changing the file description, using the {{rename}} template shouldn't take much more time... well - you'll see if you find the time, and you are correct that identifying plants is something you can do that many others can't...

Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at this again, I see why I've hesitated to rename files, it would require choosing the option "3. Correct misleading names into accurate ones" which, frankly, with the bold-face word, seems like rather an affront to someone who has tried to identify a plant and for whatever reason has settled on the wrong name. I've instead chosen to give the uploader time to think about it some more and revert me if they choose to, revert a single change rather than a set of related ones. Quite often in real life outside wikipedia, someone will have been told a name for a plant, and they will be sure that I'm wrong, so I'd expect reversions if I did a lot of this. If I had made multiple changes that they wanted to revert, they could feel that their mistake is being ridiculed. Sorry, after consideration I think that making multiple fixes as soon as I notice a misidentification is likely to hurt people too much. Instead, I've made a link from my user page to my main user page in Wikipedia, so that people (English-readers at least) can more easily see that I am a botanist. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The link does help and I see your problem... as I'm not happy with the choices for misidentified pictures myself (point 3, 4 and 5 can be used but don't really fit), I posted a question there...
I still think that a comment in the file description is a good idea, as it makes your correction clearer and there are many users who don't look after their files on commons - even if it is of course not necessary as you do comment on your category changes, making it possible to see that your recategorisation isn't a cat-a-lot move... Anna reg (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I could do that. The reason I haven't done very much of that is that commons is multi-lingual, so again, it seemed a bit insulting to the uploader. Perhaps people are working on getting automatic translation to help with that, I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree renaming in the first phase is a bit bold and chances that others disagree with our findings and revert it. So better correct the category and description first and wait for a few days. Then come again and rename it. While renaming (as a file mover), I only use "correct ID" in the "reason for renaming" field. Jee 03:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that you see the rationale. Some cases are much easier than others, and these were particularly difficult. I haven't requested many renamings but will consider doing more of them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Cascabela thevetia / Thevetia peruviana

Hi Sminthopsis - I saw you reverted my edit with the summary "synonymy goes the other way": not according to USDA GRIN (Thevetia peruviana accepted, Cascabela thevetia a synonym), who are generally reliable. What's your reasoning / reference for going the other way? - MPF (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the reference I was using is World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, which I've concluded is generally more up to date that USDA GRIN, being an ongoing effort to compile all available data. What do you think? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Checked up the relevant research (main paper Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 94 (2): 298-323, 2007); it turns out that Thevetia senso lato is monophyletic, but can be divided into two groups that are also both monophyletic. These two can be treated either as separate genera Thevetia and Cascabela (as done by WCSPF), or just as separate subgenera within Thevetia (as done by GRIN). Both are valid treatments, it is a matter of opinion which one follows, not of 'one right, the other wrong'. My weak preference would be to use the broad treatment favoured by GRIN (as that is the more familiar generally), but I don't have a strong view on it. What do you think? MPF (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was putting in quite a lot of effort on EN wikipedia to list synonyms of genera, including in Apocynaceae, and thought that this update was as well supported as the other work I was doing. That means that I'm a bit attached to the Cascabela choice, because I'm unwilling to undo all the work that I put in yesterday. Ugh. In what I saw, there are some other issues such as Thevetia neriifolia being a synonym, although it is quite commonly used, and it would be good to get those matters cleaned up. Generally, I've been thinking that the most recent aggregations, such as The Plant List and World Checklist are what we should follow, since the wiki projects shouldn't make their own decisions, but I completely agree that this case is one for a coin-toss. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks! Cascabela it is, then ;-) MPF (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're obliging! I thought I should wait a couple of days, and see if yesterday's effort seems less overwhelming after a little more time has elapsed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Trifolium pratense P32.1.jpg

Change the photo on this site, please. I can't do this by myself: I don't see the differences.

Thanks in advance :-) Wieralee (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the picture. I've changed the pt.wikipedia and an nl.wikibooks, boldly explaining with whatever google translate provides. (The leaves of the two clover species are quite different.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What about File:TrifoliumPratense1.jpg? It seems to be used quite often as a picture of Trifolium medium. (And well, I don’t see the difference, either.) ⁓ [Gyft Xelz · talk] 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is bad, I hadn't thought to look at all the usages. Well, I'm not sure of some of them either, T. alpestre and T. medium seem very similar. In what I did yesterday, I was using a couple of reference books, which made it clear that the pale blotch on the leaves means that the plants can't be T. medium. That said, I decided to go with T. pratense because although some types are sometimes distinguished as "mammoth red clover" or "perennial red clover", those are lumped by other people into a single species as T. pratense. It's a nightmare. I wish people wouldn't upload photos that they can't identify with some sort of reliability. I've changed one of the usages of File:TrifoliumPratense1.jpg as best I'm able. Would you like to do the rest? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I wouldn’t. Most of the time, the best thing I can do is to identify the genus; determining species exactly isn’t quite my expertise yet. ⁓ [Gyft Xelz · talk] 17:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those categories for unidentified species within a genus are very useful. In this case, the photographer is clearly someone who know quite a lot and thinks about what they are doing, so I think it is a good choice. I'll make substitutions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Move from Category:Kigelia africana to Category:Kigelia fruit

Hi. you moved quite a few images from from Category:Kigelia africana to Category:Kigelia fruit. This means, you moved the image from the Binomial name to the Genus which is a bad idea. All the Kigelia africana fruits should be in Category:Kigelia africana fruit. All the undefined Kigelia fruits can stay in Category:Kigelia fruit. Could you please do that? Regards, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. I was working from a statement that there is only one species recognized in the genus Kigelia, K. africana, so it wouldn't matter whether the category was called Category:Kigelia africana fruit or Category:Kigelia fruit. I figured that the simpler name was better. The synonyms show up clearly at The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Now that you query that, I see that there is one doubtful species name, Kigelia lutea which is listed in Tropicos but not synonymized. If a photo of that species ever appears here, and if that species doesn't also become a synonym of K. africana, it should be easy to rearrange the categories a little bit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Stapeliopsis hardyi or Stapelianthus hardyi?

I can't answer the question. I'm sorry:My knowledge of english language is not better than botanics. I'm only a humble amateur.--Copydays (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I don't know these plants. There seems to be no name "Stapeliopsis hardyi" in botany, and photos that I can find of Stapelianthus hardyi vary a lot. Some of them however, do look like your plant. Your photo must be about the best one on the web. Stapelianthus hardyi is considered a synonym of Stapelianthus montagnacii. I'll put the photo in a category. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for action on English Wikipedia

Dear Sminthopsis84, can I request you to take the uncontroversial deletion of two articles I developed properly on English Wikipedia- Kingdom of Bhati and Mughal conquest of Chittagong. May they please be undeleted? Especially the Kingdom of Bhati article.--F2416 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not an administrator, so I don't have access to pages that have been deleted. I cannot even see the history of the page to find out what user account caused the deletion (on the grounds that that user was either banned or blocked), I cannot see any discussion about why the page was deleted, and cannot judge what I would think of the situation. In fact, I don't know what can be done. Do you have a backup copy of what was on the page? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The same admin deleted Bengali Muslim architecture without any explanation. He is restoring inaccurate and false edits to to other articles like the Bengal Sultanate, without any explanation. You must know that the original sock ban is flawed, because multiple accounts were not used at the same time for disruptive purposes. This is highly unfair and unfortunate, because a lot of hard work went into creating all this reliable referenced work.--180.234.21.13 11:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)