User talk:Salicyna

Category redirects

Hi Remedios44; Please see Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Categories.[1] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arthropodium cirrhatum 2016-04-22 8363b.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 09:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Campanula persicifolia 2015-06-20 3402.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Ingrid Bergman 2018-07-16 6611.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 11:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Berolina 2015-07-01 3989.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Beverly 2018-09-21 1520.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Ilse Krohn Superior 2018-09-21 1274.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa centifolia Catherine de Wurttemberg 2017-05-31 1754b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Amber Sun 2018-09-21 1495.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Mary Rose 2018-09-21 1428.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 08:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Purple Rain 2018-09-21 1488.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Rose de Resht 2018-09-21 1309.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aesculus pavia 2018-04-10 8025.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support - Could be a bit sharper, but good quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 22:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acer negundo 2018-05-01 9953.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Seven Pandas 13:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tulipa 2019-02-12 5588.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Bayreuth 2019-06-06 9390.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Bayreuth 2019-06-06 9397.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Lusatia 2019-06-07 1143.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 21:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Schone vom See 2019-06-06 8626.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 13:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Veilchenblau 2019-06-13 1988.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Veilchenblau 2019-06-14 2109.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clematis Juuli 2020-07-30 1501.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ercé 10:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hemerocallis Darla Anita 2020-07-30 2224.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Abit too dark, but good quality IMO. --Tournasol7 10:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Halavar 10:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hemerocallis Pink Flirt 2020-07-30 2281.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Halavar 10:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhododendron nitidulum var. omeiense 2020-06-23 9740.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Halavar 10:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Geranium endressii 2020-06-23 0033.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 06:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Brother Cadfael 2019-06-07 1277.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa Grace 2019-06-07 1298.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Proofread_heart.jpg

Hej,

Czemu usunęłaś z tego pliku licencję "self": (tutaj) i dlaczego twierdzisz, ze prawa do niego przysługują WMF (świadomie ustawiłaś taką licencję, czy to efekt jakiegoś C&P)? Fakt, że został(?) on stworzony przy użyciu oprogramowania MediaWiki nic tu nie ma według mnie do rzeczy (tak jak MS nie ma PA do plików stworzonych przy użyciu MS Excel), a elementów interfejsu, które by podlegały takiemu licencjonowaniu (komunikaty systemowe, elementy graficzne) na tym obrazku nie widzę.

Ja bym sugerował przywrócenie licencji "self" i danie atribution na waszą trójcę (jeśli nie wręcz ustawienie {{PD-text}}) Ankry (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: Nie mam pojęcia, dlaczego tak zrobiłam, to było dawno i nieprawda ;) Pewnie wzorowałam się na jakichś innych screenach Wikiźródłowych na commons. Salicyna (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

E, tam, dawno: raptem 5 lat :-> Ankry (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Ruthven (msg) 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Filemover

Wniosek o uprawnienia składa się tutaj. Zwykle można je dostać po 2-3 dniach, jeśli nikt nie zgłosi w tym czasie zastrzeżeń. Ankry (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Konferencja

Ech, gupi ja... Wojciech Pędzich Talk 06:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Aster 'Blaubox'

Cześć, widziałam właśnie tę twoją kategorię i miałam wątpliwości. Na zdjęciu etykiety z ogrodu botanicznego UWr mam wyraźnie Aster 'Blaubox'. W sieci znalazłam na stronie atlas-roślin.pl wymienioną tę odmianę, chociaż wzmiankowana jest zdecydowanie rzadziej przez google niż 'Blaubux'. Ostatecznie uznałam, że pozostawię tak jak jest na etykiecie. Co nie wyklucza omyłki na etykiecie, ale pytanie jak to dalej zweryfikować. Nova (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Przy okazji mam wątpliwości czy te zdjęcia 1, 2 i 3 (rośliny były oznaczone etykietą Achillea macrophylla) to nie wrotycz Tanacetum macrophyllum. Jak sądzisz? Nova (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lobelia laxiflora

 Done, Tournasol7 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Asterales - Rudbeckia hirta 1.jpg

Hi Salicyna,

If this File:Asterales - Rudbeckia hirta 1.jpg is not Rudbeckia hirta, than what could it be? Any idea? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: I don't know what it is (that's why I added this to "Unidentified..."), maybe Arctotis?... but I'm sure it's not Rudbeckia hirta... Salicyna (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Structure of subcategories in categories of plants

Thanks to your participation! We have to store it somewhere, so, I place result of disscusion here:

after space

(leaves) (flowers) (fruit) (seeds) (buds) (roots) (rhizomes) (stem) (bark) (wood) (seedlings) (thorns) (decaying)

after * (asterisk)

Animals with X
(cultivars) (cultivated) (by country) (non native) (habitat) (diseases and disorders)

after . (dot)

Uses of X/X as food/X as dye/etc
(illustrations) (herbarium specimens) (in art)/(on stamps) (microscopic images) (maps) (low quality) 

In standard/short form (illustrations) not (botanical illustrations) and (maps) not (range maps) or sth else. The most influenced change concerns categories 'close ups of flowers', coz why not close ups of fruits, bark, etc. It can be described in short form, so it should be used in such form. And standardization for 'fruits' - as a botanical term it is plural noun. For further decision relationship of subcategories by country/non native. Kenraiz ([[User talk:|talk]]) 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Where I find the discussion and decision for changing the existing structures of terms, links, categories and articles. Thanks. Orchi (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Truth is, I don't understand what this is about. About sortkeys? Structure is not a clear word.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, and Orchi: - please note the word you want is 'fruit'; one fruit, two fruit, a bowl of fruit: there is no 's' in the plural in English. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, and Orchi: - also subcategory structure: it is important to separate cultivated from wild first, ahead of any other subdivision by part of plant, so that wild specimens, and non-native / cultivated specimens, are never mixed together in the same category. Additionally, any subcategory including wild specimens should include the Taxonavigation box, while categories with non-native / cultivated specimens should not. This is so that external users (like Encyclopedia of Life) that harvest Commons images by the Taxonavigation do not lose access to the botanically important wild images. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPF, Liné1, and Orchi: – Fruit has no plural form when it means sweet and fleshy product of a tree which can be eaten; but as a botanical term it has plural form – fruits (see examples: [2]: leaves, flowers, roots and fruits). Kenraiz (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [edit: we (me and Salicyna) are not native English-speaking people, so we are open on suggestions..., we noteced also differences between Category:Fruit and Category:Fruits ]

@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, and Orchi: - I am en-N ;-) and to me, "Category:Genus species (fruit)" is right, while "Category:Genus species (fruits)" just looks strange and quaint - not seriously wrong, but 'what one sees from people not fully immersed in the English language' (like "sheeps"!). 'Fruit' without an -s is also the standard in botanical textbooks, a typical species description will read: "twigs brown ..., buds acutely pointed, ..., leaves ovate ..., flowers yellow with 5 petals ..., fruit green ripening purple, ...": note '-s' for everything except fruit (and, obviously, bark). MPF (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: We have checked it again in books, on the Internet and have to agree with you. We were misled also coz pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruit (fruit as a botanical term has plural form 'fruits') – but it is not reliable source... Kenraiz (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPF, Liné1, and Orchi: – Categorization of morphology of plants: why do you think that cultivated and growing in wild plant of the same species (except cultivars) are different? If you want to find picture of flower, leaf or fruit of specific taxon it does not matter where it grows. Making two categories trees of morphological parts of plants (growing in wild and cultivated) has no sense. Morphological and geographical criteria are independent. The same problem is with taxonomical status of taxa. The species/subspecies/form/ are the same taxa both in wild and in cultivation. Kenraiz (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Salicyna, Kenraiz, Liné1, and Orchi: - Foliage, flowers, fruit, etc., are influenced by environmental factors as well as genetics; they can often be smaller, or larger, on cultivated plants than on plants in the wild, due to different growing conditions. Some odd things remain unexplained, e.g., why is the bark on all cultivated Araucaria araucana very different pattern (example) to that on all wild trees (example)? Also cultivated material (even in botanical collections) is surprisingly often mislabelled. And most importantly, it makes mapping results worthless, by contaminating the distribution generated with non-relevant locations from cultivated specimens. - MPF (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: Again I have to agree, that plants cultivated are somehow different from wild one – usually they are in better condition, more dense, greener, less damaged by animals and other factors. But the detailed pics of leaves, flowers, fruit still are representative for the taxa (often except cultivars and subtaxa, but their otherness always is within specific variability). Errors in the designation are often both in pics taken in wild and in gardens... Only the last reason seems to us important/logical, but still we think that utility of morphological categorization is more important. The solution of the problem should be independent morphological and geographical categorization. Now the latter is often a mess and there is no standards: (cultivated only or in general) by country/ non-native/ invasive (often in the same taxa). And most important: usage of pics from Commons to show distribution needs more caution and should not be done automatically. Pics from Commons very often have no geographical information or very general and often there is no information on status of plant (cultivated, introduced, native). Kenraiz (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal:
@Josve05a: @Kenraiz: @Liné1: @Kersti Nebelsiek: @MPF: @Orchi: @Pigsonthewing: @Salicyna: @Themightyquill: (alphabetical)
I suggest to continue this discussion here: Commons:WikiProject Plants
with the following discussions also:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Asteraceae botanical illustrations
  
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Periparus ater (illustrations)
  

Orchi (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are talking about category sortkeys (the term structure is not clear enough) and category naming (2 different subjects).

Remember that we have contributors with different english skills and wikisyntax skill. So we must precise and self explanatory.

I have 2 problems with the sortkey choices:

• sortkeys have a chance to live on if they are obvious, like: ? (for unknown), † (for extinct), ♂ (for male), ♀ (for femelle). Your choice of . and * are not obvious. How will contributors remind when they must use . or *? Also contrary to template (that have a documentation), you cannot document this choice (except in an page somewhere).
• . is currently used by automatic categories like Category:Genera of Plantaginaceae and Category:Species of Plantaginaceae. Of course as they are automatic, I can change their sortkey.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Creation of categories

Thank you for your creations of categories ...(seedlings) and others. Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

CropTool

Hi, thanks for uploading File:Clitoria (2401257436) (cropped).jpg. I just wanted to let you know about Commons:CropTool, which automatically transfers existing descriptions and copyright info, and updates the source image with {{Extracted}}. It's a lot faster and more efficient than Upload Wizard. All the best! Animalparty (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: It's very helpful, thanks! :) Salicyna (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cissus Alata

Hello, I'm asking just for curiosity: you moved my image to Category:Cissus alata. I'd like to know your opinion about this identification here[3] and in particular here[4], could these names (Cissus alata or Cissus rhombifolia or Rhoicissus rhombifolia) be all synonyms? Googling gives similarity... thanks. Alex Khimich (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Khimich: Hi! I moved category:Cissus rhombifolia to Cissus alata because ThePlantList says that accepted name is Cissus alata and Cissus rhombifolia is only synonym. Salicyna (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and for making files more organised. :) Alex Khimich (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cebulice.

Cześć. Dziękuję bardzo za zwrócenie uwagi. Przyznaję się do dyletanctwa w tym zakresie :/ Byłbym bardzo wdzięczny gdybyś mogła poprawić niewłaściwe kategorie (bądź dopisać). Pozdrawiam. --Zorro2212 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Och, widzę, że już to zrobiłaś. Dzięki. Zaraz spróbuję poprawić opisy. Jak myślisz, czy wpisanie formy "Scillae" w opisie angielskim będzie poprawne? Bo widzę, że w kategoriach taka forma nie występuje. Pozdr. --Zorro2212 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To może wykasować "siberica"?

OK, wykasowałam przymiotnik "siberica" z plików, w których zmieniłaś określenie. Dzięki i pozdrawiam.--Zorro2212 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Róże

Gratuluję pięknych zdjęć róż

Ta w załączeniu to z Różanego Skwerku, za rogiem ulicy. Pozdrawiam serdecznie Stanisom (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stanisom: Dziękuję, różom trudno się oprzeć :) Salicyna (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Salicyna:  :) Stanisom (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Apple cultivars by name

Hi Salicyna!

Could you please explain me, why you created all these categories like Category:Apple cultivars A as subcategories to Category:Apple cultivars by name? From my point of view the original structure of putting the different cultivars directly into the Category:Apple cultivars by name without subcategories was better: browsing from one initial letter to another was simpler, and adding a new cultivar was easier.

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frank C. Müller: Hi! I do it in the same way as it is done here: Rosa cultivars by name, Hemerocallis cultivars by name. In my opinion, with a large number of subcategories, this is more convenient. Salicyna (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Salicyna!

Thanks for your explanation!

Your kind of establishing an alphabetical substructure into a category, only because the category contains a lot of subcategories, seems to be rather unique. There are many other categories in Commons with huge numbers of subcategories and without any merely alphabetical substructure, e.g. People by name (474.311 subcategories), Free software by name (720 subcategories), Video games by name (725 subcategories), Female vocalists from the United States (1.231 subcategories), Male names (6.215 subcategories).

I couldn't find any discussions to your alphabetical structure, but I talked with some other wikipedians on the last WikiCon in St. Gallen. They made a proposal: Why not establishing an additional category parallel to Apple cultivars by name (with the same supercategories), for instance called Category:Apple cultivars by alphabet. This new Category contains your alphabetical substructure, and the old Category:Apple cultivars by name remains as it was before without alphabetical substructure.

What do you think of this suggestion?

gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frank C. Müller: It might be a good idea. Salicyna (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Salicyna! Thanks for your cooperation! During the next hour I'll start with this new structure. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Salicyna! I think, I got it now; perhaps still with some minor errors. gruß, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ornithogalum

Observo que estás revirtiendo species de Ornithogalum que he actualizado. Debe tener en cuenta que los datos de su cambio a Gagea han sido tomados de Catalogue of Life con Último escrutinio taxonómico: Govaerts R., Aug-2017 ref. [[5]]. Lo que le pongo en su conocimiento para que haga las correciones adecuadas. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Hi! These images that you moved to Gagea minima: File:Ornithogalum pannonicum sl1.jpg, File:Ornithogalum pannonicum sl2.jpg, File:Ornithogalum pannonicum sl3.jpg, File:Ornithogalum pannonicum sl4.jpg do not even resemble Gagea minima. Please check this with author of these photos, @Stefan.lefnaer: , but don't move it to Gagea minima. Salicyna (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. Estas páginas no han sido subidas a commons por mi, solo intenté cambiar un sinónimo a su taxón correcto. Gracias por la aclaración. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bouton de rose Ingrid Bergman

Hello ! Thank you. I bought it as 'Ingrid Bergman', I hope it will get darker. I let you know as soon as possible if it is the case. Muchas gracias. Chaumot 22:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you !

A rose as thanks..

Thank you for the wonderful rose pictures from Sangerhausen. Ideal time, perfect light. I was not so lucky in 2017. As a small thanks: a photo of my new Austin rose 'Boscobel' from this morning. Today I wrote a small article for the German Wikipedia about this rose :) Greetings, --Geolina ^{mente et malleo} ✎ 17:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geolina163: Thanks :) I was in Sangerhausen for four days and took about 5000 photos of roses... Now it will take many weeks to upload them on Commons. ;) The weather was changeable but I'm happy that I could be there. Thank you for 'Boscobel', it was lacking, now your phoito is also on Polish Wikipedia. Regards, Salicyna (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes me happy :) I was last year in Baden near Vienna. 2,000 images I have to upload to Commons yet..--Geolina ^{mente et malleo} ✎ 19:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful

Your photographs of roses in Sangerhausen are absolutely divine !! Thank you so much. By the way you were right for the rose 'Ingrid Bergman', I saw it in Chaumot's garden ; it is now an unidentified dark pink rose... All the best for you ! Thomon^{mente et malleo} ✎ 14:25, 01 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thomon: Thank you very much! :) Salicyna (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful

Thanks a lot for adding the cathegory "Misidentified roses" to my file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosengarten-C-8-a-RoseDeMeaux.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosengarten-A-10-b-Tschaikovski.jpg Can you help me to identify this roses? And there are two roses in our rosarium we cannot identify: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosengarten-B-4-a-UnbekannteRose.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosengarten-D-10-f-unbekannteRose.jpg Thanks in advance --HelgeRieder (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@HelgeRieder: Unfortunately, I don't have any idea what cultivars these may be. I'm only sure that the first is not 'Rose de Meaux', which is light pink, not red as in your photo, and the second is not 'Tschaikovski', which is white/creamy. There are so many red rose cultivars that I don't know if certain identification of this rose may be possible. This rose may be 'Lavender Dream', but I am not sure. Regards, Salicyna (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --HelgeRieder (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2019

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2019 has started in the whole world. It is now completed in Russia (active in May), Ukraine and France (active during November), but it's still open in all the other countries.

If you want to take part where WSC2019 is still open, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, please consider that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, i.e. "nature and wildlife".

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase, please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2020.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsuscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2019 #WikiScience #WikiScience2019

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Seedlings from Morocco

these

Thank you very much. They are very similar, indeed. But the plant I had last year at the same place is a liane. The Moroccan Arabic name "nar l-barda" generally applies to Clematis flammula, but probably also to other plants giving "cold fire" = skin vesicles. I will follow the plant and publish pictures of following stages, so we can identifie it.

Best regards --Lucyin (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

2020

All the best and good luck in 2020. My 00:00 article on January 1, 2020 was once again a rose article: Hilda Murrell by David Austin. Thank you for the great pictures from Sangerhausen :). Greetings, --Geolina ^{mente et malleo} ✎ 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Geolina163: It's so nice! Don't you know that your photos from Sangerhausen in 2017 inspired me to go there for more... :) And now inspiration comes back :) Do you have a Facebook account? I just wrote post about it. All the best in new year to you! :) Salicyna (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Exochorda × macrantha?

Hi Salicyna,

Could this File:Rosales - Rosa sp. - 45.jpg be an Exochorda × macrantha? According to enwiki it is the most used ornamental plant from it's genus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: I don't know which species it may be, so I categorised it only to genus. Exochorda racemosa looks also similar for me. Salicyna (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. DenesFeri (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Identity?

Hi Salicyna - your set of photos File:Papaver somniferum 2019-03-21 7460.jpg et seq. don't have typical Papaver somniferum foliage, with different, more deeply divided leaf shape, and not strongly glaucous grey-green; I suspect they are a different species of Papaver. Do you have any photos of the same plants later when in flower? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: Hi! I was almost sure it was Papaver somniferum, but I'm afraid I don't have any other photos of the same plants :( Salicyna (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give them the benefit of the doubt (but will move them into the seedlings subcategory) - MPF (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Niebieski kot 2018-05-19 2310.jpg

File:Niebieski kot 2018-05-19 2310.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!

Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sortkeys and DEFAULTSORT

Hello, I see you've been creating rose cultivar categories. Some of those incluses sortkeys that contain accented characters, or other special characters. For the sake of proper and consistent alphabetization throughout the wiki, sortkeys should never contain accented or special characters, only the plain equivalents. For instance, a person category for an Åke Salén should be sorted as Salen, Ake. Furthermore, you can use the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template to set a default sortkey for any category that doesn't have a specific sortkey. For instance, rose cultivar categories benefit from a setup with {{DEFAULTSORT:Cultivarname}}, since almost all possible categories for a cultivar would prefer that sorting. --Pitke (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

About my Sorbus

Hi Salicyna,

Could this File:Rosales - Sorbus aucuparia - 4.jpg be Sorbus aria File:Sorbus aria-3420.jpg? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: I'm not sure, the leaves seem different to me... Salicyna (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: I think it may be Pyracantha coccinea. Salicyna (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Salicyna, Yes you have right. Thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Rosa 'Mahaeca'

Hi Salicyna, Rosa 'Mahaeca' and Rosa 'La Belle Sultane' are synonyms, shouldn't one of the categories be deleted? Wilrooij (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017 and Wiki Science Competition 2019, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in the whole world. It is now completed in Russia (active in May), but it's still open in almost all the other countries.

If you want to take part in WSC2021, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, we remind you that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, that is "astronomy".

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase, please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2020.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsubscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2021 #WikiScience #WikiScience2021

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--00:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Rosa 'Décoration de Geschwindt'

Hi Salicyna, you changed category Rosa 'Geschwinds Orden' to Rosa 'Décoration de Geschwindt'. I don't know why ('Geschwinds Schönste' and 'Geschwinds Nordlandrose' are also in German), but shouldn't the category then be called Rosa 'Décoration de Geschwind' (without 't' at the end) because Rudolf Geschwind is written without 't'? Regards --Wilrooij (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wilrooij: Hi! This category was created in 2016 by @MILEPRI: , I don't know what is its correct name, but I see that HelpMeFind also says its name is 'Décoration de Geschwindt'. Maybe you're right; change it if you're sure. Salicyna (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! 91.18.39.103 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Rosa 'Smiles'

You recently redirected Category:Rosa 'Smiles' to Category:Rosa 'Gartenspaß'; on what basis, please?

If they are synonymous, then the corresponding Wikidata items should also be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: According to Helpmefind, theye are synonyms. Salicyna (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Roseraie Jean-Dupont

Hello Salicyna, thank you very much for your additions to some rose categories and photos. Unfortunately, I visited Roseraie Jean-Dupont late in the year and only a small number of roses were still flowering. However, the names of the climbing roses in the rosary, although not flowering, can be identified, because there is a detailed planting scheme (see here: Roseraie Jean-Dupont). Best regards Wilrooij (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Terminalia_arenicola_(fruit)

Terminalia arenicola (fruit) 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!

—  Junglenut | talk  11:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects

Because "mullugo" is a reasonably common misspelling of "mollugo", it's better to make the category into a redirect instead of deleting it. DS (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Lysimachia punctata - Seedling or another term?

Hello! Please tell me what is the correct term to use in this case? Maybe "Basal shoot"? ИринаЯ (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Armstrong Nurseries (1953) (19715014713) (cropped3).jpg

And also:

• File:Armstrong Nurseries (1953) (19715014713) (cropped5).jpg
• File:Armstrong Nurseries (1953) (19715014713) (cropped).jpg
• File:Armstrong Nurseries (1953) (19715014713) (cropped4).jpg
• File:Armstrong Nurseries (1953) (19715014713) (cropped2).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2023

Logo for Wiki Science Competition

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017, Wiki Science Competition 2019 and Wiki Science Competition 2021, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2023 has started in almost all the countries.

If you want to take part in WSC2023, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, we remind you that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase (such as Russia), please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2024.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

---

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsubscribe from this list

---

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2023 #WikiScience #WikiScience2023

---

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--20:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me please

Hello Salicyna,
This morning I accidentally pressed the wrong button on my iPod and I damaged your user - site.
My (unnoticed) mistake. Pardon!!!
All the best to you in the New Year 2024.
Kind regards.
Orchi (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Orchi: No problem :) Happy New Year! :) Salicyna (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Salicyna - do you have any location data for File:Spring Larch (93183845).jpeg that you added a category to, please? Without this, the image is effectively useless. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: I don't have location, it's not my photo. I go through Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention and add categories (usually "Unidentified...") to photos of plants without any categories. Salicyna (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping you might have access to the original on 500px.com; if I try the link I hit a paywall that prevents me from seeing any details (something 500px installed recently; I used to be able to see originals and quite often there were clues to the location, such as where the photographer is based) - MPF (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)