User talk:Junglenut

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Junglenut!

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) 08:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Screenshot Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants website.png

File:Screenshot Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants website.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: non-free website screenshot Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 198.55.50.33.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File sources

Hello Junglenut. Please make sure to provide the full URL to the page where you found an image. Just specifying "iNaturalist", like you did for File:Calamus-muelleri-01.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-02.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-03.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-04.jpg, File:Calamus-muelleri-05.jpg, and File:Calamus-muelleri-06.jpg. I have fixed those files for you, but you should be aware that files without a complete and accurate source may be deleted. Please let me know if you have any questions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep it in mind —  Junglenut | talk  05:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Geogroup

Hi Junglenut - please do not remove {{Geogroup}} tags, they are far from "useless" (to quote your edit summary). The links to Wikispecies should also be left too. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the wikispecies link is duplicated in the wikidata taxobox. As for the geo link, it is supposed to provide information about the range of the species using data from the photos. However in this case, all the photos are mine and represent a very tiny fraction of the area of occupation of this species. Cheers, Steve —  Junglenut | talk  11:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(All bar one of the photos!) —  Junglenut | talk  11:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Aye, but there'll be more photos from other parts of the range eventually! It's also a very good way of finding erroneous geocodes (the commonest error is people accidentally forgetting the minus sign for southern & western hemispheres), and for selecting cultivated/zoo specimens to transfer to (cultivated), (captive), etc., subcategories. The Wikispecies link may be a duplicate, but it is difficult to find; keeping it in Commons too makes it much easier to find. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@MPF Ok, I'll accept that there are uses for the geogroup tag that I wasn't aware of, but I would prefer to see it at the bottom of the wikidata infobox. Re the wikispecies link I am not convinced. I don't believe the link in the wikidata infobox is hard to find - but if I accept that argument then I must also accept that the wikidata and wikipedia links are also hard to find, so should we add little boxes for them as well? I say no, this is clutter. If someone is looking at a commons page and wants to look at the wikispecies page for it, that immediately says they are familiar with the relationships between the sister sites and will know where to look. Someone who is not aware of these different sites probably wont be browsing commons in the first place. If there is no defined policy about the placement of the {{ws}} tag, I will continue to leave it out of pages that I work on. Cheers, Steve —  Junglenut | talk  09:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ficus henneana

I have not reverted the page, if you look at the history, you will see that I have only added the link to wikispecies. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Australian-postage-stamp-nymphaeae-gigantea.jpg

File:Australian-postage-stamp-nymphaeae-gigantea.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Modern stamps of Australia are clearly copyrighted. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1Adamant1, the source page of this file clearly says it is CC-BY. —  Junglenut | talk  04:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Junglenut: So what? A user can put whatever license they want to on a file when they upload it. Same goes for wherever they got it from. But Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia is pretty clear that Australian stamps created after 1974 are copyrighted and I can't image why there would be an exception for this single stamp. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, just to expand on that. The image appears to have originally come from here here before being reposted on another site as CC-BY. If you read that sites terms here they clearly say that "all images are copyright." The source of the image on their websites says absolutely nothing what-so-ever about it licensed as CC-BY either. In fact there's clearly a copyright symbol right next it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Freycinetia percostata

I think I understand that you cancel the taxonavigation because wikidata is already used. Could you confirm it?. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@MILEPRI Yes, that's right. The same goes for the other templates like VN and ws. Cheers, Steve —  Junglenut | talk  09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. I think a BOT should eliminate the hundreds of thousands of taxonavigations that are connected to wikidata. I take advantage of your knowledge of wikidata to explain to me how to join two taxa in wikidata since I have tried it several times and I cannot do it correctly. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What are the two taxa involved? —  Junglenut | talk  09:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

VN and other templates

Is it policy now to remove those templates? I find the VN template useful, and the wikidata box does not show me the taxon author. I don't like replication either, but on commons, the VN template provides a nice summary. JMK (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy either for or against the use of any of these templates, but I believe it is common sense that we shouldn't have duplicated links/information. The wikidata infobox contains a lot of information in a compact and non-intrusive form (by the way, the taxon author is there, at the bottom of the taxonomy section). Commons is primarily a repository of media - when I visit a category page, I am most often looking for images, not taxonomic or other info, and I imagine most other visitors to commons are there for exactly the same reason. But the templates, especially the VN template, can often take up more than half the page, and that's unnecessary clutter in my mind. The wikidata infobox is an excellent tool to overcome this. —  Junglenut | talk  09:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and if there is an item of detail that is missing and you think should be contained in the wikidata infobox you can always request for it to be included at the template's talk page —  Junglenut | talk  09:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't take such a strict view of it, except that in some species the VN template can indeed be unwieldy. To engage with wikidata users to add something I need is not worth my time. It's like saying: "wikipedia does not need pictures because because if you want pictures go to commons, and if you don't get right, discuss it with commons users until you are happy there." Rather, wikipedia pulls media from commons, as commons pulls data from wikidata, and all three are projects in own right. I only agree insofar as unnecessary replication and unwieldiness are concerned. Even then, these two don't inhibit users from finding media. Salgados Lagoon doesn't absolutely need a description, but there it is, and it's good. JMK (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see the dropdown. It would not have been possible to look for them in wikidata itself, which was my interpretation of what you meant, as one has to subscribe to which languages you want to see on wikidata. Still not sure if those VNs would show up in commons search results, but it is ok. JMK (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thats a good point about searching @JMK. I've just tried doing some image searches for a few different taxa, both within Commons and also using google & bing, and searching both english names and foreign names from Commons, and all the searches seem to be pretty good. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 23:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course that's far from a comprehensive test, but the results point in the right direction. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 23:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately there appears to be no uniformity on this issue as there appears to be many plant categories that do have those templates. It also implies that wikidata dictates to commons, a separate project, what names, classification, or included taxon names should be. In the case of Palhinhaea cernua, the vernacular names are only duplicated because I added them to wikidata. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of a dictatorial wikidata at all. JMK (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but not one I can ascribe to. The implication is that these sister projects are not trustworthy. When you say the vernacular names are only duplicated because I added them to wikidata, I say that's exactly how we should work. My primary goal in all this is to create wikipedia articles about the flora of my region, but to ensure they are of the best possible quality I add photos to commons and ensure the information on wikidata and wikispecies is up to date and complete. To isolate ourselves to a single project is, IMO, limiting the success of all projects. Taxon articles on wikipedia use a taxobox template which draws all it's content from wikidata, and pages on wikispecies have the same. The projects depend on each other, so when I work on a category page on commons, I always check and update wikidata at the same time. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 20:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Re the other matter you mentioned, that many categories have those templates, I'm sure that is because the individual templates were added manually by various users many years ago, whereas the wikidata infobox, which is clearly designed to replace the others, was added by a bot (mostly Pi bot I think) sometime around 2018, but it was not programmed to remove the older templates. Hence over time people became used to the idea that the category pages have all these templates. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 22:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Dracaena braunii and Dracaena sanderiana

Yes, PoWO now recognizes these as separate species, which the old WCSPF did not. But, as noted with a ref at en:Dracaena braunii, "Most plants named Dracaena braunii in cultivation are Dracaena sanderiana." It's difficult to be absolutely sure in all cases, but images labelled braunii with some reference to "lucky bamboo" are of D. sanderiana, since this is the species used in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead Thanks for that info. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 21:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that we don't need the taxonavigation templates, etc. when the Wikidata infobox is present. I don't edit much on Commons, so have been adding these templates based on other pages, but won't in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Removing taxonavigation bars

Hi Junglenut. Please do not remove the taxon navigation bar from categories (for example, Volkameria inermis). They provide usful navigation information for viewers and contributors. Alexander Abair (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Alexander Abair. All of that information - taxonomy, sister project links, external links, etc - is duplicated in the Wikidata infobox. The taxonav bar is now redundant. Please don't revert my edit 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 20:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

In the category I mentioned, they are not the same. I'll kindly request the same of you about reverting edits. Alexander Abair (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, you reverted my vernacular name box and geogroup box. Those are valuable additions as well. Alexander Abair (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, VN and geo are included in the wikidata infobox. That template was developed for the purpose of putting all of the information from these individual templates into one compact unobtrusive unit. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 20:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Concerning Category:Arthropoda in particular, Wikidata infobox does not list subtaxa (which you also removed). Additionally, Wikidata infobox only lists taxa with ranks, so it doesn't include clades like Panarthropoda, Protostomia, etc. (Perhaps this is something that can be changed with the infobox template though, tbf)

I don't know if you're one of these, but I've also been noticing that some people have this idea that Wikidata is more reliable or updated than Commons when it comes to the taxonavigation, but from my experience it is just as neglected in places, and it seems particularly vulnerable to drive-by editors making weird changes that don't actually have consensus when you look into the reasoning. (Like for instance Insecta (Commons cat, Wikidata item), which on Wikidata was changed from a class to a subclass based purely on WoRMS a while back ([1]): this proposed change in rank is not accepted in any other database nor in most current scientific papers still, so I had to restore Insecta's taxon rank to "class" as the preferred value over WoRMS' subclass rank) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes. Thanks for pointing that out about the subtaxa, I'll keep that in mind. I agree that Wikidata is neglected, I update items as I find them but there's so much to do there...🌳 Junglenut · Talk 19:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Lomatia milnerea

Category:Lomatia milnerea is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

Lomatia milnerae

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

---

Rose Abrams (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)