User talk:Trilletrollet

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Trilletrollet!

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) 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaean classification

Hi Trilletrollet - please stick with Linnaean classification (Ordo, Familia, etc.), not 'cladus', as cladus names are highly unfamiliar and not regularly formed. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Rank-based bird taxonomy is complete dogshit tbh. The IOC (and many others) now consider Caprimulgiformes to only include Caprimulgidae, while the other families have been moved to separate orders. I was just trying to bring this site up to date with the scientific consensus. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but IOC don't use fancy clade names that no-one has heard of or have a clue about what they mean; the others should be moved to Steatornithiformes, Nyctibiiformes, Podargiformes, etc., please - MPF (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Strisores is a pretty well-known name that is widely used in recent literature (please read it, it's very interesting). Also, since all of these orders are monotypic (containing only one family each), I didn't see any reason to have categories for both them and the families, since they're literally the same groups under different names.

I think I'll stay away from bird taxonomy from now on, if that makes you happy. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be well-known amongst researchers in the group; it isn't among the general public (and particularly relevant, isn't among bird photographers who might be adding photos to Commons). It also carries no indication of rank, nor any indication of its type genus. The orders may all be monofamilial in respect of living members, but there may well be fossil families that could make them polyfamilial, so the orders should be kept separate. It really is best to stick to the IOC classification, please! - MPF (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Yes, there are some fossil taxa that may be part of these groups (most of them are just tentatively placed there though). But if people want to add photos of the living birds, they can easily just add them to the family categories, which is where all the living taxa are located. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Ok, I have turned all of these orders into separate categories. Sorry for any mess I may have created by trying to update things. I hope you have a good Yule 🎄 (or whatever holiday you celebrate, idk) —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mange takk! Og glædelig Jul! - MPF (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanerpetidae vs Albanerpetontidae

I don't really care about you changing this on Commons, but could I ask you not to try to change this on enwiki? "Albanerpetontidae" is overwhelmingly more common in the academic literature than Albanerpetidae is, even among recent authors [1] [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Ok, whatever. Albanerpetontidae is grammatically wrong, but I guess modern palaeontologists don't care. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euchondrocephali vs. Holocephali

I appreciate your expansion and modification of Common's categories for extinct cartilaginous fish, although I've noticed that you are opting to use Lund & Grogan's Subclass Euchondrocephali and moving several images associated with iniops, eugeneodontid/formes and petalodontid/formes into this category. I'm currently working on an expansion of Wikipedia's article on Holocephali, and (at least Wikipedia's Wikiproject paleo) is in favor of aligning with Wikiproject fishes and using Holocephali to encompass all stem-group chimaeras (including the "paraselachians") rather than just holocephalimorphs, and treating Euchondrocephali as a redundant junior synonym. This is in-line with the classification in the 2016 edition of Fish of the World, which for extinct fishes is still generally considered to be the go-to for Wiki's higher level classification. I don't think separate categories for, for example, Holocephali fossils/skulls and Euchondrocephali fossils/skulls are warranted. Apologies for the sloppy categorization on many of my uploads, I'm not all that active on Commons and mostly just use it as an outlet to upload images as needed for Wikipedia proper. Gasmasque (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]