User talk:Orchi/archive 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search



Moin Orchi, kannst du mal dieses Bild in deine Beobachtungsliste nehmen? Da möchte jemand die Gattungskategorie mit aller Macht wiederhaben. ;-) --Olei 09:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Viola (plant)[edit]

Hi Orchi; Sorry for the English query, but I'm de-0. Anyhow, I am curious to know what was wrong with the Japanese interwiki.[1] I'm ja-0, so it could very well be wrong, but it looked ok to me. Wsiegmund 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you moved the link. I thought you deleted it. Wsiegmund 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it was in the proper place. "ja: (Nihongo) comes after nl: (Nederlands)", but I'm not an expert. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This interwiki link sorter looks useful.[2] Wsiegmund 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
M:Interwiki sorting order is the most complete link that I found. It doesn't seem to have been discussed much on Commons. I'm sorry to have cluttered your talk page with this information. Wsiegmund

Hello, Wsiegmund, thanks for your information. I thought to do the correct form in alphabetical sorting. I did'nt know the interwiki link sorter. In the future I will take this sorter for the correct form. Greetings! Orchi 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Language tags[edit]

I just would like to tell you about the tags for translations. Now we should use:

{{German text}} =>

Deutsch: German text

{{German text}} =>

Français : French text

{{German text}} =>

English: English text

... and so on.
With this system, it will be possible soon to hide the language tags that are not relevant for the reader, and to only present to him/her the tags that are in a language he/she understands.
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Alno, thanks for your note. I think, the vernacular names, especially in botany and zoology are an important information and a good possibility to search a species by native languages. I inserted and insert these names very extensive.

As many other users, I prefer by writing these names the compact side by side form.

The disadvantage of this form:

Asturianu: Raitán
Беларуская: заранка
Български: Червеногръдка
Čeština: Červenkas obecná
Cymraeg: Robin Goch
Dansk: Rødhals
Deutsch: Rotkehlchen
English: European Robin
Esperanto: Rugxgorgxulo
Español: Petirrojo
Suomi: Punarinta
Français : Rouge-gorge européen
Frysk: Readboarstke
עברית: אדום חזה
Ido: Redpektoro
Italiano: Pettirosso
日本語: ヨーロッパコマドリ(ロビン)
Lietuvių: Liepsnelė
Latviešu: Sarkanrīklīte
Nederlands: Roodborst
Norsk bokmål: Rødstrupe
Polski: Rudzik
Português: Pisco de peito ruivo
Română: guşă-roşie
Русский: Зарянка
Slovenščina: taščica
Svenska: Rödhake
Türkçe: Kızılgerdan

is, that there is only the writing possibility among one another (??) - a very good way for information e.g. in sentences. By many vernacular names of very known species you open in a collection of multimedia data a nearly empty page. Are you able to construct the

Français : french text

- tag side by side? I also try and test according to the rules (e.g. Luscinia megarhynchos and other pages) to find a good versions. Greeting. Orchi 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I was not aware of this need. Here is my proposal: it is possible and rather simple to add a centered table to enhance the layout:
Asturianu: Raitán
Беларуская: заранка
Български: Червеногръдка
Čeština: Červenkas obecná
Cymraeg: Robin Goch
Dansk: Rødhals
Deutsch: Rotkehlchen
English: European Robin
Esperanto: Rugxgorgxulo
Español: Petirrojo
Suomi: Punarinta
Français : Rouge-gorge européen
Frysk: Readboarstke
עברית: אדום חזה
Ido: Redpektoro
Italiano: Pettirosso
日本語: ヨーロッパコマドリ(ロビン)
Lietuvių: Liepsnelė
Latviešu: Sarkanrīklīte
Nederlands: Roodborst
Norsk bokmål: Rødstrupe
Polski: Rudzik
Português: Pisco de peito ruivo
Română: guşă-roşie
Русский: Зарянка
Slovenščina: taščica
Svenska: Rödhake
Türkçe: Kızılgerdan
If this method is OK for you (I hope so), let me know. If you have any suggestions to improve it, I will also be glad to hear from you :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I forgot to answer about the need to put the templates aside from each other. I think this is possible by adding a keyword option to the template, like the 'thumb' keyword in images: for example : 'inline' {{ en | Your English text | inline }} but this is a bit tricky and I have to test it further before enabling this feature. I'll tell you when it's done.
-- AlNo (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour, Alno, thanks for your notices. I will answer as soon as possible. Greetings. Orchi 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I try, to formulate my vision of a good verinicular-names concept. First, the form you used at last, is in my opinion not bad, but I think it is not easy to create and to keep actually. Perhaps look you here Erithacus rubecula. This box is very easy to create, to handle, looks out very good (90% fonts!) and shoud be side by side. I saw, you are an expert in software engineering. Are you able to construct a box like "template:lan" as "template:lan2" (or else), only in side by side form?? I look forward to hear from you. Greetings Orchi 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Orchi,
Well, I've tried a few things and the results are:
  • it seems to be possible to add a 'inline' keyword to each language template so that the same lang template can be used either inline or not
  • there is no mean to build a "lan2" template that would dynamically transform the way it displays the templates that are inside it. For exemple, if you do: {{lan2| {{en|text}}{{fr|texte}}...}} you cannot make the lan2 template add a 'inline' keyword to each template inside it.
As a conclusion, I would think that we can use either the table layout if we want to keep the vernacular names at the top of the pages without beeing too long, or use the 'lan' template to get the vernacular names in a box on the side of the page. In both cases, I'd prefer the lang templates with the complete lang name, as it is easier to recognise for people that do not know the lang codes, and as other lang templates are progressively deprecated.
You also may have a look at User:Dbenbenn/monobook.css, it is an exemple of stylesheet that allows a user to see only the english descriptions.
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Alno, I see, you are very busy writing templates. I believe, with your knowledges we will find a good way. Unfortunately I did not understand the funktion of the 'inline' keyword. Also I looked at the 'template:Description' and saw your supplementations, but I could it not transform in reality (you pardon me). Could you give me an example in an article? Thanks und greetings. Orchi 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a problem of page caching: on {{en}} and {{es}}, where I added the inline parameter, the example is OK when you are not logged in, but when you are logged in, the caching system shows you the old version where the inline parameter is not used.
Note also that any non null value can be given to the 'inline' parameter. For example, something like {{es|Español texto|inline=si}} is strictly equivalent to {{es|Español texto|inline=yes}}:
Español: Español texto
Español: Español texto
Now the job to do is to add the inline parameter to all the lang templates...
Best regards,
-- AlNo (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Alno, j' ai compris, so I hope. I tested your "inline key" in the 'template:de' and it was perfekt. I placed back the test. In the moment many thanks for your very good action. The troubles, you see, I do not know in the moment. Greeting. Orchi 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orchi, thanks for your message on my talk page.
It seems that {{el}}, {{de}} and {{zh}} are now fixed.
About the interwiki link sorting tools, I'm afraid that I did'nt know about it. All the job I did about changing the language templates was done manually :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (talk: fr/en/es/pt) 09:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the categories from the Aristolochia californica image?[edit]

Why did you remove the categories from the Aristolochia californica image? KP Botany 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

..because the species of the picture is identified and has a "home" in this article: Aristolochia californica. Greetings. Orchi 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The species was already identified when I added the categories. Please post the policy that says categories must be removed when a species is identified. KP Botany 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
if you enjoy, put the picture in the categories, you want.Orchi 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The guidance at COM:TOL#Images is "Images that are known with certainty to represent a particular species should appear in the species article, and not be categorized in any of the taxa categories." That way, it is easier to find the images of biota that have yet to be identified. Best wishes, Wsiegmund 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Wsiegmund, thanks for your information. Greetings. Orchi 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images[edit]

The two images appear identical but listed as two different species as well as over here [[3]]. Perhaps the one that has been misidentified can be marked for deletion. cheers Shyamal 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Shyamal, thank you very much for your attention. Of course it was my error. I uploaded the right picture with the right name and overwrited the wrong version. For better idenification I uploaded a further picture of Coryanthes mastersiana. Greetings Orchi 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks I like the result, only other Commons loaded orchidea images are Image:Caladenia 01 gnangarra.jpg Image:Diuris 03 gnangarra.jpg I'll go through my collection of images but from memory these and a few additional images of the same or nearby plants are all that I have of native WA orchids, spring last year was not a good year, very little winter rains. I found very few orchids in the time I spent wandering through the bush, maybe this year will be better. Gnangarra 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: template:Taxonavigation[edit]

Hallo! Ich habe im Prinzip einfach das Template:Taxonav-System in einem Template zusammengefügt, die Funktionsweise sollte demnach identisch sein. Da ich mich beim Erstellen des Templates verzählt habe funktionierten auch nur 9 Taxostufen, das sollte jetzt aber auch funktionieren. Falls Du mit dem Befehl zum Weiterleiten das "<br style="clear:both">" gemeint hast, das habe ich erst mal weggelassen, da es auch ohne zu funktionieren scheint. Falls Probleme auftreten kann es natürlich in das Template integriert werden. Zu Deiner Bitte: Meinst Du so wie es z.B. hier zu sehen ist? Das sollte machbar sein, ich schau mal was ich tun kann! Gruß, Conti| 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Es sollte jetzt so sein, das "Species" und "Genus" jeweils die Spezies bzw. das Genus in kursiv ausgeben. --Conti| 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ups, das war ein kleiner Flüchtigkeitsfehler meinerseits. Sollte gefixt sein. Danke! --Conti| 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category removal[edit]

Hello. When you edited Image:GlyceriaFluitans1.jpg you accidentally removed the category[4]. I have already fixed it, but please be careful in the future. When you remove categories you make images harder to find via our search tools. Thanks for your attention. --Gmaxwell 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I think each picture ca be found with the tool. --Orchi 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting tool by the way. Found a picture which was not in an article and a category except GFDL, CC-BY-SA-2.5,2.0,1.0 and Self-published work. --BerndH 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps you can identify this one. Danke. Shyamal 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Lily_flower.jpg

Hello, Shyamal, sorry, I can not help. But I asked User:Denisoliver (in german WP). He is expert in Lilium. Greetings Orchi 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely not a true lily, i.e. a species of the genus Lilium. All lilies have tepals almost identical in colour, shape and size and blue is never present as a colour in a Lilium-flower. I have asked Franz Xaver, I am sure he can help. Denisoliver 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I am quite sure, that this is Neomarica, but I cannot tell with certainty which species this is. It could be Neomarica northiana, but also Neomarica gracilis looks similar. --Franz Xaver 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Franz Xaver, besten Dank für Deine Hilfe. Ich habe Shyamal eine Notiz zukommen lassen. Grüßé Orchi 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • P.S. Dank auch an Denis!
As most species of Neomarica are native to Brazil, I tried Flora Brasiliensis, where these species can be found in the genus Cypella. As you can see with highest resolution of the photo, that the base of the perigon is shortly, but densely puberulent, this should be Neomarica northiana. --Franz Xaver 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I am trying to be consistent with wikispecies[5], eg
Superregnum: Eukarya
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Superphylum: Deuterostomia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclassis: Tetrapoda
Classis: Aves
Subclassis: Carinatae
Infraclassis: Neornithes
Parvclassis: Neognathae
Ordo: Coraciiformes
Familia: Upupidae
It appeared useful to include that level to sort out one branch of birds, so I included it across all Ava categories to be consistent :-) --Tony Wills 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in helping start a Wikiproject:Birds (or Wikiproject:Ava) like the wikiproject Commons:WikiProject Mammals under Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life? I notice the other projects don't seem to be moving very fast so there may not be a lot of people involved in this either, but I would like to define standard structures and things so people know where to add their pictures and where to find them. --Tony Wills 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
At present I try to find the good way of organizing in order to Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life especially in plants and sometimes in zoological articles. Greetings Orchi 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)



I hope all of them! ;) I recategorized based on the information given with each picture. I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm afraid I can't verify if such information is correct or not. Greetings, PatríciaR discussão 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I must say that reviewing process is assuming that the person who uploaded the pictures in the first place might have been wrong in assigning the species names. I assume when someone calls a frog Litoria splendida, that person knows the frog is a Litoria splendida. I view such a "review process" as not compatible with the wiki spirit. When categorizing species, I always did it when the information on the picture was enough. I assume the uploader knows what species it is, I am not guessing anything here, just using the info that comes with the pictures. Greetings! PatríciaR discussão 11:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank for your answer. As you, I assume, that a person, who upload a picture of an animal or a plant with scientific name, that he normally knows the name of the species. In your example of Litoria splendida was during uploading for this species no article existent. Another user created short time later the according article. I am also no expert in "frogs", but when I find a unclassified picture with a scientific name, I try to create an article or I put the picture in the Species article. Here ist in my opinion the best oppurtunity for "real" experts to dispose about the correct sorting without big time exposure. I would be glad, if your commons actions will be in the future near at the Project: Tree of life. There are, I believe, many picture in the Familia Hylidae with scientific names, which are waiting for an article or a "home" in the Species article. Perhaps it will enjoy you. :) Greetings Orchi 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I finally understood what I was doing wrong. Apparently, attributed species should go in species categories, not the genus, right? I can start correcting it when I have the time (I may request the use of AutoWikiBrowser to help with that, so I will not do it very soon). However, from what I read in Project: Tree of life discussion, everybody has their own ideas about categorizing... Anyway, thanks for your help :). PatríciaR discussão 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, PatríciaR, unfortunately there are different opinions, also in "Tree of life". Some people prefer categories for species. The most people in animals and plants prefer at last position of the taxonomy the article. That also my position. It's a frequent to change the scientific name. For example in this case, only the name of the article must be have a new name and not each image. Greetings Orchi 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

template:zh in Commons[edit]

Hello, EDUCA33E, I tried (without knowledge in software) to change in Commons the "template:zh" for the inline function. It had not success. Can you help?? Merci! Orchi 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a
中文: test
that works ???... I have only suppress the carriage return between </includeonly>and <noinclude>. Do you have alway the problem ? Cordially, Educa33e 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Merci bien!! All in function. Greetings Orchi 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, EDUCA33E, just I saw your new "(Semi-automatic own script ~ Retouche)" here: Ophrys incubacea. Long time I had waited for the "inline" version for commons names of plants and animals. Is your new script also for "inline". Greeting Orchi 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a kind of inline parameter in the new template {{Translation table}}... Is the result correct ?
With inline 
Deutsch: Schwarze Ragwurz
Français : Ophrys noir
Without inline 
Deutsch: Schwarze Ragwurz
Français : Ophrys noir
Long text inline 
Deutsch: Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz Schwarze Ragwurz
Français : Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir Ophrys noir
Latina: In ea propinqua silva, audisne cuculum...?
Cordially, Educa33e 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, EDUCA33E, now I am at home again. I will try to explain my remarks. Last night my first impression of Ophrys incubacea was probably the same feeling, as User:BerndH feeled looking at the artcle Ophrys. The intensiv coloured box crushed the little images in the galleries. In the articles of plants and animals the common names (vernacular names) are a part of information next to the taxonomy. In my opinion the lan - inline version is in the moment the best form for the common names. (not for other informations. There is your box very good and useble.) In earlier discussions on my page I said, that the old uncoloured "template:lan" in "inline" would be the best result for common names; also in fonts with 95%. The "template:lan" had and has the disadvantage, that the good lookout begins by monitors with at least 1280 × 1024. These impressions first. I believe, we will further have contacts to reach an optimal result for "our" Commons. Greetings Orchi 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I add a width parameter to {{Lan}} (default to 180px).
What do you think of the new proposal => show Ophrys incubacea
This render :
Corsu: Ufridi niriccia
Deutsch: Schwarze Ragwurz
Français : Ophrys noir
on the top of the article. Cordially Educa33e 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, EDUCA33E, back again I see you are very busy. I find your work (form and fonts) is nearly perfect. If you could test a light or very light gray background, I think, it should be the best answer to the optical question. Then the colours of the pictures stay in foreground. Merci bien!! Greetings Orchi 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Super, I find, it's perfect. Now I put it in some examples under the taxonavigation, the scientific name and the scientific synonyms. So also is the hyphen between text and pictures redundant. Greetings! Orchi 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, EDUCA33E, I hope, you are not angry with me. Searching perfectness, please habe a look at the following article: Erithacus rubecula . Until later.Orchi

... may I produce further samples and questions? Greetings Orchi

There is absolutly no problem. It is really a great pleasure... Educa33e 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Translation table}} default sort order[edit]

Hello, EDUCA33E, do you know these two pages? M:Interwiki sorting order and [6]. With this tool I sort the interwikis in Commons. Now I saw that your translation table sort automaticly likewise. Only a few languages are not in this order. I sorted your template against the Interwiki sorting order. Can I give you the sorted text on your page or can I give the file in the template? Orchi 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes ! Sure ! Without problem... One goal of {{Translation table}} is to have the good order by default.... Don't hesitate ! Cordially, Educa33e 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

.....that was not good! Orchi 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have set the template on your last version. The sorting must be correct, but perhaps you look, which was my error. By the way, a short little while ago I noticed, that the "lan:co" and"lan:nds" are still absent. Greetings. Orchi 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...good night. Orchi 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think, I correct the template (no carriage return between each line for language code). I correct {{nds}} for the inline purpose and I add {{co}} (I hope in the good position). Cordially, Educa33e 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to quit now. So I pass the relay ;). I will see for {{wa}} tomorrow... Enjoy... Grüße. Educa33e 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Orchi, just to say that you and Educa33 did a great job with the template {{Translation table}} :)
From now i'll use it everywhere...
Kind regards,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Passer domesticus[edit]

I take it from your edit that the international box didn't display well on your browser. What browser and screen resolution are you using. I would really like to find a way to have the international translations in a box on the right hand side - the main trouble I have is that the pictures sometimes overlap the language box. --Tony Wills 12:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see discussions about this sort of thing immediately above this message. I find the 100% wide box with all the translations run together very hard to read, one translation per line, and floating to the right of the gallery would be perfect :-) --Tony Wills 12:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The box on the right hand side are not correct next by the pictures, if the monitor are unter 1280 × 1054. Therefore the aim to place the vernacular names at the head of the page. If you do not can read the inline Version, ist is shurly possible to enlarge the fonts. Orchi 14:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My problem with the inline version is not the font size. The problem is the jumble of words it produces, no structure, difficult to scan for the language you want. It is much better with one language per line. The Passer domesticus page was fine down to 1024x768 resolutions, but there are problems with 800x600 or 640x480! resolutions. I have experimented with many other things in the Passer category, I am discussing them over on talk :-) --Tony Wills 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
"The problem is the jumble of words" is according to: [[7]]. This information is ony for the vernacular names. For the Wikipedia language must be used the interwiki links. These are left of the pages. The browsers Firefox and Opera are ok. with the resolution 1280×1054, not in 1054×768. I also had tested it with other Commons users. Therefore User:Educa33e was very busy to construct this decent tool. I think, the information of the vernacular names is important (I supported it in hundreds of pages), but I always see the main aim of Commons articles: To see as soon as possible the images and other media informations. Orchi 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey, Du Nachteule. Einfach nur viele Grüße ;-) --Überraschungsbilder 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


thank you! This is the one I prefer

Ophrys exaltata zingaro 112.jpg

--Esculapio 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

--Esculapio 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
...I try to ask some specialists for the "Ophrys holoserica" and tell you the result. The picture no. 106 I have turned as test. Greetings Orchi 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I did'nt know, that you had classified the "OphrysSconosciutaFiore".

Not Hong Kong Orchid[edit]

Hello Orchi (i'm new here, i hope this page is the right place to talk). You told me i was wrong about the Hong Kong Orchid and i trust you, as you seem to know a lot about flowers :) , but i have no idea what this flower really is (i found "Hong Kong Orchid" in Google Images, which look really similar to this one). Do you have any clue, in order to re-name the picture ? Thanks Odessa3

Problem solved ! :) I renamed the file to Bauhinia Blakeana closeup. Thank you for pointing out my mistake ;) Odessa3

Hello Odessa3, I found your very fine picture in the wrong family of plants. I see, you was very successfull in specifying the flower. Greetings Orchi 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but KP Botany deserves all the credit for finding the flower's name ;) Odessa3


Hi Orchi
From what I saw in Category:Plantaginaceae, You propagate the Strasburger Classification and the APG II.
I never heard of Strasburger classif and could only find reference in the german wiki.
Is it a classical classif or a phylogenic one?
Do you know a well known site following it that I could use?
My idea with double {{Taxonavigation}} was to have:

  • one classical classification (For exemple Cronquist 1981 or 1988 which is simple because follows it (it is french wiki classical classsification))
  • one phylogenetic classification (APG II is obviously used in all wiki)

But there are a lot of Strasburger classif in commons. I don't know why. Does it come from the german wiki?
Liné1 19:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw you response in {{Taxonavigation}}. We have the same idea on double Taxonavigation. But we still need to find what classical classification is the reference in commons.
By the way I have seen you transform [[Category:Muscicapidae]] in [[Category:Ficedula|mugimaki]]. That is very cool. But I think that [[Category:Ficedula|Mugimaki]] is prefered. That way Ficedula mugimaki would be classified under M, not m. (sorry, it only a detail ;-))
Cheers Liné1 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Liné1, thanks for your notice. I'm glad to see, that we prefer in taxonavigation the same way. The way of the french Wikipedia to list the classic and the phylogenetic classification in the taxoboxes is in my opinion the best way to avoid differences between the different conceptions.

And now to your questions:

  • After your first AGP II taxonavigation I tried to use the term "classic" for the traditional classification (like french WP). The conception of "Strasburger" is now and in the past the way of using by user:Brya. I trusted in his knowledge. The differences between "Strasburger" and "Cronquist" I do'nt know exactly, but I hope we find a good way.
  • Ficedula mugimaki: analogue to the rules of nomenclature I sort the Genera under capital letters and the Species under small letters. Greetings Orchi 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, Orchi,

see user talk:Liné1#Taxonavigation (again). Best, Brya 06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bufo bufo[edit]

Hi, I'm just doing a bit of cleanup, came across the non-existent Category:Bufo bufo. Now, I think that this is a valid category, and would probably come under Category:Bufo. However, I'm not sure. Can you help, and perhaps add the right cat? Thanks a lot! Deadstar 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Deadstar, thanks for your notice. There are different opinions to create categories. My personal opinion is against the rules of the wikiproject "Tree of life" (ToL): At the end of the taxonomy classification of plants and animals only to use the article. In the most cases is this the species. Above the species the category is senseful and useful. When you see the category "Bufo" there is in the moment each species very quickly to find. But I think you are right, that the article "Bufo bufo" is a little unstructured. Perhaps it is helpful to sort the pictures in the article under: female, male, young etc. Greetings Orchi 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response, and based on that, I think I'll leave it (and any others to do with taxonomy etc.) for someone who knows about the ToL project. Kind regards, Deadstar 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Brya, I think you are right to use the existing classifications. For the most user of commons a test proposal under Category:Bromeliaceae. In this case a senseful head-line should be found. Greetings. Orchi 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Orchi,
Yes, I think that is neat! Brya 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


why? --Emijrp 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Emijrp, there is under the wikiproject "Tree of Life" the rule after classification of an botanical or zoological image to put it under the species name. Unclassified images are in the next higher taxonomy - classification. It is an giant work to controll every image in a higher classification whether it is on the right place in the correct species - information. ( for example to look for new images to classify). This rule is surely only useful in the botanic and zoologic, where exist rules of classifications. Have you a way to find unclassified pictures under (for example) genus category? Greetings Orchi 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know nothing about botanica, but if you have a problem for to control every uncategorized botanical/zoological image, I don't understand why this problem doesn't exist for other 1,500,000 images in Commons.

For example:

All categories in Commons (except botanical/zoological, and I don't know why) are being used for to categorize images. If your project needs categories for all those images that are unclassified, why don't you create Category:Unclassified botanical images? And some subcategories if this is very very big. Regards. --Emijrp 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, say me a category where you want to find unclassified pictures and it is hard. I want to suffer the problem for to understand it. --Emijrp 21:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rules of this accepted WikiProject: Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life, especially under Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life#Images. An identified and classified image can be sorted either in a category or better in an article. (Scientific names often are changed against newest scientific knowledges)

To your question:

For example, what I mean: Which of the images of this category Category:Malvaceae are botanical correct identified and which images are not botanical classified? That's to controll again and again for building an scientific useful taxonomy (without a bot!) is doing for hundreds of hours. Orchi 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is easy. You open the images and see the information under Uploader name:
But ok, good luck with your project. Regards. --Emijrp 07:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ophrys tenthredinifera Mallorca 01.jpg
Hello, Emijrp, thanks for your understanding for the botanical and zoological projects. The way, you signed is ok, but very, very hard (to look again and again). I think we both try to find a good way to make commons to an phantastic and also scientific senseful database. Greetings to Spain. Orchi 09:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orchideen pics in massen[edit]

Hallo Orchi, danke für die "bereinigung" bei den Orchideen-pics. aber ich hab die mit Communist in Massen hochgeladen. die warteten schon lang zum hochladen. aber zur weiterbearbeitung komme ich nicht mehr heute und wohl auch nicht in den nächsten tagen. sind einige arten dabei die noch nicht im commons sind. die artnamen müßten stimmen hab sie auf gültigkeit mit kew überprüft. bei der ausstellung hatten doch viele die falschen schilder dran. für die ich keine überstimmung mit kew herstellen konnte hab ich auch nicht hochgeladen. z.B. ein Phragmipedium schroderae falsch abgeschrieben oder falsch dort gestanden. herzliche grüsse. --BotBln 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, BotBln, wie Du siehst, versuche ich schon zu sortieren und nach "Tree of Life" zu ordnen. Ich habe die Namen natürlich erst einmal übernommen, da ich sowohl beim botanischen Garten Berlin und Dir von einer "sicheren Quelle" ausgehe. Im Moment versuche ich lediglich die vermutliche Naturhybride zwischen Paphiopedilum concolor und Paphiopedilum bellatulum in ein gültiges oder nachvollziehbares Schema zu bringen. Viele Grüße Orchi 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm ob das eine Naturhybride ist - keine ahnung - da würde ich nicht zwingend davon ausgehen. Zu den Namen in diesem Fall die stammen von den einzelnen Ausstellern auf der Orchideenausstellung. Schon deshalb hab ich alle überprüft nach der einzigen vernünftigen Quelle in diesem Fall "Kew" bei der ja entschieden wurde ob etwas gültig ist oder synonym ist. was z.B. bei w3tropicos nicht der fall ist (mich wundert das immer wenn leute w3tropicos verwenden und dann das problem haben selbst einscheiden zu müssen welcher der angebenen namen gültig ist, was wohl nur ganz wenige user in der WP können. “tree of life” ist sicher nicht gleichgut wie kew bei den Orchideenartnamen. herzliche grüsse. --BotBln 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Why did you "repair" Crotalus? There are currently pages for each of the species and images in it, so it's completely redundant. --Jwinius 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good day, Jwinius! In many genera of animals and flowers exist an article for diverses informations, like common names, synonyms, etc. Besides it is an useful overview about the species of a genus. I took over this senseful method of Commons information of experts, which are competent activ in the project "Tree of Life". Greetings Orchi 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Hey Orchi,

I really like your picture of that Short-toed Eagle. It's awesome. I'm wondering what syntax you used to get the info box with its scientific name under it. I'd like to use the same thing for my Osprey but when I go to edit your page so I can copy the syntax, it says the page is deleted. Any ideas?

Hello, I changed the description of your wonderful picture. Do you mean so? Long time ago I copied this way of description from a polish user for all my pictures. Greetings Orchi 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

cat indexed[edit]

Greetings. Yesterday I categorized a bunch of images as being in the Veronica genus. I see that you modified them to use Category:Veronica (cat indexed). When should I use a "cat indexed" category? (I'd like to do it right the first time, of course, and not leave some work to be fixed by others.) All the best, Quadell (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, thank you for creating some genera categories in the Tree of life. I think you accept my good work in the past and in the future to the best of commons. For a part of your notice above I need translation help by a good friend of mine. (damit ich die sprachlichen Feinheiten nicht beim Lesen unberücksichtigt lasse.) All the best, Orchi 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Guten Tag. (Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut, aber ich versuche.) Ich sehe dass Sie "Veronica" bis "Veronica (cat indexed)" hier anderten. Ich moechte Sachen richtig tun. Wann sollte ich schreiben "cat indexed" und wann sollte ich nicht das schreiben? Vielen Dank, Quadell (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I tried a way to get a better overview of the Genera categories. Greetings Orchi 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Amplexus of Bufo bufo[edit]

Español: Hola! Te escribo para comentarte una cosa sobre las fotos del amplexus de Bufo bufo. Según el Doctor Pedro Galán, herpetólogo y profesor titular de la Universidade da Coruña, que me acompañaba cuando realicé esas fotos, pertenecen a un sapo de la especie Bufo bufo o sapo común.

English: Hi! I write for tell a thing about the photos of amplexus of Bufo bufo . According to Doctor Pedro Galán, herpetologistic and titular professor of the Universidade da Coruña (University of Corunna), that accompanied to me when I made those photos, belong to a toad of the specie Bufo bufo or common toad.

--Drow male 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hola, Drow male! I saw, that you had classified your images to the article of Bufo bufo. I hoped, an expert would sort the pictures from the genus to a species. Thank you and great success in your project. Greetings Orchi 23:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello Orchi,
I just saw this modification you made on a taxonavigation.
You can put the taxon's author name with the parameter authority=
Could you also let the taxa of the current article/category in the taxonavigation (In this case, Scleractinia should be in the taxonavigation)?
Like this: my correction.
Thanks a lot (and sorry if you already now all this).
Cheers Liné1 (or fr:Liné1) 11:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Salut Liné1,
thank's for your information. Your example is from the time, when the "authority=" - version was'nt created. In the meantime I use only the new version and when I see it, I correct my old method (except for Species - for example: Digitalis lutea - and my favorite version of some Genus articles - for examlpe Digitalis - ). In the first case I wait for finding a solution to end the discussion between the use of articles and/or categories in the Project "Tree of Life". Until today nobody can give a "Special watchlist" for categories to check new or unclassified pictures. In the second case it is an optical question for me. The Headline (Lemma) should not be smaller than the subtitles.
By the way: First I also had the opinion to set the Taxonavigation on the top of the page. But some users (without preference of plants and animals) find, that for the normal user of Commons the vernacular names of the countries are more important. I took over this conception. A bientot. Orchi 16:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Danke, Orchi ...[edit]

Ich vergesse das immer wieder und du machst es jedesmal für mich, vielen Dank dafür. Denis Barthel 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Denis, ich freue mich immer über Deine neuen Artikel und schaue gern nach neuen Arten. Bis bald. Viele Grüße Orchi 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentiana frigida[edit]

Gentiana frigida Orchi 03.jpg Gentiana frigida Orchi 04.jpg - das ist keine Gentiana frigida Haenke. Selso 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Selso, danke für den Hinweis. Ich hatte keine Literatur zu Verfügung. Ich habe den botanischen Namen vom Schild im botanischen Garten Hamburg übernommen. Kannst Du Pflanze bestimmen? Vielen Dank und viele Grüße Orchi 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Protea laetans[edit]

Hi Orchi. Could you please rename File:Protea laetans to Protea laetans. I screwed it up. Many thanks Andrew massyn 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew massyn, I think it is solved by BerndH. Greeting Orchi 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll send him a message. Andrew massyn 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation table[edit]

Why you delete translation table from Category:Bougainvillea? ~ putnik 13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Putnik, against my opinion "Category for navigation" and "Article for information", I created the translation table in the new genus article of the Bougainvillea. I think, it is not a rule in Commons, but I find, it's a good way to argument for the existance of articles and categories. If you want, I revert my changes.

By the way, yesterday I wanted to say thanks for you. I am enjoyed about your changes in the "template: Translation table" . This tool is become better again. I think, you are expert in wiki-software. My question to you: Can you change the software in the way, that the complete name goes with automatic word wrap at the right end of side? For example:
"Genus: Bougainvillea Comm. ex Juss. (1789)"
and not "Genus: Bougainvillea Comm.
ex Juss. (1789)

I hope you understand my wish and excuse my simple description please, but my english is not the best. Greeting! Orchi 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My English not very good too. =) I added nowrap for "authority". Now it looks better? ~ putnik 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Putnik, it looks better. And now the next wish in way to perfection: Could you implement, that not only "authority" but also the last name of taxonomy and the according scientific name have an automatic word rap always? For example:
"Genus: Bougainvillea Comm. ex Juss. (1789)". Greetings Orchi 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's hard (impossible?) to do this without template complication. But I'll think about it later. ~ putnik 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


I mean Baccharis linearis, that I self cultivate in my own garden, it is very easy in Chile, many page recently have been using this plate (unidentified?) --c 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Penarc, can you give a help to me please, which pictures you mean; perhaps a link. Greetings Orchi 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


see link "carqueja" --Penarc 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I created the article Baccharis articulata against your article in the spanish WP and removed the "Unidentified" Category from your picture. Greetings Orchi 20:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)- as you know this image represents B.linearis, a taxon from Chile, maybe a self category woud be better

--Penarc 02:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Greetings Orchi –it is not the best image we have, but I wanted to award you in some way :-) Your categorization for The Botanical Magazine's orchids was a great idea. I will base a few more categories on it, when I can fill them. Regards, Cygnis insignis 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Cygnis insignis, much thanks for your nice letter. Yesterday I found your wonderful pictures of Caladenia. I love these pretty and bizarre flowers. Unfortunately I have no literature about australian orchids. I dont know the name of this species. (Perhaps Caladenia patersonii ??) I will ask User:BerndH. I think, he can help.
The complexity of The Botanical Magazine is very voluminous. Only the orchids are 1176 pictures. I think, it is sensefull to create Categories or Articles of the families.
Under Botanical illustrations (Orchidaceae) I had compiled some pictures of orchids. I hope, that many illustrations of old books will grace our Commons. Greetings! Orchi 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. It is from the w:Southwest Botanical Province, one of 182 current species of Caladenia found there. Maybe Caladenia longicauda...? totally guessing. Cheers, Cygnis insignis 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this, save me the bother. I will let you know when the work is transcribed, it is a good read. Regards, Cygnis insignis 01:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned Pictures[edit]

Hi, Orchi. Yes, sometimes I pick up a picture and make a clean version of it. My only tool is GIMP, the Gnu Image manipulation program. I have only a basic knowledge of it, but this is enough for this kind of task. Mostly, I use the magic selection tool to remove most of the background, and then clean what remains by hand. Frédéric 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Link text[edit]

Hi, I am trying to work out what generates [[link-text]], it appears to be inserted accidently into pages as a side effect of some edit operations, eg your edit [8]. Is there a button or js script that generates this? --Tony Wills 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tony Wills, I don't Know, what I made there. Pardon, it was an error by me. Just I had created "template:ta" for the translation tabel. Greetings. Orchi 11:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I've noticed in several of your contributions that you copy an article content in its category description when this category has the same name (example). Do you know of some guidelines (or just talks) that would recommend this ? Personally, I don't think this is desirable: this clutters the category page with redundant images (example) and adds the category as a sub-category of itself. I'd like to undo these changes but I'd like to know your opinion, and possible objections, first. — Xavier, 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Xavier, after the "war" (User und Bot: Quadell) between pro and contra of articles and categories for plants and animals, I tried to find a way of "peace" in the project Tree of Life. The kind of my used combi-form I had seen in the past using by another user. I thought, with changing some parts of the syntax-software, it could be a way of reasonable use. I saw the following advantages: Interwikis, Taxonomy and the international common names of animals and plants must be eddited only once. Also for identification of all under the same name uploaded pictures of species you have the same page. I wanted to put this kind of presentation to discussion. In the meantime user TonyWills had my test proposal reverted. Greetings. Orchi 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Orchi, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I agree there are advantages to your idea but there are also strong drawbacks (already mentionned above). One way to get around those may be to put <noinclude> markups here and there in the gallery but that's a bit tedious. A better way could be to include another sub-page, as Tony proposes below, but anyway, this must be discussed first. — Xavier, 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the inclusion of the whole article page with {{:Bubo africanus}} is completely wrong, articles and categories have different purposes and there is no point to this sort of inclusion. --Tony Wills 10:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I could not find any discussion of this inclusion practice, and have not noticed it before (let me know where else you have seen it and I will undo it ;-). For discussion one example would probably be sufficient, 100 examples seems a bit excessive :-). If you want to propose this as a new format, I am happy to contribute to the discussion and revert my edits if it is agreed as a new format. The idea of having the same info automatically included on both articles and categories has some merit, and could be done by having a separate sub-page with those descriptions that could be included in both pages. But personally I do not think categories really actually need any description or taxo-navigation info. Categories are for navigating to either image pages or the article page for the species, and it is those pages that need to have descriptions.
  • I do not think the idea will bring 'peace' to the article/category disagreement, it produces a messy page with duplication of images and does not address the problem. --Tony Wills 08:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this idea of common sub-pages. Actually, I agree with everything you said except one thing: the whole purpose of taxonavigation is (presently) to navigate among categories therefore this is one thing I would keep in category descriptions. Vernacular names may be useful too in cat. desc. but at a lesser degree. — Xavier, 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A present for you[edit]

Here you are. Hesperian 01:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, Hesperian, thanks for the pretty painting of Caleana major. Unfortunately the picture is topsyturvy (This rare word I found in a dictionary). Greetings Orchi 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice. Someone else has fixed it now. Hesperian 04:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"cat indexed"[edit]

What are the purpose of all the "(cat indexed)" categories that you have created (eg Category:Cypripedium (cat indexed), Category:Paphiopedilum (cat indexed) ? --Tony Wills 12:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the accepted form for categorized pictures of families (egCategory:Urticaceae (Indexed)) I completed in the genus only the definition "cat".Orchi 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. I do appreciate you have been doing a lot of good work, and apologise if it looks like I am trying to undo it :-) --Tony Wills 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Opening a genus page with many species, users find at once (without scrolling) a identified and controlled information in the sorted species articles. The species articles here are controlled by some users. The species categories (also in orchids) is not a sure information. Not without any reason the connection of the international WPs leads to species articles mostly. I suppose, if I had done my experiment "combi" with articles, you had found it the same day. Just I found a new mislabeled picture in a orchid species article. Would this picture uploaded only in a species category, I had only a little chance to find it with the common tools in the moment. I think to concentrate my work in orchids. Without clear-cut rules in commons the discussions (with many effort) will not end. By the way, also I think as you: Categories for navigation and articles for information. If you please don't change the way of "cat indexed" in the moment until a better way is found. Orchi 09:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Orchi, I've read this several times and I still do not understand the purpose of this category scheme. At a glance, I doubt this is the right way to do. I do not want you to waste your time explaining again and again, and here again, I wish some discussion or consensus could be read elsewhere on Commons. Thanks. — Xavier, 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cattleya forbesi[edit]

The original here was as small as the the rotate picture. I have read the reason for the small difference in size after loseless rotation is because of the thumb included the jpg. But doesn't matter, the original is still there. --Marku1988 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Marku1988, thank you for your help. Greetings. Orchi 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Category tree for churches[edit]

Hi Orchi. I while ago you participated in a discussion on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands about category naming for churches and the like. From what I could see, no consensus was reached, so the rename requests have not been processed automatically. I have copied the dicussion to Category talk:Churches and I kindly invite you to have further discussion there. Once a consensus has been reached, please re-request category renaming on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thank you for your participation and understanding. Cheers! Siebrand 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ITIS & Taxonavigation[edit]

Hello Orchi, Thank you for your two last remarks. I responded Here. I also saw your renaming Category:Unidentified ranidae->Category:Unidentified Ranidae and did the same on Category:Unidentified anura->Category:Unidentified Anura.
Again a mistake of mine. Sorry Liné1 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Same image, different name - can you help?[edit]

Image:Dahlia Karma Amanda.JPG and Image:Dahlia Barbarossa.JPG is the same image. I think it is in fact the Karma Amanda (I checked on google). Can you confirm? I can then delete the duplicate file. Thanks for your help! Deadstar (msg) 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Deadstar, I have not the vaguest notion. But to make a comparison in google, it coud be, that "Dahlia Karma Amanda" is the name of this, I think, artifical hybrid cultivar. Greetings. Orchi 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help anyways! :) Deadstar (msg) 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello Orchi, it seems to be Phalaenopsis amabilis -- regards --Toapel 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I have restored this category and requested the deletion of Category:Laurus (genus). Categories are not intended to be disambiguation pages, more particularly when there is nothing to disambiguate.

Please, be more cautious when you change the classification in the topics structure. --Juiced lemon 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sort the pictures in Category:Laurus. Orchi 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
See --Juiced lemon 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxonavigation template[edit]

Perhaps you could comment on the use of the Taxonavigation template, please.[9] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orchi; Any thoughts on this? I wish I had some German language ability. You, Ies and Liné are fluent in that language, I think. Anyhow, Liné has responded. I would summarize this way.
  • Ies would like to see uniformity within a family, not just a few species pages with taxonavigation and the rest without.
  • Ies wants to see the classification system (e.g. APG II) identified in the template.
  • Liné suggests preferring APG II to Cronquist to Strasburger.
In the meantime, I have added APG II taxonavigation to about half of the Category:Ruscaceae gallery pages. I expect to finish in a day or so. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Batemania / Batemannia[edit]

You changed the spelling of genus Batemania to Batemannia in two of my images. Are you sure this is correct? The genus is named after Bateman. Maarten Sepp 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Maarten Sepp, unfortunately there are different opinions of naming this genus. Of course the genus is named after James Bateman. KEW Gardens and Missouri Botanical Garden say "Batemannia" is the nomenclaturally correct name and indicate "Batemania" as a orthographic variation (by Rchb.f. ??). Schlechter: "Die Orchideen" says: Batemania, Dressler: "Batemannia". I found several names. I decided to take the name used by KEW and MBG. My proposal: I note in the article both names and create a redirect - link. By the way, thank you for the many rare pictures of Suriname orchids. Greetings. Orchi 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Orchi, thanks for the explanation, I agree with your proposal. In the coming weeks or months I'll continue uploading my pictures of Suriname orchids, there's still a lot more! I appreciate very much that you add information to my photos, hope you have the time to continue doing this! Greetings, Maarten Sepp 21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

new uploads orchids from Suriname[edit]

Hello Orchi, yesterday (dec. 8) I uploaded some new orchid-photos, which were categorized by another user. I'm very glad with the way you classify my photos, so I send you a copy of my talk-page with the names, maybe you are interested. Hope you don't mind!

   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Brassia lanceana - pl.jpg‎; 16:28 . . (-21) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Brassavola martiana - pl.jpg‎; 16:26 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Brassavola martiana - fl.jpg‎; 16:24 . . (-21) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia lanceolata - fl.jpg‎; 16:22 . . (-26) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia lanceolata - infl.jpg‎; 16:20 . . (-21) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia candida - pl.jpg‎; 14:23 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia candida - fl 2.jpg‎; 14:16 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia candida - fl 1.jpg‎; 14:16 . . (-21) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia flavida - fl 2.jpg‎; 14:13 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia flavida - fl 1.jpg‎; 14:12 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Image:Rodriguezia flavida - pl.jpg‎; 14:11 . . (-25) . . WayneRay (Talk | contribs)

Thanks for your work, Maarten Sepp 12:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Maarten Sepp, I found your pictures. To find new pictures in a new Genus category is difficult. But the Category Orchidaceae is my first look alwys. Thank you and greetings Orchi 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Samic and Greenlandic in translation table template[edit]

Hi Orchi, I have noticed you are a frequent editor on {{Translation table}}. It seems like the table ignores translations in "se" (Northern samic) and "kl" (Greenlandic). The template code looks a little complicated and I fear I will break some functionality if I attempt to add the languages myself. Could you do it for me? Thank you! -- Slaunger 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Slaunger, I'm not a specialist in software, but I will try it. (Please give me time). Greetings Orchi 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I can wait. The information I add in those languages is there although they may not be displayed - yet. -- Slaunger 11:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) should be in function. Greetings. Orchi 11:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
...hey you are fast! It works very well. Thank you. -- Slaunger 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)