User talk:Orchi/archive 2008

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


Image:Orchidee 2008-1-10.JPG[edit]

Hallo Orchi, vielen Dank für die Einordnung meines Fotos. Gruß --Hedwig Storch 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....gern geschehen.Grüße Orchi 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vielen Dank![edit]

Hello Orchi, I think I've uploaded all my slides of Suriname orchids by now. Thank you very much for classifying all the plants, or "vielen Dank für die Einordnung meines Fotos. Gruß" (I stole this sentence from the comment above, my German is not good!). I"ll see if I can find some more creative-commons orchid photos on Flickr etc., and put them in category "Orchidaceae". By the way, your photos are stunning! Greetings, Maarten Sepp

Hello, Maarten Sepp, I'll reply soon. Thanks und greetings. Orchi 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Hallo Orchi, danke für Deine administrativen Korrekturen an meinen Fotos. Du bist ja schneller als die Feuerwehr! - Herzliche Grüße Mg-k 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Marco, meine Freude über Deinen neuen brillanten Bilder haben sofort meinen "Sortierdrang" geweckt. Deine Bilder sind einfach eine Klasse für sich. Ich hoffe, Du hast noch weitere Orchideenbilder in Deinem Archiv, mit denen Du Commons und die Wikipedias bereicherst. Leider ist bei Deinen neuen Bilder für mich die Ophrys garganica nicht sichtbar. (Übrigens ist seit einiger Zeit ein Bild meiner Ophrys × heraultii trotz erneuten Hochladens auch nicht mehr sichtbar. Besteht das Problem bei Dir auch?). Für heute viele Grüße. Orchi 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, bei mir sind die Bilder normal sichtbar. Seltsamerweise hat jemand meine Fotos von Orchis x loreziana in die Kategorie "Unidentified Plants" einsortiert. Was das wohl soll? - Herzliche Grüße Mg-k 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

taxonavigation's authority[edit]

Hello my friend,
Please, could you let the authority in the taxonavigation? The result of this (or this) is not good because it is highly recommended (even mandatory for species and genuses) to follow a taxon name by its authority.
This even if you provide the authority elsewhere in the article.
Cheers, Liné1 07:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Liné1, consensus at once. I started the change. Very little question: You use the plural of the english word "genus" as "genuses". My dictionaries and the english WP use (the original latin version) "Genera". I do'nt know it exactly. Greeting. Orchi 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not, I will follow your idea about latin, even if that seemed strange as I followed it with the english "for" (no one, ever provides source in wikicommons, wikispecies is worth)
Any idea what the plural of classis is?
Cheers Liné1 07:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you are certainly aware of the important meaning of the parenthesis arround authors?
Your Anhinga rufa seems to follow the german page which is wrong because parenthesises are needed.
Cheers Liné1 07:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cher Liné1, a little quick answer:

  1. I prefer the scientific latin terms in the taxonomy. Of course in notes or text is the english language ok. Only the term "genuses" I can not find.
  2. The plural of "Classis" is "Classes".
  3. The uses of parenthesises is ok. Most I take this informations from the french WP. (I think, there are the best and most complete informations ((from Liné1??)). Unfortunately not all the time. (You see Anhinga rufa). Thank you for correction.

Greetings. Orchi 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thks for classes
For genuses, I do find it very often, but you are right, it is a latinenglishism ;-) (sorry the joke is perhaps only french where we says for exemple anglissism).
Cheers Liné1 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User_talk:Davepape#Genuses to rename Genuses into Genera.
Do you want me to ask the renaming of "orders (for" and "families (for" ?
Cheers Liné1 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hallo Orchi, thanks for the categorisation of this. Cygnis insignis 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)



Du scheinst dich mit Pflanzen recht gut auszukennen und daher möcht ich fragen, ob das hier wirklich eine Heckenrose ist - mich hat's irgendwie stutzig gemacht, aber ich kenn mich mit Blumen nicht besonders gut aus...

--Anna reg 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, Anna reg, ich bin zwar nicht der große Experte für diese Pflanzen, hatte aber wie Du auch meine Zweifel an der Bestimmung. Mein Nachbar war mir behilflich und bestimmte das Bild als Alcea rosea (Stockrose) aus der Familie der Malvengewächse. Ob es sich um die Naturform oder eine Gartenform handelt, kann ich Dir leider nicht sagen. Viele Grüße. Orchi 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Überzeugt mich - vielen Dank --Anna reg 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Botanical drawings[edit]

Hallo Orchi,

I'm glad you like the drawings with the orchid-galleries, they're really beautiful and often very accurate. I hope that they are useful for determination, sometimes.

Herzliche Gruesse, Maarten Sepp 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories or articles of old books[edit]

Hello Orchi,

You're right. I think: the best way is first the author, then the title, just like in a source or literature list. Your Category:Robert Warner - Select Orchidaceous Plants is a good example.

In Category:Botanical illustrations Orchidaceae there are these candidates for another name:

Category:Sertum orchidaceum - John Lindley can be changed to Category:John Lindley-Sertum orchidaceum,
Category:A Century of Orchidaceous Plants-William Jackson Hooker can be changed to Category:William Jackson Hooker - A Century of Orchidaceous Plants

If you agree, I can make the changes in the coming days, and than "bad name" the old categories.

There's one category left, that is Category:Flora Brasiliensis (Orchidaceae). But if we change that name, it seems reasonable to also change the name Category:Flora Brasiliensis in Category:Botanical illustrations. And in that category there is a lot more work.

Well, of course it would be wonderful to have one standard for all these categories, maybe we should do some work at it! I really like these old drawings, they're so beautiful. But my first interest is into orchids.

Let me hear what you think, especially for the Flora Brasiliensis-category.

Best regards, Maarten Sepp 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Lilium[edit]

Dear Orchi,

I have copied image Bulbilles1.jpg and put it in Lilium bubiferum. As explained in the comments attached to the picture (Bulbilles de Lilium bulbiferum) it is a close-up of a young Lilium bubiferum with only bulblets.

I have also copied my other pictures Lilium bulbiferum bulbiferum.JPG and Lilium bulbiferum croceum.JPG and put them also in Lilium bubiferum.

Please advise whether other changes should apply.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Nsr-slika-023.png[edit]

Hello, Orchi! I reverted this correction to the previous version, as printed in the book, because I wanted to follow the original description. I hope that this is OK with you; if not, please comment. --romanm (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, romanm, no problem! I wanted to use the scientific spelling in italic letters for names in genus and species. I have great pleasure to see your illustrations of old botanic books. Greetings. Orchi 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, they should be in italic (in book they're probably upright due to the typographic/printing problems at that time). I'm glad that you like the illustrations - they're kind of "side-effect" of OCR-ing the book for the Wikisource. --romanm (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi, this photograph does not at all look like S. parviflora to me. If I had to guess I would say Anacamptis papilionacea, but the resolution is very poor. What do you think? Lycaon 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lycaon, I think you are right. I will put the picture to unidentified Anacamptis or Orchis. The blowup gives not more change for identification. By the way I like your new pictures of Sardinia. Greetings. Orchi 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Taxonavigation}} vs {{Translation table}}[edit]

Hello my friend,
I know that you prefer the {{Translation table}} to be before the {{Taxonavigation}}.
Truth is I don't care about it as it is only a display problem that could be solved globaly in the templates.
But could you wait a bit before changing the order after my modifications, please?
For example, I am currently working on Muscicapidae and I really need the Muscicapidae {{Taxonavigation}} to be on top, even temporarely, to be able to compare it, for example, with the Saxicoloides {{Taxonavigation}}. This to know if there is a difference in the Taxonavigation and which one.
Thanks man.
Cheers Liné1 09:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Salut, Liné, already I had expected this discussion. Could I say all my ideas in my native language, I had searched the contact in this question earlier. We are surely two of the very engaged and busy users in Commons and it would be my wish, to come to an agreement.

In the headline you write: {{Taxonavigation}} vs {{Translation table}}. I say: {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Translation table}}. Both templates are for me very important also.

I did not know, that there is a display problem. The display of my monitors in 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 is without problems.

My personal preference, to put first the "Translation table" came into being, that the most users of Commons first are interested in the name of plants and animals in their own languages. Especially our friends of russion, japanese, chinese, hebrew, korean and other WPs, who are not write the latin letters are searching this info as quick as possible. Also the "Translation table" can be used as main information in all other articles and categories next to animals and plants. For many users, for you and also for me, the "Taxonavigation" is a very excellent tool to identify, to sort and to search plants or animals.

I mean, to put first the commmon names, then summarized the group of taxonomy informations, as "Taxonavigation", ITIS, Synonyms and (partly) "Wikispecies" and/or more. I think, we should have a logical construction of the pages and not first the taxonomy information, then the names in international languages and then again informations for the specialists of taxonomies.

And now still another proposal due to the experiences of the last years. I test to split the "Taxonavigation". Once from "Domain" to "Familia" and once from "Familia" to "Species" ( or lower). The advantages are for me first, to minimize the discussions about the serverals taxonomies. Upside the families all important kinds of taxonomies. Below the families only one navigation with further informations as Tribus, Subtribus or Subspecies, if it is senseful. I think, there are not many users, who navigate from Species to Regnum or so. The "Taxonavigation" so better can be updated.

I think, we will find a good way for "our Commons". Amicalement. Orchi 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend,
You missed my point: I really don't want to decide the order between {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Translation table}} because this problem can be solved programaticaly by one modification of one of those template for all the articles/categories of wikicommons.
My problem is: while I am working on a family, I need to have {{Taxonavigation}} first, even temporarily, while I work on all the species of this family. The reason is that I need to compare my {{Taxonavigation}} of the family with the {{Taxonavigation}} of the species I am going to modify. If they are both at the beginning the comparison is visually easy, If not, I have to compare taxa by taxa.

I was just begging "could you wait a bit before inverting the ordering of {{Taxonavigation}} and {{Translation table}} after my modification". Because currently I am suffering on Category:Muscicapidae after your last modification.

By the way, it is the justification of having the {{Taxonavigation}} first: If you look at a species Taxonavigation, click on the family link => you receive the family page => you have the family {{Taxonavigation}} at the same position as the previous Taxonavigation, except that it is shorter.

Cheers Liné1 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

About your idea of splitting the taxonavigation in 2 (like here): I don't like it because I won't be able to distinguish an animal from a plant if I am not knowing the family name by heart (it is just an example). You won't find any taxonomist to follow such an idea.

Cheers Liné1 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the same way, I really don't like your {{Taxonavigation}} of Inula crithmoides because the species is not in the taxonavigation:

  • the species name is a taxa like the genus, so why not in the taxonavigation
  • If you want a special display of the species, I really can do it in the taxonavigation template. I already did it: the last rank is bold!
  • The last rank is bold => you need to put the article current taxa in the taxonavigation otherwise the bold rank has nothing to done with the current article/category
  • when you look at a species article, you need to know if there is a species category (you know that species article are not always in their species category)
  • I don't like styling out of templates, because if the info is in the templates, we can change the display on all the page. If not, you need to modify all the pages. Also everyone will use a different styling (bold, not bold...).
  • Your taxonavigation really looks incomplete: no upper taxa, no lower taxa. Kind of strange, no?

Cheers Liné1 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Salut, Liné, first all o.k. with Category:Muscicapidae.

2. I did'nt know, that it is possible to change the contents sequence of a page with a template. But you are the expert. (I hope, I can ask you for some additions of the taxonavigation, later)

3. About splitting the taxonavigation, I think for the best way furthermore.

Just I saw a new kind of taxonavigation, produced by User:CarolSpears. For example: Category:Achillea and other genera of this Tribus. (like Wikispecies)

4. Meanwhile I am afraid, for Commons the several taxonomies in every Species or Subspecies is becoming very voluminous. (I extended it by myself).

5. Species in the taxonavigation: Often there is not a right and controlled category.

For today many greetings. Orchi 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Just a note to thank you for the great work you are doing on the orchid pages. BTW, I'm not through posting yet ;-). I plan to search for Herminium monorchis, Orchis simia and O. ustulata in the coming weeks... Cheers. Lycaon 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lycaon, with great pleasure I see your very fine pictures of the european orchids. Gratulation for your excellent image of Aceras anthropophorum. I hope you find the above called plants, especially Herminium monorchis. The flowering time for Orchis simia and Orchis ustulata here (Saarland and near France) is over since the beginning of may. Cheers. Orchi 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Danke Schön von OhWeh[edit]

Danke für die Einordnung meines Bildes "Unbekanntes Knabenkraut OhWeh-002.jpg". Bei Orchideen bin ich hilflos. Kannst Du mir vielleicht auch noch bei "Unbekanntes Knabenkraut OhWeh-001.jpg" helfen? OhWeh (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... gern geschehen. Grüße Orchi (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merci vielmals! OhWeh (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Galleries vs Categories[edit]

Congratulations on your extensive work in categorising species, such as Category:Utricularia! As per Commons:Galleries#Galleries_vs._categories, could you please also add your images to species-specific categories as you upload them? It is easy and it would help a lot, like Category:Cinnamomum

Cheers, Specious (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Galleries and Categories again[edit]

Hi ! Just to know, please do not feel aggressed, do you still remove categories from articles, as you did some time ago ? Is this the only way of doing things which is accepted by ToL ? I am thinking in particular to birds, where there seem to be some stable state for all good articles, including categories and galleries. I like to add categories, one reason being because I can then use Mayflower to find orphan images. Do you think we can treat birds and orchids in a different way ? Yours, Frédéric (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Frédéric, You know, I prefer the galleries, because this is the only way, to get information over the special watchlist (my list: over 5000) about changes. By the way, I think, the family of the orchid is good organized and uniform prepared for a Bot, when better organisation and consensus is possible. Many other plant- and animal families wait for upgrades. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think having galleries and categories concurrently is already an upgrade. They don't interfere. But a gallery showcases the best examples, while everything goes into categories. --Specious (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Specious, I also use categories. Your opinion: "But a gallery showcases the best examples, while everything goes into categories" . I'm afraid, that pictures of first, second or third quality bring discussion without end by uploaders and who shall rule, what is "best". Greetings. Orchi (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi ! Thanks for your answers. I will go on adding categories for images of birds. It is such a pity that there are so many orphan images. And we are certainly far away from completeness and high quality for birds. Cheers Frédéric (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Viola (plant)[edit]

Hi Orchi; welcome back. I see you edited Category:Viola (plant) recently and wonder if you'd seen the (long) comment at the Village Pump?[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Walter, thanks for your information. If I have a lot of time, I'll try to translate the (for me difficult diction) of the user:CarolSpears. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of {{see more}}[edit]

As we are now obliged to add at least one category to each image I am adding categories for plants when it is needed for photos I have made. I have seen that you added {{see more}}. That is very useful. Where can I find more info about its use? Thanks. Wouter (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wouter, I created this template a short time ago to have and give a quick link to the most better organized and (I think) better identified galleries of species. The galleries/articles have the possibility of controlling over the "Special:Watchlist". Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
See Category:Epipogium aphyllum for the way it should be really linked. There is no need for {{see more}} when you link the species gallery to the species category, it shows up in blue as a link. It is also not necessary to create both if that is what you are doing, one or the other connected to the higher order is fine, See Category:Clerodendrum where I have finished cleaning up the duplicate names and left the page more readable with out duplicate names. and linked species galleries to species categories where there were the two and created only one species gallery for the rest. WayneRay (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
I think the use of {{see more}} is usable, when the headers of a species category are so voluminous, that the link to the gallery can only hardly can be found by users, who not daily work with Commons and other reasons. The Category:Clerodendrum is in my opinion not an example for the best answer to create an alphabetical sorting of the species of a genus.Orchi (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I wanted to know which source do you use for deciding on taxonomy and nomenclature? What does it say about Anacamptis (Orchis) caspia? Is this a separate species, or the same as Anacamptis papilionacea? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Gidip, first thanks for your excellent pictures of orchids of Israel. Generally I prefer the taxonomy of KEW Gardens and Missouri Botanical Garden. These sources are not accepted by all, but I think in Wikipedia this is a way to avoid never-ending discussions. For many orchids I use the classic and the AGP II taxonomy side by side.
Yesterday I found your pictures of Anacamptis × feinbruniae. I would ask you, which source use the hybrid formula: Anacamptis caspia × Anacamptis israelitica? I informed me in my "Die Orchideengattungen Anacamptis, Orchis, Neotinea" by H. Kretschmar, W. Eccarius and H. Dietrich from 2007. There is the nothospecies Anacamptis × feinbruniae defined as hybrid between Anacamptis israelitica and Anacamptis papilionacea (page 429).
Orchis caspia seems (according the above cited book) to be more a synonym of Orchis laxiflora. In 1979 identified "Helmut Baumann" and "Dafni" and in 1998 and 2005 "Kreutz" the Anacamptis papilionacea in Israel as Orchis caspica. H. Kretschmar, W. Eccarius and H. Dietrich say: Anacamptis papilionacea ssp. palaestina. The name Anacamptis caspica I do not find. (all not simple). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. As far as I understand, Orchis papilionacea in Israel was later identified as Orchis caspia. Later, when the genus Orchis was split, O. caspia was moved to Anacamptis. Anacamptis feinbruniae is a hybrid that grows in Israel. It contains A. israelitica which grows only in Israel and south Lebanon. There is no A. papilionacea in Israel, only A. caspia, so A. feinbruniae = A. israelitica x A. caspia and NOT papilionacea. See also the following refs.:

Gidip (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You explained these procedures perfectly. Thanks for the changes in the articles.
Image:Orchis mutant 1.JPG and Image:Orchis mutant 2.JPG.
I will try to ask Mr. Helmut Baumann over Bernd Haynold (User:BerndH) for identification during the next meeting of the "Arbeitskreise Heimische Orchideen" in Baden-Württenberg (Germany). Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am quite sure that this peculiar orchid is either a mutant O. galilaea or a hybrid of it with some other species. There is much morphological similarity to O. galilaea, and the area was surrounded with hundreds, even thousands of it. There was only a single individual of this type, however. The suggestion of hybrid with O. caspia was made by Prof. Amots Dafni (the same Dafni from A. israelitica). However he consulted with an orchid expert from Germany (not Baumann), who rejected it. All the best, Gidip (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC).
I see you have best knowledge and good contacts. I suggest to put the two "Mutants" in Orchis galilaea under the subitem "Mutation". Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Orchi; Forgive me for inquiring in English, but your English is vastly better than my German. Recently, you removed most of my edit to Category:Corallorhiza.[2][3] I thought my edit was consistent with Liné1's edit of Category:Epidendroideae which you subsequently edited. [4] I'd like to make my edits consistent with others, so your help is welcome. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Walter. You know, that I am a friend and a con-initiator of the (interlanguage) template:Translation table and also of the template:Taxinavigation. In the meantime many parts of Commons become to an "Over-Wikispecies". Many discussion about the right taxonomy kill the time of users. In the hundreds (or thausend) genera or species in the family of orchids I test two ways:
1. By beginning the taxonomy with the "Familia" minimizing the discussions and concentrate the taxonomy to the substance and the usable. I think, nobody goes from "Species" to "Domain" or "Regnum".
2. The different taxonomies, AGP II, Strasburger, Cronquist or the according in animals from "Familia" up to "Domain" are a very good way of information. But especially in Commons - "Species" of plants and animals the pictures should be as quick as possible the the primary view.
Besides I prepare the orchid family for "Tribus" and "Subtribus", because the genera in the meantime go over 200.
Naturally you are right according the "Subfamilia". But I am not a bot and all my edits (I believe nearly 30000) are handmade. That needs time.
With a few of users we had constructed all orchids according to the same pattern. That gives the possibility to change by a bot, if a better formula is found sometime.
In the moment I am afraid, that the scientific value of Commons will go down. The enhanced use of categories for species with all the informations, I think, is not a good way. By now the pictures from the existing galleries will be set in categories. Mostly these pictures are identified. Galleries are controlled. But in the future, I think, the species categories are uncontrollable. For example: When everybody brings a white Phalaenopsis - cultivar under Phalaenopsis amabilis in this category, nobody is informed to controll this. But this is a un-ending theme. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your long reply. I'll begin taxonavigation with the "Familia" on gallery pages. Please propose guidance on COM:TOL as soon as you can.
I'm afraid we are stuck with categories for species. It may reduce conflict among editors. I favor recategorizing images from higher taxa to species when the species is known. That reduces clutter in the higher taxa categories. I suppose a bot could be used to maintain consistency between gallery pages and the corresponding category?[5] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Walter, thanks for your answer. I will realize your proposal and propose a "commons - adequate" reduced form of taxonavigations (as in parts of the Orchidaceae) in COM:TOL as soon as I can. Best wishes. Orchi ( ) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Orchi. That is good. Some may have strong opinions on this, but many of us would simply like some guidance so that we don't waste our time and that of others. I like the "commons - adequate" reduced form. I made some taxonavigation edits today.[6] You are welcome to have a look and comment. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


With a simple save, I have put this attempt of conversation into the history of your talk page. If you are interested in discussing this (after your old business is finished), let me know. -- carol (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Du hast mir gegenüber den gewaltigen Vorsprung, Deine Gedanken hier in Deiner Muttersprache schreiben zu können. Außerdem muss ich gestehen, dass es mir große Schwierigkeiten bereitet, Deine Formulierungen, auch in anderen Dikussionsbeiträgen zu übersetzen. Ich vermute, Dir wird es ähnlich mit der deutschen Sprache ergehen. Ich habe mir von einem guten Bekannten Deinen Dikussionsbeitrag auf meiner Seite übersetzen lassen, war über den freundlichen Ton erfreut, habe aber vieles jedoch sachlich nicht verstanden. Deshalb habe ich Probleme, dazu einen fachlichen Kommentar in Deiner Muttersprache richtig darzustellen. Ich habe im Laufe der Jahre in vielen Stunden meine Erfahrungen in Commons gesammelt und viele Anregungen (Taxinavigation, Translation table etc.) gegeben, die ohne nennenswerten Widerspruch regelgerecht umgesetzt und vielfach übernommen wurden. Mit Interesse verfolge ich gerade in letzter Zeit Deine Aktivitäten. Einige gute Ansätze sind auch für mich erkennbar; andererseits glaube ich, dass einiges zu viel des Guten ist und zu unüberschaubaren Bereichen in den durch taxonomische Regeln geprägten Pflanzen- und Tierbearbeitungen führen wird.
Try of summary: Hello, CarolSpears, unfortunately it is a great difficulty for me to understand all your contributions to the discussions. I hope, that there is enough tolerance in the international WikiCommons, to accept good ways without brillant formulations in your first language. I will try to find the bests for Commons and that in simple English according to my Babel - en=1. Greetings. Orchi ( ) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I only speak English; compared to multi-languaged comprehending users it is sad that I only speak one language. Working without the TOL people on the TOL stuff -- I am sorry. We are doing this. A few days with a mess and then a few years with an easy to use and informative database! Thank you for your patience during the construction. -- carol (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


[7] --Beentree (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete or keep[edit]

Hello, you classified my orchid pictures nicely; I asked for deletion of Image:Orchidée à Sorges (Dordogne, Fr).JPG‎; if you like to keep it, you may withdraw the tag. Havang (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Havang, I think, there is no chance to identify this orchid. Especially in the genus Ophrys you must see many details of the flower. Perhaps you have still another image of this pretty plant. Greetings Orchi (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I discovered coming home that the quality was bad. I let you decide about keep or delete. Havang (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You are interested, so I uploaded a few other orchid pictures, see Category:Orchidaceae Havang (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
ok, I'll try to identify. Orchi (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I upload to show you; ask for deletion if an image is not interesting for wiki-purposes. Greetings. Havang (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some orchids for you
Some orchids for you

...thank you very much. The illustrations are very fine. I like the paintings of the old botanical books. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agkistrodon edits[edit]

Hi Orchi, I'm okay with using "Regnum" instead of "Kingdom", but I don't think it's logical to move the "Translation table" template to the top of the page; that table should be regarded as less important than the Taxonavigation template. The taxonavigator is a tool to allow readers to navigate the taxonomic hierarchy, while the translation table is merely informational. What I find really irritating, however, is that since the translation table has a variable length, or is not always present, it causes the taxonavigator to frequently shift position when different pages are accessed. This does not happen when he taxonavigator is at the top of the page. --Jwinius (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jwinius, first thank you for your o.k. to "Regnum". It's one of the minimal consenses in Commons to use the taxonomy in animals and plants with the scientific terms. The sequence of commons names and taxonavigation is unfortunately still a question of personal taste. First I was the opinion also, that the taxonavigation should be the most important point. But in the meantime I think, that the common name is in Commons more important for the "normal users", especially for our friends in countries without latin letters. (In Wikispecies must the sequence go the other way). Besides many users (Users:Liné, CarolSpears etc.) make a very detailed taxonomy with links to diverse institutes. And so I find it better, to have the common names and then the complete information to taxonomy as a second group. The problem of a link from species categories to species galleries try I to arrange with the {{See more}}. Greetings Orchi (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I don't think common names are not important. It's just that the translation tables are not as basic to the organization and navigation of these pages, so not having the taxonavigator at the top doesn't make any sense. Yes, common names are important to "normal users," but since these pages are made for an international group, they can't be a priority: scientific names are the only ones that people of all languages can hope to understand. Besides, I can't remember seeing a translation table with common names for more than a dozen different languages, meaning that we never have common names for more than a fraction of the languages that we support, in which case it makes even less sense to give presidence to a translation table that so many people will find useless anyway. In addition, if placed below the taxonavigator, the translation table and its common names will actually be closer to the images. --Jwinius (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
And another thing: in all cases where the translation table is not used, the common names are listed below the taxonavigator, so placing them above is something new. Also, the fact that the translation table uses a smaller font makes it look out of place when positioned up top: almost like a legal disclaimer and not like something meant to attract attention. --Jwinius (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And other thing: the placement of the articles. I just noticed that you seem to be a proponent of placing the article for a taxon inside the category for the same taxon. I wondered about this, because at first it seems reasonable, but it doesn't really fit with the policy we have for maintaining both files and categories. These two types of should be treated equally, but when the article is placed inside the category it makes it seem subservient to the category. In addition, it makes the articles that much harder to find, and more importantly it makes them different. Because they are different, you can't just copy the contents of a category to an article and add a gallery section: you have to change the category name as well. Finally, when viewing a category like Crotalinae, it's much more convenient to have an immediate overview of all of the categories and articles for the various subtaxa and not have to dig further to find the files. --Jwinius (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I said above many formations in Commons are a questions of personal taste. I hope, that we in the future get a form for plants an animals. In the moment I am afraid, we get by some users in handling the taxonomy and the "Common names" an "Over" - development in Commons.
The smaller font in {{Translation table}} was my request, when I discussed with the creator of this template (User:EDUCA33E). I thought in Commons should the pictures visible as soon als possible.
By the way I am still not a friend of categories for species, so long as there is not a possibility to check new pictures by a watching list. Orchi (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, sorry, I was reading this and it was not for me. I have a question, however. Orchi, how many articles (galleries) do you watch?
My watchlist is large but it is mostly images that I moved or uploaded several months ago. To me, the stuff can be monitored by taking a look at it every so often. When I do that, often I am surprised by some beautiful images that are recently put in places I am looking into. I still think that most mistakes are accidents. In real life, the mistakes that people make are most often this way and commons.wikimedia was like that also until very recently.
I have heard that there is an rss feed for categories, but I have yet to see it.
A related subject -- I might be interested in moving some (not all) of the orchid categories from their "Genus (Family)" name to a category which is just "Genus". I would never do this without asking first though and I think Orchi is about Orchids? -- carol (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
(((I did think about moving them without asking, but I didn't move them.... shhh!))) -- carol (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
... first: my watchlist today: 5341. - For the rest of your notice first I am forced to use a dictionary. (Babel: en=1). :) Greetings.Orchi (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, CarolSpears, when I created an gallery or category of an orchid genus in Commons, first I checked the english or other important WPs, whether there is a disambiguation. e.g.(Dracula). Which of the "Genus (Familia)" do you think as redundant? Orchi (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry about my English -- my only language and it becomes more and more native to me every year. A family story about my great-grandpa. When he came to America, he refused to learn to speak English, opting only to speak German....
I have 11 orchid names which should keep the (Family) extension. 52 categories which do not need the extension. Forgive me. I am re-looking at that list and on another review of them, the decision to put the family name on them was all a good decision I think now.
I am sorry to take your time with the exception that I am a little more enlightened now! -- carol (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to this topic, I hope you don't mind too much, but unless you have a serious issue with the way I've been organizing the entire Serpentes section, I'm going to pull those last few articles (Agkistrodon, Bothriechis and Bothrops) in line with the rest. As you can see, the taxnav has become an even more important and powerful tool for navigating not only the categories, but also the gallery files. Check these out: Viperidae, Crotalinae and Viperinae. By using the links associated with the images, you can move down to the species level. You can then use the taxnav to move back up again, or switch to a category view! --Jwinius (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - For the images in the files above, to represent each genus I've always tried to use one of the type species (if availailable). Moving higher up, type species of type genus, etc. --Jwinius (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

.. I find in the moment, we are going good ways. Orchi (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 :-) --Jwinius (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Viewing new additions to categories[edit]

5341 watched pages was to me a lot of watched pages. I thought much about this and have some understanding of the tendency to prefer Galleries over Categories now, especially when enthusiasm is so great to keep things looking nice. I asked at the help desk for an RSS (an xml feed that there are readers available for) feed for categories. I think that when I tried this I was not enthusiastic enough to get it to function. Feeds for Categories is where I asked and have received an answer to. is the tool. It should work like a web log and display new images as they are added to categories. -- carol (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your way or no way?[edit]

Is that the way an international image server should be working?

Please do yourself a favor. Try to make a template which actually demonstrates the complexity that you perhaps have an opinion of.

The demonstration of opinions and of inability is so prevalent here, can you demonstrate something which is not this? -- carol (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your special variety of taxonomy now occupies the upper portion of the display. Excellent show of enthusiasm, force, intelligence and the understanding of the difficulty of managing information that occurs on an international media server. -- carol (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Zygostates papillosa sample and proposal[edit]

Here my proposal (named: Reduced Taxonomy for Genera and Species) for the taxonavigation for Genera and Species. From Familia down to Species it is the same taxonomy of AGP II, Strasburger and Cronquist and must not bethreetimes in Commons.

If you could give a reason that the three taxonomies of the science should not exist in Commons, it would go farther with logic than the demand of it does. -- carol (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From Domain (Regnum) to Familia (here named: Extensive Taxonomy) the different taxonomies are ok. Orchi (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Landscapes of Serbia[edit]

In this category, there are a number of nice flower pictures. Can you have a look and add categories to them? Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Havang(nl), I will try it by someones. But it is very difficult for me. The real expert for identification, User:Franz Xaver unfortunately is rare here. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Dear Orchi,

Thank you for editing the info on my photos and reviewing my pages. It is almost impossible do not make mistakes with all edition needed to fit the format needed, italics, synonyms, etc.

I have plenty of photos of Brazilian orchids. I intend to work on the pages of Brazilian genera first and later, when describing each one of the species, will upload detailed photos showing morphology of leaves, ramicauls, pseudobulbs, lips, etc. (about 1300 species - 20 thousand photos)

Of course this will take months, LOL. I hope I have the energy for that. Well, it is a joint effort.

Cheers--Dalton Holland Baptista (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy options[edit]

Dear Orchi,

I see you tagget the photo of Pholeophila nummularia as Pleurothallis. Both taxonomic systems, either filogeny (Kew group) or morphology (Luer most recent publications) adepts, now recognize the genus Phloeophila.

I really do not care about what genera we are we supposed to classify the species as the classification of genera is changing every day (provided we have a trustfull identification the species itself), but I wonder what are the references you (wikipedia) are using here to choose the genera to be accepted.


I try to pick the best and most consensual genera classification as possible. Please do not regard my comments as rude for they are not.

Thank you for all the hard work.--Dalton (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok is see now I understood wrong, sorry - I'm still learning the mechanisms of Wikipedia.--Dalton (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dalton,

my first and exclusive most used reference is the KEW gardens taxonomy. (Most a further information:MBG). That is according to the experience of the last years the way to minimize the never-ending discussions about classic and/or phylogenetic taxonomy. Here: [8] was the notice "accepted by" and "not accepted by". Therefore my splitting. (Chase ./. Luer)

I think, you are the expert, and I will try to follow your advices. ( I just see your notice) Orchi (talk)

.... and now a further question: You identified an unidentified Pleurothallis as Pabstiella hypnicola. Neither in KEW nor in MBG I found the name. Is it a new name?

Sorry for taking so long to answer. I just saw this message. Well Luer published the Pabstiella hypnicola combination on page 120 of Icones Pleurothallidinarum XIX, I guess on-line databases are a little but outdated. Anyway, I am not that sure this genus will stay as it is, apart from Effusiella. Will see...

By the way: In the Portuguese WP I found the link to your "orchidstudium". Great!. I have taken the link in my personal list immediately. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you liked Orchidstudium, it's been 7 years of work there. Actually I am thinking of bringing everything I have there to wikipedia for one day we all will die and the site will disappear. I work with a friend there so I cannot switch all stuf to wikipedia at once. There is one thing tho: the controversies of genera to be accepted, I guess Kew not always makes the best choices, it is more like a passion about DNA, and we all know the DNA thing is a wonderful tool but still is on its first steps. A good example is all the noise they made about the Brazilian Laelia to be moved to Sophronithis now they have just moved them all again to Cattleya... On Orchidstudium I can express what I think more freely. On WP it is harder to choose what genus to pick when there are controversies. Other good example is genus Pleurobotryum, in Genera Orchidacearum they moved it to a subgenus of Pleurothallis although they say they did not sample any species of it! so why did they make it? While we do not have full info about this move I'd rather to stick with Pleurobotryum instead. Cheers, --Dalton (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, Thank you for all the hard work you have placing my photos on the right categories and doing the synonyms and species pages, ect. on Wikispecies. Great Job, Congrats!--Dalton (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect problems[edit]

Hi Orchi. I am trying to clean up the category redirects that point to galleries as they hide the images that are in that category to the commons user. I cleaned already many hundreds of them and since a couple of weeks, I have this maintained file User:RussBot/category redirect problems that helps me monitoring it and that shows that I am nearing the end. As a lot of those redirects are in the complex species domain, where I don't have a lot of experience, I want to apologize for the mistakes I make in my attempts to put the categories in a normal operational mode. I am particularly confused when you have "bypasses" in the system when there exists only one single species of a certain genus. The nice thing is that my experience in the domain grows and I make less and less mistakes. Don't hesitate to point to my mistakes as I am here for learning. --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) <--big mistake! -- carol (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Komm'...[edit] hol' dir doch endlich die Knöppe ab! Ich schlag dich auch gerne vor :) ausserdem wirds langsam viel immer deine ganzen neuen Seiten zu patrollen! Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo ABF, zunächst hat es mir mal die Sprache verschlagen, als ich Deinen Vorschlag gelesen habe. Es ist ein gutes Gefühl zu sehen, dass Einsatz und Fleißarbeit für Commons offensichtlich bemerkt und auch anerkannt werden. Andererseits weiß ich, dass ich dieser Funktion in erster Linie nicht gewachsen bin, da mein Schulenglisch, das ich neben alten Sprachen als dritte Fremdsprache vor vielen Jahren erlernt habe, nicht ausreicht, um als Admin. unmissverständlich zu formulieren und sichere Diskussionen zu führen. Wenn ich dann auch noch sehe, wie gerade beim Voting für User:Guérin Nicolas, dass er sich in endlosen Diskussionen für seine Handlungsweise rechtfertigen soll, glaube ich, auch mental einem solchen Job nicht gewachsen zu sein. Leider haben in letzter Zeit viele gute Leute in Commons im Bereich Pflanzen / Tiere das Handtuch geworfen, weil sie sich den Bots und (menschlichem) Robotertum nicht mehr gewachsen fühlen. Diese Gefühle kann ich für mich auch nicht ganz ausschließen. Dennoch macht es mir nach wie vor große Freude, an diesem Projekt mit zu arbeiten. Schade ist, dass es zwischen Admin und normalem User keine Funktion gibt, um z.B. Patenschaften für bestimmte Bereiche wie Pflanzenfamilien zu übernehmen. Ganz herzlich möchte ich mich bei Dir bedanken, dass Du mir den Vorschlag unterbreitest hast. Viele Grüße Orchi (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Schau doch mal auf Commons:List of administrators by language und dann such mal mit strg+F nach "en-1" du wirst sehen, dass wir sogar einen Bürokraten mit en-1 haben. Ausserdem sagt auch unsere "language policy" "Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project"! Bei Fragen in einer möglichen RfA werde ich dir auch gerne helfen (btw. es gibt auch RfA's ohne Fragen ;). Ausserdem sind sicher diese Knöpfe auch sinnvoll ohne unbedingt häufig del-reqs zu schliessen, so kannst du z.B. in deinem Biologie-Bereich mit den erweiterten Rechten weiter arbeiten oder einfach "Ansprechpartner" für den deutschen Bio-Bereich sein. Ich finde du wärest eine großartige Ergänzung für unser Team. Ausserdem ist bisher keine Commons-RfA, dich ich für einen anderen gestartet habe "verloren gegangen" und das sind nicht wenige...! (Ich hab also erfahrung ;) )
Mein "Angebot" steht weiterhin. Überlegs dir doch nochmal. :) Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orchi, ich finde ABFs Idee auch super. Wir brauchen unbedingt mehr Biologen auf Commons :o) --Ixitixel (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dazu sollte man noch erwähnen, daß Nicolas etwas Pech hat, dass ausgerechnet Carol Spears seine Kandidatur aufgefallen ist. Ich hab das Wort 'Troll' nicht gesagt ;-). -- Cecil (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

... da haben wir's. siehe unten. Orchi (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't read or speak German, but if this says that I "troll" Orchi's talk page, I do so only occasionally. -- (edit conflict) carol (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support Orchi as well. I would be happy to help with the wording of responses. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Siehste Orchi, alle wollen dich als admin sehen, und wenn der *räusper* da noch ein doofes wort verliert hat der ruck-zuck ne Sperre sitzen. Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 07:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, ABF, Ixitixel, Cecil, Walter!

Ganz herzlichen Dank für die lobenden und für "größere Aufgaben" werbenden Worte. Ich habe mich sehr darüber gefreut und mit ansehen müssen, dass Ihr in Diskussionen einbezogen wurdet. Das ist aber auch ein Grund, warum ich in absehbarer Zeit nicht für die Funktion eines Administrators zu Verfügung stehen möchte. Wenn ich ja fast täglich Commons öffne und mit erhöhtem Blutdruck das Öffnen der Beobachtungseite abwarte, ob die Schlimmverbesserungen auch bei den Orchideen (auf die ich mich im wesentlichen zurückgezogen habe), angekommen sind, ist das sicherlich eine Form von Wikistress. Den entsprechenden Folgediskussionen fühle ich mich sprachlich (und auch nervlich) einfach nicht gewachsen. Selbst in Kleinigkeiten, wie im Text unten von Havang(nl) habe ich Sinnverständnis-Probleme vom Text und im Jargon benutzten Abkürzungen.

Kaum öffentlich zur Kenntnis genommen, hat ein offensichtlich großer Orchideen Experte User:Dalton_Holland_Baptista aus Brasilien sein hervorragendes Bildmaterial für Commons zu Verfügung bereit gestellt. Die, ich glaube, mittlerweile über 2500 Artikel und Kategorien der Orchideen weiterhin zu ordnen und mit den entsprechenden Informationen zu versehen, nimmt viel Zeit in Anspruch. Ich habe den Ehrgeiz nicht aufgegeben, diesen Commons Bereich möglichst perfekt als Informationsquelle mit zu gestalten.

Ich hoffe, mit Euch in Zukunft ein paar freundliche Adressen mehr zu haben, die ich hoffentlich ansprechen kann, wenn mir Dinge über den Kopf wachsen.

Viele Grüße an Euch alle. Orchi (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Walter,

thanks for your friendly words. As you know, I do not have enough knowledge in your language to understand difficult texts and to debate discussions. That is the main reason not to be at disposal as admin. I like to accept your offer, to help me, when I need assistance in english.

Cheers. Orchi (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, komm, du machst unvermindert mit deiner guten Arbeit weiter und das ohne die Knöppe, die fehlen dir einfach. Möchtest du nicht vllt. doch? ;) Grüße, abf /talk to me/ 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, ABF, ....mir tut es ja leid, wenn Du die neuen Artikel checken musst, aber im Moment möchte ich die Orchideen in Commons möglichst gut als wissenschaftliche Quelle mitgestalten und das braucht mit "Handarbeit" leider viel Zeit, so dass ich hier schwerlich noch mit Admin. Themen beschäftigen könnte. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Orchi, think about avoiding overcategorisation, see Over-categorization.svg. Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Havang (nl), there are users, who produce 40 - 50 links on species informations. I am also against overcategorisation. But my change is the only and the very important link from a species article/gallery to the genus category. I hope this is my only violation against the rules in the current chaos in "Tree of life". Greetings Orchi (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a thought that "over categorization" has the meaning of "beyond a certain number of categories"? -- carol (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Orchi -- has anyone done anything aggressive to disturb the complicated, much maintained and focal point of botany related galleries here? -- carol (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think what you do is violation. In the future, because of the big numbers of images automatisation becomes more and more necessary and for that, horizontal 1:1 page-category links become more important. The semi-automatic process (catfromgallery, populate category, etc.) eliminate the redundant (level-up) cat's, so no need to spend time on adding the one-level-up category to the gallerypage.
  • On the other hand, there are still bottom-categories lacking gallerypages. (.P,.F) shows you at a glance if the category is lacking its gallerypage. Making gallerypages in the biology-section is out of my competence; I am pleased that you and others take care of that part which also contributes to a more stable commonsstructure. --Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, would you please update the Phrags page to show all accepted species the way you are doing now on other species so I'll know wich species are lacking photos. Furthermore the accepted species vary so much ... I'd like to have on ptwiki the same ones on wikispecies. Thanks,--Dalton (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dalton, I must the following say to you: I'm fascinated of your wonderful pictures and your great encouragement in the Portuguese WP.
In the next days I have some qustions about taxonomy and the names of three pictures here: Acianthera and Acianthera aurantiaca.
To Phragmipedium , I think, are many taxonomy opinions. I take the list of KEW. Greetings.Orchi (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Orchi, I'm glad you liked, no one else seemed to notice them. Regarding the three Acianthera, few days ago I wrote something on discussion page of them. Just added a comment to A. aurantiaca too. Cheers, --Dalton (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, Eria has been divided in 7 or 8 genera and this division is widely accepted, although I am not sure further divisions are not coming in the future, well, unfortunately I do not have the publications of these revisions but I have the general info of how they did it, I mean which sections went where, thus I am uploading now some Eria with the new names. You are not going to find this info anywhere I guess, for I didn't, but as I know Kew is going to move them all around, maybe you should not lose your time making detailed pages of each, unless of course your robot is able to correct them easy later. Cheers,--Dalton (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, thanks for your informations. More than earlier I see the great difficulties to check right the taxonomy of Pleurothallidinae. It was not my first interest. But I believe, that you are the real expert and therefore I suggest, that we should accept the names and taxonomies of your pictures in Commons as you use them in the Portuguese Wikipedia.
Perhaps we are able to find a common way of placing and sorting your new pictures. In the moment I look on your User Page and try to create an article and a category. My proposal: If there exist a genus category, please place your pictures there; are the pictures of a not existing Genus category, place them in the Category:Orchidaceae. That is a good and the only possibility to find new pictures here and to sort them to the correct place. (As I said, this is my proposal only!!)
Further proposal: From the pictures, you placed in Eria I create new genera according to the names of the images.
By the way a little information: I'm not a Bot and all my doing here is not by "robot", but "by hand". Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
OK Orchi, I'll do like you say and place on Orchidacea all species that still do not have a Category. Good that you told me so, for I was not sure what the best way of doing it was. Oh, I thought you had some sort of bot to help you with this huge task that is sort all these photos of Orchidaceae out. And again, I am counting on your help whenever I upload a photo with an odd or suspicious name for, despite I try to do not make mistakes, sometimes I do, furthermore there are genera that I know almost nothing. Cheers,--Dalton (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pabstiella miragliae[edit]

Pabstiella miragliae (Leite) Luer, Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 112: 120 (2007).

Homotypic Synonyms:[edit]

  • Bas.:Pleurothallis miragliae Leite, Arq. Bot. Estado São Paulo, n.s., f.m., 2: 93 (1947).
  • Trichosalpinx miragliae (Leite) Toscano, Kew Bull. 47: 774 (1992).
  • Specklinia miragliae (Leite) Luer, Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 95: 262 (2004).

Dear Orchi, I am sorry I stopped working on Pleurothallids for a while. I am updating the whole orchids structure of pt.WP, then will go on with the new Pleurothallid genera. But here is the publication reference for you. Cheers--Dalton (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, thanks you for your quick and perfect answer. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
...just I place your wonderful images in the spanish and english WP.Orchi (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Orchi! Thanks for your kind greetings, I hope to find the time this winter to add some more beautiful botanical drawings to Commons pages! It's a real pleasure for me to find these phantastic drawings, and I hope that maybe sometimes someone can use them to identify plants. Next summer I hope to hunt for real orchids again! Kind regards, Maarten Sepp (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What now[edit]

So Orchi, I finished all easy genera of Brazil and added one photo of one species to each, from the ones I have, well I may have some more photos of lacking genera but have to look for them later. However, there are several missing genera to be writen because they were or are being divided or some were divided or merged although no one likes the new classification (like Sophronitis coccinea being a Cattleya now...) So what will we do with those? Will we place all Sophronithis under Cattleya just because they say so? What about the genera I know Kew will accept but have not updated the database as yet (like the split of Maxillaria in several genera done by the people of Florida University) Should I do they now? But then there is no source on-line to prove the divisions... only the articles I have here and also the talks I had with them. People will say I'm a "weirdo". So what do we do? cheers Dalton (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, first: I believe the most friends of orchids are "weirdos". Second: give me some time to answer you in the question of the new taxonomies. I will ask a friend (in WP) also. I have a little opinion. Third: Can you give me more taxonomic informations about Lueckelia. and Rauhiella. I have a lot of "old books". Unfortunately I have not the up to date books. Fourth: Could you fill further taxonomy informations (Tribus and Subtribus) in the Portuguese Genera articles? I think with your help the Portuguese WP can be a reference in orchids. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'll fill all the taxonomic info in the taxoboxes. I just didn't to Cymbidieae-Maxillariinae-Oncidiinae, Dendrobium, Bulbophyllum and Monopodial groups for I am sure they are going to change a lot so I'll lose much time if I do so now. Will do after Genera Orchidacearum 5 is released (soon). The other groups I am doing as I have time. I haven't finished several tribes of Epidendroideae because those are the complicated genera. Lueckelia and Rahuiella publication info are in Kew database but if you ask about tribes, etc, Lueckelia is a close relative of Polycycnis so belongs to the same subtribe (Stanhopeinae I guess). Rahuiella is very close to Chitroglossa and somewhat to Zygostates, thus it might be Ornithocephalinae (case you still use it - They told me they are going to get rid of Ornithocephallinae but you know... sometimes they change idea). I placed a stub of the classification of these genera at at but that is far from complete. And maybe you will suffer with the Portuguese but you will get the list and placement. I suffer a lot to get the Deutch stuff too. Dalton (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Destroying sorting?[edit]

Hi Orchi, why are you destroying the sorting? Examples [9], [10] & [11]. Multichill (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC) the moment is in orchids a difficile sorting and classification and a roboter function is not the best way. (Later please).Orchi (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you talking about? Could you please answer my question? Multichill (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
please later.Orchi (talk)
Now would be a good time to respond. Multichill (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Give me the change to sort and classify the family of orchid. The last step of sorting will be the way you sorted, but in the meantime I need step orientation in the more than 2500 articles and categories. In the moment it it very important for me to create articles and categories of the wonderful photos of a expert of Brazil.Orchi (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We could use my bot to sort stuff, shouldn't be that hard. Multichill (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me one example.Orchi (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Category:Heterotaxis. Multichill (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This Genus I had complete classified and sorted. Than should be the action of your bot o.k. What do we with synonyms? Unfortunately now is in the Species article not more a link to the Genus category as for example here Category:Natricinae in the good organized categories and articles of Serpentes of the very active User:Jwinius. Orchi (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat. x mesquitae[edit]

Yes, it is this natural hybrid. You are right. By the way I am a little stressed too for they want to delete a photo of an illustration of Flora brasiliensis dated 1896 because they say the author Cogniaux could not be possible to live so long to be able to upload it to commons. Cheers Dalton (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the other illustrations of the same book: Category:Flora Brasiliensis and Category:Flora Brasiliensis (Orchidaceae), where the license are not complained. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know! there are plenty of them around. It was some detail about authorship!Well, let's move on. Dalton (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


My friend, I answered to your recent questions on my own discussion page. Cheers, Dalton (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Acianthera aurantiaca[edit]

Hi Orchi here is the publication info for you:

Acianthera aurantiaca (Barb.Rodr.) Campacci, Bol. CAOB 69-70: 25. (2008) [25 Apr 2008]

Cheers, Dalton (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...thanks for now. Cheers Orchi (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Dear Orchi, thank you for the updated list of Cyrtopodium I copied it to the main page and erased the old one. That other one was already there when I arrived and I didn't check it.Dalton (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Typing ×[edit]

Hi Orchi - I'm fairly sure it was recommended by the Tree of Life group as standard for hybrid names; certainly a majority of the pages of hybrids use it, I am just bringing the few left-overs into line as/when I find them. You can type × by holding down the Alt key, and entering 0215 on the number keypad (right end of the keyboard), then release the Alt key. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello MPF, thank you for your tip! I di'nt know the decision of the Tree of Live group. Nevertheless for the most users over the world it is nearly impossible to find an article with the key combination and 0215. Perhaps should a redirect with "x" lead to the titles with "×". Greetings.Orchi (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a redirect is certainly a good idea; I think most do have them already (moving a page creates one automatically) - MPF (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi, see here. 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

no consensus with your handling until this family is correct sorted and classified. Orchi (talk)

New gallery: category with or without "|" or both?[edit]

Hello Orchi!

I have a question: what is the best way for categories, if I make a new page (gallery)? With and without the "|"-sign, for example:

Category:Stanhopea guttulata

Or just:

Category:Stanhopea guttulata

(and then in this new category Category:Stanhopea|guttulata).
Or is there a reason that you sometimes use the one way and another time the other way? (To be honest, I just don't understand the higher science of "Categorology"...)

Thanks for your answer, and "herzliche Gruesse", maarten Sepp (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Maarten Sepp,

first gratulation for your excellent work in "old books". Every day I'm glad to see "Xenia" becoming more complete. (many years ago I photographed this book in Berlin).

And now I try to answer your question:

There was a no ending discussion between the advocates of galleries and categories in plants and animals. In the meantime it was decided, that every picture must have a category. Unfortunately in categories is not the possibility to check, control or classify new pictures. This is only possible over the watchlists of the galleries.

In the moment my personal way is, to sort the articles of Species in the genus category (genus|species). When other users remove the"|", the sorting is only against the Species category. Then I put the second category of the genus in the article (to avoid "editwar"). This is the only link from a Species article to the relevant Genus category. (Taxonavigation gives this possibility not).

To sort and classify all the thousends of orchid pictures and Species and hundreds of Genera, I think, currently this is the best way of sorting, until better tools are present. Also the tempate "see more" is a present help today also and a preparation for a further information later.

Many good and active friends of botany and animals left commons due to this conflict in the "Tree of life". Cheers. Orchi (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orchi,
Thanks for your fast reply, so I'll use "Category:genus|species" from now on. Xenia is wonderful. You're a lucky man to have photographed the real book!
Kind greetings, maarten Sepp (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you id an orchid?[edit]

Hi Orchi

I have photographed another orchid which I think is a Holothrix, but cant identify which one it is. I dont want to upload unless it can be identified. Would you be able to Identify it? It was photographed on Christmas Day in the South Peninsula. Best wishes for Christmas Andrew massyn (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew massyn, first thanks for your good wishes. I hope, you have a merry Chrismas also. Unfortunately I have about African orchids only two books. But I think, you should upload your (wonderful) pictures without comlete classification too. Friends of mine can help me perhaps. Since some months we have a great expert in orchids in WP (User:Dalton Holland Baptista), who is ready to help surely also. I am glad to see your pictures. Greetings and for you a happy New Year. Orchi (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi I have uploaded three pics and put them on my user page. The first two were taken on Table Mountain 27th Dec. on the upper slopes at about 800m. The last one was taken 25 Dec on Silvermine at about 300m. Both are in Table Mountain Sandstone nutrient poor calcerous soil. The plant is about knee hight and the flowers are insignificant - about the size of a fingernail. Of course I may be wrong and find they are not even orchids... Hope you can help. Andrew massyn (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC).
Dear Andrew, I guess those are not orchids for they do not seem to have the sexual organs merged in a column. I guess I can see three stamens in the flowers. Not sure what I see because the angle of the shoot leaves room to doubt. Cheers Dalton (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
O.K. Will you please delete them? I will try to find out what they are, and once they are identified, I will re-upload them. Many thanks Andrew massyn (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, please keep the three photos on your userpage. I ask the german botanist User:Griensteidl whether he has an idea to identify your pictures. Greetings. .Orchi (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Coelogyne occultata[edit]

Dear Orchi, I guess the photo you uploaded of C. occultata is some C. fimbriata or a relative of it. I'm not an expert but C. occultata belongs to the group of C. nitida and C. corymbosa and I guess it should have a different looking, Please check it out so we can be sure. Cheers, Dalton (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dalton, you are right. Tonight I had not a good feeling to upload this old image with this name. I'll change the name.
Just I saw, that you answered Andrew massyn. This should be my question to you today. I had the same doubt as you. A good friend of mine thinks, it could be an orchid, but in his African orchid books he did not find any flower like the plants of these pictures.
Can you help here: [12] A german user, who wants to upload these pictures, asked me to classify these images. He photographed the pictures end of march near Machu Piccu.
Ida fimbriata or Ida reichenbachii ?
Pleurothallis spec. (I have not knowledge)
Odontoglossum praestans ( I guess)
Dear Orchi, none of these are ready answers for me because they are species we do not usually see in Brazil. I have books here enough to classify some of them, however I'd rather do it in a few days because they intend to take the star away from Orchids article in Pt-wiki and I am reworking it before the time expires. The Pleurothallis I guess belongs to Crocodeilanthe group. they are not that many and it will be sort of easy to identify when I get to it. The Ida I guess also will not be difficult, but the Odontoglossum I haven't any books about them and they just die here in Brazil for it is too hot.
Last question for today. Shall I take your taxonomy of (WP:pt) Prosthechea in commons? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well this is the easy one. You know, I do not really care about how the genus is called provided the species is properly identified, thus go with Prosthechea if you feel confortable with it. Kew is going to stick with Prosthechea and I guess they are going to win this one. I use all these genera divisions because here in Brazil everyone does so. Probably Prosthechea is a better choice to Wikipedia. Same is going to happen with Dendrobium. I'll use all Clements and Jones new genera in pt-Wiki but I am not sure they will prevail. You know how politics and power is mixed with science in this organizations, please do always feel free to classify the photos I upload the way you think it is better (like the Trudelia one, if you prefer to classify it as Vanda, do so.) You are making a wonderful job here keeping all these orchid photos in order! (thank you) I'll get back to the three species you asked in a few days. Dalton (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
....thank you for your quick answer. It' a pity, that I do'nt know your language. It would be a great benefit for the german WP, if I could translate your splendid articles in pt WP. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Kew World Checklist[edit]

Nicht peer reviewed. Nahezu jede aktuelle Publikation in einem peer reviewed journal trennt die Arten.

...darum beide Namen, um nicht in Wikipedia alle taxononischen Diskussionen und Meinungen auszutragen. Orchi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, As Wikipedia is a neutral resource, why doesn't the user write an article about Dendrobium phalaenopsis/biggibum explaining that Vappodes biggiba can be split in four species by some taxonomists and why. I actually like Clements and Jones work. On the other hand, we mostly have used Kew for our indexing otherwise everything would become utmost confusing. That's the way I do in Portuguese wiki, I just tell the differences when a species or a genus is divided or accepted by some and not by others. Dalton (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)