User talk:Orchi/archive 2011

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

Archive: ⇒ 2005 ⇒ 2006 ⇒ 2007 ⇒ 2008 ⇒ 2009 ⇒ 2010 ⇒ 2011 ⇒ 2012 ⇒ 2013 ⇒ 2014 ⇒ 2015

Bot[edit]

Hello my friend,
Do you know a nice contributor in biology with a bot ?
I miss Rocket000. Sniff.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liné1, unfortunately I know Rocket000 in biology only. If I had more knowledge in WP ways, I would prefer to have an own Bot. Could it be an aim for you also? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend,
I could not wait for Rocket000 return.
So I created a bot and I am requesting for bot authorisation.
Of course, you will be able to use my bot for your own tasks ;-)
If you wish, you can vote for my request there: Commons:Bots/Requests/Liné1bot
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks my friend for the vote ;-)
About Category:Unidentified Zosterops, are you following me ? I like that ! ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...I follow your perfectionism only. :-). Orchi (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hihi, excellent. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my friend, did you try my tool fr:Utilisateur:Liné1/WikiBioReferences (in english, not french ;-)) ?
You type a taxon name, press search
=> it generates wikicommons syntax with:
Try it it is good stuff used by many french contributors
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot (2)[edit]

hello my friend,
You certainly saw my last bot run and I think you helped me with latin terms when I began on commons.
Can you confirm me that the correct latin terms are:

  • Cladus (not Clade that I see everywhere, due to me ;-()(Currently as soon as I see one, I don't modify the Taxonavigation)
  • Divisio (not Division)
  • Sectio (not Section)
  • Tribus (not Tribe nor Tribu)

What would you advise me for undertermined ranks: Unranked or (Unranked) (I saw both a lot).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liné1, Divisio (pl. Divisiones), Sectio (pl. Sectiones), Tribus (pl. Tribus) are clear definitions.
  • Whether "Clade" is like "Domain" the international usual term, I can not say.
In our "taxonavigation" I would prefer "Kladus", the latin form of the old-greek word κλάδος.
I will ask User:Franz Xaver. He is the absulut expert here.
Maybe Franz Xaver can give an exposition of "unranked" also.
Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the answer to the first point is not too difficult. Cladus should be correct - see la:Cladus. The other point is much mor difficult, as usually latin language in science only is used in connection with ranked taxa. Probably, the term gradus (en: grade) is most suited to use in Latin when rank should be adressed. I do not know, if in Latin there exists an adjective like unranked. Maybe it can be circumscribed with sine gradu in Latin. It's long time ago that I went to school. Sorry, I have forgotten most of my Latin. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, Franz Xaver, I'll propose User:Liné1 to use your expositions. (Mein Schul-Latein und -Griechisch liegen auch schon circa 50 Jahre zurück). Grüße. Orchi (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the answer.
By the way, could you vote in Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Cladus_Angiosperms_uppercase_or_lowercase ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latina[edit]

Dear Liné1, I think your very good bot should not delete the latin names, when
a) in the latin WP is an corresponding article and

Yes, this seems a good idea. Liné1 (talk)

b) the latin scientific name is available in the moment only.

Sorry, I did not understand that part Liné1 (talk)

Cheers. Orchi (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orchi,
I discovered a lot of strange things:
  1. there are some |<lang>=<scientific name> (as If the contributor wanted their langage to have vernacular names for all species)
    • this works for some genus names that have been incorporated in the current language and can be considered as vernaculare names (In french: Begonia, Acacias...)
    • this cannot work for species names
  2. there are a lot of |la=<scientific name>:
    • in general there is a confusion between 'scientific names' (that can contain mix of latin, greek and other languages (like sioux 'Bison')) and 'latin name' (term that does not exist)
    • For species, I am sure that binominal names are never understandable by en:Claudius
    • For higher ranks, like genus, I am also quite sure that ancient latin people had not the notion of genus => even if the genus is a correct latin term (like 'Equus') I am quite sure that it does not describe the same count of species (Donkey (en:Equus asinus) where not considered as Equus)
  3. there are a lot of {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }}
    • I suppose that this is something else: the contributor knew that it is incorrect, but wants to place a VN, but he does not want to provide an empty VN.
Here is my proposition for my bot:
  • for any language but for species only: I will suppress any <lang>=<species binominal name>.
But I have an problem with:
  • what do I do with {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }} ?
    • should I suppress the VN ?
    • should I leave it so ? (Beurk, beurk and beurk)
    • should I replace by {{VN| en= }} ?
      • We could change VN to says "Dear reader, could you, please, provide Vernacular names" when no language is provided.
PS: I really like that you check my bot's work. I feal safer (I wont mess the whole commons ;-).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Orchi meant with his point b) that your bot should not remove {{la|<scientific name>}} if this is the only description of a given file.
OTOH, the upload form entices to use the language Latin as field for the scientific name, the main upload form has no possibility to add a "generic" description.
as an example: the day before yesterday I uploaded a picture with this summary, two languages with commons names and some infos about the picture and Latin as placeholder for the scientific name (without further informations), this was later changed. Probably the latter is the better and more transparent way of describing species images but I'm not willing to touch a file twice: First uploading with common names in different languages, second step to add the scientific name without using a language template (Yes, I'm lazy :))
Greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But my bot does not touch files, only articles and categories.
So there is someone that puts {{VN| la=<species binomial name> }} manually.
And that is bad.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I just saw that Ochi corrected category:Allium (the diff).
With my proposition, my bot would let |la=Allium in category:Allium (because I cannot bring enough intelligence in my bot)
But I think that |la=Allium is really wrong. The latin word Allium is for en:garlic (en:Allium sativum) not for en:Onion (en:Allium cepa).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....you see my difficulty to explain botanical and software questions in the english language.
My point a) seems to be o.k.
My point b) User:Rbrausse helped for understanding: "that your bot should not remove {{la|<scientific name>}} if this is the only description in VN"

Your proposals:

  • should I replace by {{VN| en= }}
  • We could change VN to says "Dear reader, could you, please, provide Vernacular names" when no language is provided

are not the best ways, I think.
(what is: (Beurk, beurk and beurk)??

You are an informatic engineer and software artist. I try to say what I mean. (Please don't laugh)
Could you change the template VN in that way, that following condition is integrated:
"If not |af= until |zh= than write: Scientific name: {{FULLPAGENAME]]
Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me summarize all this:
  • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
    • except if that leads to an empty VN
  • I will try to modify {{VN}} to display "Scientific name: {{PAGENAME}}"
    • if I success I will suppress the "except if that leads to an empty VN" part of the algo.
Do you think that would work ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in general I agree - I have only problems with automatically define the pagename as scientific name. We have many categories like Hoplites (Hoplitidae) but the binominal is only Hoplites.
I would prefer an extended VN template, with an added mandatory parameter "binominal" - I think this would be more transparent as no one has the necessity to "abuse" la=<foobar> for the scientific name.
my 2 cents... [full disclosure: I'm neither familiar with templates nor the category system] Rbrausse (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hihi, you are correct (again ;-))
  1. ALGO before any VN change:
    • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
      • except if that leads to an empty VN
  2. I will try to modify {{VN}} to add a |sci= parameter (like scientific name) that will only appear if no other language is specified. Its default value will be {{PAGENAME}}.
  3. ALGO after VN change:
    • for any language, but for species only: I will suppress any |<lang>=<species binominal name>.
    • If the resulting VN is empty:
      • if the pages/article contains "(xxxx)", I will add |sci=<species binominal name> where <species binominal name> whould be "{{PAGENAME}}" minus the ending "(xxxx)"
      • otherwise the VN will be empty (but will display "scientific name: XXXX")
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


About questions[edit]

Cattleya dormaniana... I have undone my edit. I usually follow the World Checklist (http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=35884). Must have slipped here. I will check the WSSN. I wasn't aware of the disfunction. Thank you for letting me know. Uleli (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cattleya vs. Sophronitis, and others[edit]

Wriiting for the Wikispecies I will basicly follow the World Checklist in naming orchids. The genus Sophronitis is not recognized but merged (as to type) with Cattleya. However, I didn't want to do any changes on Commons before consulting you, realizing the wast amount of work you put into the pages here. I would recommend that we follow the World Checklist [1]. What to do? Uleli (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion and proposals:
  • In Wikispecies to follow KEWs taxonomy exactly.
  • In Commons Orchidaceae I wrote as taxonomic note:
"Familia Orchidaceae is orientated to the taxonomy of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and
Genera Orchidacearum, Volume 1 - 5 (6); edited by Alec M. Pridgeon, Phillip J. Cribb, Mark W. Chase and Finn N. Rasmussen; Oxford University Press"
I believe that is the right way for the future. But the work "Genera Orchidacearum" is not complete until today and many taxonomic questions are in discussion, particularly with regard to MBG and other institutes. Until the volume 6 and a supplement is published I would prefer the way to obtain the (KEW)- synonyms as category and gallery. In the past I used (like KEW) bold letters for acceped names and the normal letters for synonyms. The last word is not spoken in many genera. Especially in the taxonomy of the European orchids lives the chaos. Let us wait some times.
And now a little proposal for your great wikispecies work: (For example: Cattleya) to separate the nothospecies in a) natural hybrids and b) cultivars. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moraeas[edit]

Hi Orchi What book do you use to classify Moraeas? I have two, Goldblatts Moraeas which is great but dated, and Manning, Goldblatt and Snijyman The Colour encyclopaedia of Cape Bulbs. I should like to get a more detailed book on Moraeas if there is one available. Sincerely Andrew massyn (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew massyn, unfortunatly I don't own a special book for Moraea. I think you are best orientated with your works. When I sort your wonderful (correct named) photos I use the taxonomy of KEW Gardens [2] and MBG [3]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have just given you two incorrectly named orchids. See Disa reticulata where the pics are for Satyrium odorum. Rgds Andrew massyn (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your correction!! I'll change the name of your photos and hope, that more orchids of South Africa of you will arrive commons. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botanic and Taxonavigation[edit]

Hello my friend.
You certainly saw the result of my last bot: I added include= in the {{Taxonavigation}}.
include= simply references a template in Category:Templates to include in Taxonavigation and allows to have a shorter Taxonavigation.
I have created 38 templates, corresponding to main classis that cover 90% of our categories/articles.
My purpose is:

  • Simplicity: to have shorter Taxonavigation => easier to create / maintain
  • Homogeneity: to have the same left part of the Taxonavigation in all the species of the same group.
  • Maintenance: when you change the upper side of the classification, you don't need to modify all the species category/article's Taxonavigation, you just modify the include templates.
  • Cleaning: I want to suppress the templates in Category:Plant Navigation Templates
    • They are too complex to create
    • They have 3 classification (APGIII, APGWeb, Cronquist) which is a bad idea (It is my fault at the origin ;-))
      • A taxon has different content depending on the classification, when a category has only 1 content
      • We should suppress Cronquist (my fault: as Commons used Cronquist before migrating to APGIII, I introduced classification=Cronquist)
    • They have been created by someone who did know nothing about classification (really, I had to explain what APGII was, Cronquist)
    • All the people involved in this templates have left commons.

Finally, my question:

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at a sample in Amborella trichopoda that uses Template:Amborellaceae (APG). This is just a test, my question is still valid ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liné1, these points are a very attractive project. Please give me some time for thinking and reply. Salu. Orchi (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zamenis longissimus Deutschland 001.jpg[edit]

Hallo, die junge Schlange auf dem Bild sieht aus wie eine Schlingnatter (Coronella austriaca) aus dem Bestimmtungs-Lehrbuch. Alle typischen Merkmale vorhanden, die der Äskulapnatter fehlen dagegen. Im sehr begrenzten Verbreitungsareal der Äskulapnatter sind beide Arten häufig vergesellschaftet. Schöne Grüße --Ina96 (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Ina96, ich möchte mich bei Dir für Deine Aufmerksamkeit und richtige Bestimmung vielmals bedanken! Das Bild aus der Gegend von Passau, wo sowohl Schlingnatter als auch Äskulapnatter vorkommen, habe ich umbenannt und neu sortiert. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank tou my friend for helping me integrating the Species in the Taxonavigation (like here).
It helps a lot + I feel less alone ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I could modify my bot to generate a list of categories/articles were the Taxonavigation does not contain the title as last item.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...your bot is like a "TGV". In the moment I have a little problem with my browsers to test some possibilities. I write to you some proposals and wishes later. (You are right: Commons-user in biology seems to become rare. Salu et merci. Orchi (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about the TGV. I saw that Orchidaceae species were impacted a lot. I am sorry if that put you in trouble.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend.
What do you think of the italic title. I feel quite confident about the article being in italic but not that much for the categories. The Category: is also in italic.
Are you sure that all hybrids are nothospecies? I thought that not nothospecies where natural or that hybrids between hybrids where not nothospecies.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salut Liné1, first I must say: You make a great taxonomy-job with and without bot!!!
Italic title: Like (for example) the English and German WP I prefer in Commons the italics in genera and species etc. also. If you could find a way to write the taxon as italic title in galleries and categories automaticly, I would have a new job for your bot: Removing of the little help {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''}}.
Nothospecies: Nothospecies, Subnothospecies are terms only for natural hybrids. I don't know, whether manmade - or artifical hybrids (cultivars) are called "hybrids" only. Here more: [4] and [5].
For the next days I will give you 2-3 proposals to your new templates. In German we say: "A picture says more than thausend words". I'll try to say my proposals with samples in (Greenhorn) - software. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the title for ranks below genus are now italic! Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oje, have I sleeped?!! Cheers. Orchi (talk)

Hey[edit]

Thanks for correcting this File:Clinging root of epiphyte (Vanda orchid).jpg. I didn't trace it far enough to its source. I now think it's either the root of Laelia or Cattleya, but not really sure. Anyway I should rename it. Thanks again.-Obsidi♠nSoul 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids in Mallorca[edit]

Category:Ophrys speculum in Mallorca is already inside Category:Ophrys speculum. Do I need to add the second one? If so, do I have to add other redundant categories like Category:Ophrys, Category:Orchids, Category:Plants? Thank you. Paucabot (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the species cat and add only the subcat of the Mallorca cat. Greetings Orchi (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain me the reason, please? Regarding to the name of the category, I'll change it. Is it Category:Flowers in Mallorca also incorrect? Thanks. Paucabot (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think either "in" or "of" only. Usually is the term: Flora of..., Flowers of... or Fauna of ..., Animals of .... Like: Animals of Spain or Category:Nature of Andalusia with "Animals of.., Flora of.. Flowers of.., etc.. I like in this way an uniform logic. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed moving Category:Flowers in Mallorca, moved all categories to Category:Orchids of Mallorca and asked the supression of Category:Orchids in Mallorca. What about the other question I asked? Thanks, Paucabot (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with number 1, although sometimes it's hard to differentiate of and in. Number 2: I can't understand you. 3. I also cannot understand you. Where is the guideline that refers to these matters? Paucabot (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer 2 - I repaired it by myself. Answer 3: follows.Orchi (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer 3: With help of user:Bdk I can give you the link to the guideline of "overcat" (Species and Genera and Familiae in plant- and animals categories): COM:OVERCAT. Greetings to the wonderful Mallorca. Orchi (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos von cirka 1000 verschiedenen Orchideen[edit]

Hallo Orchi, ich habe hier auf meiner Festplatte eine größere Sammlung Orchideen, die der Urheber unter CC-BY-SA lizensiert hat. Die Dateinamen beeinhalten die vom Urheber vorgenommene Klassifizierung, z.B. "Cattleya Arctic Star Snow Queen DSCN0637.JPG". Ich habe vor, die Sammlung mit Commonist hochzuladen und würde sie dabei erst in Category:Orchid photos by Arne and Bent Larsen kategorisieren. Hast du dabei irgendwelche Vorschläge oder Wünsche? Würdest du bei der anschließenden Kategorisierung und eventuelle Verlinkung in Wikipedia helfen? Viele Grüße, Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Nillerdk, .... hört sich ganz interessant an. Wenn die Bilder mit verlässlichen Namen versehen sind, werden wir sie gemeinsam den entsprechenden Kategorien zuordnen. Vielleicht gibst Du mir einen kleinen Hinweis, sobald Du in der angegebenen Kategorie Daten eingefügt hast. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schön! Ich habe nun das erste Foto manuell hochgeladen: File:Cattleya_Louise_Georgianna_x_Jolly_Roger_DSCN7797.JPG. Ich werde den Information-Baustein noch etwas anpassen, so dass die Quelle deutlicher hervorgeht. Könntest du dieses Foto vorbildlich kategorisieren/beschreiben, so dass ich ungefähr weiß, wie die Nachfolgenden aussehen sollen? Eventuell kann ich ja etwas automatisieren, um manuelle Arbeit zu sparen. Nillerdk (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...wenn die weiteren Bilder von gleich guter Qualität zu erwarten sind, freue ich mich schon. Das erste Bild sollte dann der Kategorie:Cattleya cultivars zugeordnet sein. Sinnvoll wäre es, wenn Du beim Hochladen eine erste Vorsortierung nach reinen Arten (Species) und Züchtungen (Cultivars) vornehmen könntest. Ich versuche, zwei Unterkategorien im Hauptordner einzurichten. (Kannst Du das Hochladen in überschaubarer Größenordnung vornehmen (max. 100) und nicht alle 1000 Bilder auf einmal?). Grüße. Orchi (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species categories[edit]

Hello my friend,
Cool your last modification ;-)
As you can see in the autogenerated documentation of Template:Zygophyllaceae (APG), Category:Species of Zygophyllaceae and Category:Genera of Zygophyllaceae should only contain {{TaxonavigationAutoCategory|Zygophyllaceae}}.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Liné1, j'espères je suis un bon élève. À bientot. Orchi (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best student ;-) Liné1 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, for Category:Xeronemataceae, you simply should follow the documentation of Template:Xeronemataceae (APG):
"categorizeSpeciesIn, Only if family contains multiple genera" which is not the case.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...me culpa, mea maxima culpa! I promise to work with more concentration. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phalaenopsis_inscriptiosinensis[edit]

Phalaenopsis_inscriptiosinensis has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−
Vibhijain (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hübsche kleine Hängedinger ;-)[edit]

Hallo Orchi, über dieses faszinierende Bild bin ich zu Category:Dendrochilum gekommen und dabei auf Dendrochilum formosanum gestoßen. Sind die Edits [6], [7] und [8] so recht? Bei der Kategorie bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob sie behalten oder gelöscht werden soll und die zwei Bilder umsortiert werden sollten (Category:Dendrochilum uncatum var. uncatum?) … Herzliche Grüße --:bdk: 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Bdk, alles perfect (nr. 2 ändere ich leicht). Nach der hier von KEW Gardens benutzen Taxonomie ist Dendrochilum formosanum ein Synonym. Die Kategorie kann werde ich dann mit catredirect zu Category:Dendrochilum uncatum legen und die Bilder in diese Kategorie schieben. Leider habe ich weder die Gallery noch die Kategory von Dendrochilum formosanum mitbekommen. Das ist gelegentlich mein Problem, wenn neue Spezies-Kategorien angelegt werden. Leider gibt es ja wohl keine Möglichkeit bei den vielen tausend Artikeln über neue Bilder im Bereich Orchideen informiert zu werden. Meine einzige Möglichkeit, neue Bilder zu finden, ist der Abgleich von Kategorien und Gallerien in der Genus Kategorie. Wenn die nun "formgerecht" (cf) umgestrickt werden, fehlt mir leider diese letzte kleine Hilfe. Außerdem finde ich ja vielleicht noch eine andere Möglichkeit, die komplette alphabetische Liste der gültigen Speziesnamen und Synonyme anderweitig als in der Kategorie unterzubringen. Herzliche Grüße und bis bald. Orchi (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huhu Orchi, habe mal wieder etwas für Dich entdeckt: Category:Gymnadenia nigra (Gymnadenia nigra) und Category:Nigritella nigra (Nigritella nigra) – offenbar Synonyme, bei denen mal (wie auch immer) „aufgeräumt“ werden müsste ;-) Viele Grüße --:bdk: 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Bdk, vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Leider sind sich die Wissenschaftler bei einigen Genera und Species völlig uneins über die "richtige" Taxonomie. Besonders heftig wird über die Zuordnung von Nigritella zu Gymnadenia diskutiert. Deshalb habe ich auch bisher einige Genera nebeneinander bestehen lassen und kein "redirect" gesetzt. Damit bei Commons kein zu großes taxonomischer Durcheinander entsteht, habe ich auf der Hauptseite den Hinweis auf die "Richtschnur" KEW geschrieben. Leider wird gerade bei den europäischen Orchideen die Meinung von KEW heftig bekämpft. Wenn man, wie z.B. bei Dracula international Konsens erzielt hat, kann man die früheren Masdevallia - Namen gut mit "redirects" versehen. Ein Problem ist auch, dass fast 100% der Literatur mit den "alten" Namen versehen ist. Sollte man das template:'Gültiger Name' vielleicht in 'Gültiger Name von KEW' ändern?
Es gibt zu Deinem Hinweis noch etliche offene Fragen. Z.B. Anacamptis / Orchis oder Neotinea / Orchis. Der Trend geht sicherlich in nächster Zeit in Richtung der von KEW bevorzugten Tax. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh je, ich wusste nicht, dass das so ein komplizierter Fall ist.
Mit template:'Gültiger Name' meinst Du offenbar Template:Val. Habe mir das gerade mal angesehen und dadurch auch sowas wie Cattleya bicalhoi/Laelia dayana/Sophronitis dayana entdeckt. Hmm, ist das nicht sehr aufwändig zu pflegen? Woher wissen denn Nutzer, die ein neues Bild hochladen, dass sie es gleich in drei Seiten und/oder drei Kategorien parallel einfügen sollen? Und was passiert, wenn sie gar ein Bild unter dem Namen Hadrolaelia dayana hochladen? Gibt's dann eine vierte Parallelsortierung? ;-) Und dann fällt mir auf, dass diese Zeichnung nur in einer Kategorie/Seite auftaucht, man sie also nur zu Gesicht bekommt, wenn man ein bestimmtes der drei Synonyme anklickt. Also, so richtig komfortabel und auf Anhieb verständlich finde ich diese Struktur nicht. Kleine provokante Frage: Wer außer Dir kümmert sich hier intensiv um die Orchideen? Wenn ich mal (meist eher zufällig) bei den Orchis lande, dann bemerke ich nämlich fast nur Deine regelmäßige Arbeit und v.a. die entsprechend gut gegliederten und informativen Galerien *lob*. Falls Du Dich quasi alleine um dieses Gebiet kümmern solltest, dann obliegt es naturgemäß Dir, abzuwägen, welche Struktur am sinnvollsten und am besten durchzuhalten ist (ggf. auch durch Dritte, wenn Du mal pausierst oder so). Persönlich erscheinen mir pragmatische Redirect-Lösungen grundsätzlich sinnvoller (Synonym-Informationen gehen dadurch ja nicht verloren, auffindbar ist auch alles und deutlich einfacher zu pflegen dürfte es auch sein, ggf. durch einfache Seitenverschiebung/Kategorieumbenennung). Ein Vorteil der mehrfachen Parallelstrukturen erschließt sich mir bislang nicht. Allerdings ist meine Laieneinschätzung sicher kein Maßstab, daher würd ich sagen: Mach einfach, wie Du meinst :-)
Bei der Val-Vorlage dürfte eine Ergänzung/Änderung speziell für die Orchideen („gemäß KEW“, am besten verlinkt) in der Tat hilfreich sein. Dann wäre klar, was hier bevorzugt als Referenz genutzt wird (an irgendwas muss man sich ja orientieren). Beste Grüße --:bdk: 12:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Bdk,

Danke für Deine verständnisvollen Kommentare. Ich werde versuchen, noch einige Erläuterungen und Anmerkungen zu geben. 1. Mit Laelia / Sophronitis / Cattleya hast Du zielsicher eine der z.Z. heftigsten Meinungsunterschiede bei den "Orchidioten" getroffen. Die Diskussion ist noch in vollem Gange und die letzt erschienen Bücher schieben die Namen hin und her. KEW gardens und MBG sind sich nicht grün in der Beurteilung der Taxonomie. Dann kommt häufig noch dazu, dass z.B. die Südamerikaner (oder Asiaten) der Ansicht sind, die Benennung von Orchideen sei bei ihnen richtiger, als im fernen London. (siehe Hadrolaelia )

2. Die Pflege in Commons ist aufwändig. Vor allem, wenn Bilder in eine neu erstellte, richtig (gemeinte) Art-Kategorie geladen werden, und man kann sie nur noch per Zufall finden. Ich freue mich immer, wenn neue Bilder entweder auf die Hauptseite Orchidaceae oder in die Gattungskategorien gelegt werden. Das ist für mich die einzige Möglichkeit, von neuen Bildern im Bereich Orchideen zu erfahren und sie zu sortieren.

3. Leider haben sich einige sehr gute Orchideenspezies zurückgezogen oder sehr rar gemacht. Der größte Verlust für die Orchideen in Wikipedia ist der durch nervende IPs verärgerte Wissenschaftler Dalton Holland Baptista aus Brasilien. Maarten Sepp, der hervorragend die alte Literatur und Surinam bearbeitet hat, ist selten geworden. BerndH war auch durch Bot-Verhalten "verschnupft", hilft mir aber sehr eifrig, auch telefonisch, beim Bestimmen. (Die letzten templates zum Verlinken der Bilder aus alten Büchern von Speziesartikeln mit dem Gesamtbuch hat er auf meinen Wunsch hin auch geschrieben.)

4. Auf Sicht werde ich die "redirect" - Lösung noch verstärkt anwenden. Ich denke, wenn der 6. Band und die verschiedenen Errata der ersten fünf Bände des Werkes "Genera Orchidacearum, Volume 1 - 5 (6); edited by Alec M. Pridgeon, Phillip J. Cribb, Mark W. Chase and Finn N. Rasmussen; Oxford University Press" erschienen ist, wird dafür der richtige Zeitpunkt sein. Die gesamte Taxonomie bei den Orchideen in Commons habe ich konsequent nach den ersten fünf Bänden dieser Studie gestaltet. Der hervorragende Benutzer: Dietzel in der deutschen WP richtet sich auch nach KEW und damit auch nach diesem Werk. In der deutschen WP sollte einiges umgeschrieben werden. (Die Veränderungen Orchis / Dactylorhiza / Anacamptis /Neotinea etc. scheinen eine verbreiterte Akzeptanz zu finden.

5. Zu den Synomymen habe ich vor einiger Zeit Sympathie für den Weg des Users:Uleli gefunden. Er verlinkt die Synonyme in Commons mit der Seite von Wikispecies. Ich habe z.B. bei Neotinea und Cypripedium begonnen, diesen Weg einzuschlagen, wurde aber von einem granaten-wichtigen Admin. belehrt, (wenn ich alles richtig überstzt habe), dass das Lemma wichtiger sei als korrekte Taxonomie.

6. Seit einiger Zeit verlinke ich alle Synonyme innerhalb einer Gattung, so dass wenigstens diese Namen in der alphabetischen Auflistung der Kategorie auftauchen.

7. Eine ganz persönliche Anmerkung: Zur Bienen-Ragwurz (Ophrys apifera) bietet KEW 76 Synonyme; zur Großen Spinnen-Ragwurz (Ophrys sphegodes) 148 Synonyme. Jeder der Autoren ist bestimmt von der Richtigkeit seiner Arbeit überzeugt gewesen. Als ich vor einigen Jahren von einem bekannten Wissenschaftler auf einem Kongress eine Auskunft zu Orchis / Neotinea erhalten wollte, sagte er mir: "Das sind alles nur Meinungen und wer sich mit Taxonomie beschäftigt, ist eine arme S.." .(Zitatende)

8. Die "Val- Vorlage" habe ich geändert und hoffe, dass ich sie richtig übersetzt habe.

9. Zum Schluss noch ein völlig anderes Thema. Gibt es ein Tool oder die Möglichkeit, Bilder aus Kategorien mit der Maus in Gallerien zu ziehen? Das Sortieren der Bilder in die Gallerien nach verschiedenen Kriterien ist sehr nervig und zeitaufreibend.

Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, das wirkt alles arg kompliziert. Da kann ich nur etwas zu 9. sagen, nämlich, dass mir dazu nichts bekannt ist. Für Kategorien hat Magnus hingegen etwas Schickes entwickelt (Beispiel 1, Beispiel 2, im Testmodus, beim ersten Laden ggf. etwas warten). --:bdk: 15:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, Bdk, dass Du meinen "Lust" und "Frust" Beitrag gelesen hast. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis zum neuen Tool von Magnus. Ich werde mich damit beschäftigen. Vielleicht schreibt er ja auch mal das von mir gewünschte Tool; er ist ja genial. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition[edit]

Long overdue:

The Orchid Contributor's Barnstar
For your never stopping work on orchids. Hans 06:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans 06:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Hans, thanks for your compliment! I recognized with pleasure that you are here again.
My compliment to you: Without all your fantastic photos, commons would be not so excellent in many biological specifications.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hookeriana/hookerana[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. The spelling change was incorrect - see here. Cheers, Mgiganteus (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iris germanica in France[edit]

Hello Orchi, I reverted your edit as you don't give any explanation and it doesn't make sense to me. What seems so obvious to you, maybe isn't to other people. HotCat is so convenient, sure, but not very instructive for other contributors when you remove stuff. I suppose you mean Iris germanica doesn't grow wild in France? Is that it? Yet even though it were so, that would still be Iris germanica and still in France. Your concepts need clarification. Is it that you don't want cultivated plants to be localized? But why? - Olybrius (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olybrius,
I never saw any category named like yours: [[:Category:<species scientific name> in <country>]].
You did create a lot of categories for your picture:
Some are really cool:
Some are really unusual (imagine for our 100.000 species categories if we we created 1-10 regional categories !!!) :
Others are also unusual (imagine how many categories would be created if everyone did the same as you ?) :
I really like your photos but maybee, you could limit your category creation.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salu Liné, thanks for your info. The text of the user Olybrius I di'nt understand in an essential passage, so that I will not anser at once. Best greetings to you. Orchi (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Line1, I will answer to your remarks on your page. - Olybrius (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orchi, wenn Du willst kannst Du auf Deutsch antworten. Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr flüssig und Ich bin auch ein bisschen faul, deshalb ziehe Ich English vor wenn Ich schreibe, aber Deutsch lesen ist normalerweise ziemlich ok. Was hast Du nicht verstanden? Kurz gesagt, wollte Ich die Gründe für dieses edit kennen, weil Du keine Erklärung gegeben hattest. - Olybrius (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...no further annotions than made by Liné1. Orchi (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, maybe I should have answered here... Aw, two lazy two re-answer, but basically, yeah, I will wait until I have more files to create further national-botanical categories, and try to fill them more actively. But they matter much to me as plant habitus/habitat may vary greatly depending on the country, this is also a way of uncrowding all these huge heaps. I plan as well to create anatomical categories like Category:Cupressus sempervirens (cones), etc. for major species, and also distinguishing cultivated individuals from spontaneous ones whenever possible. Category:Celtis australis could be a showcase of all that. Grüße. - Olybrius (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drymocallis rupestris[edit]

Hello Boss ;) Drymocallis rupestris (L.) Soják doesn't exist in the theplantlist.org. Potentilla rupestris L. is an accepted name at FloraWeb.de, FloreAlpes.com and theplantlist.org. Potentilla rupestris L. is an accepted name at "Den virtuella floran", and Drymocallis rupestris (L.) Sojak is a synonym. What do u think? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris.urs-o, first thank for your great work here in historic books. I agree to change Drymocallis rupestris as synonym. [9]. and third: Never I was called "Boss". ;). I think you found the four unavailable pictures in vol. 11 of "Sturm". I could scan them. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yw and thx, thx u too, I supposed the missing illustrations (07.30, 11.37, 11.38, 11.43, 11.44) were eaten up ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comarum palustre is doubtfull too. Could u take a look on ur template at Potentilla anglica pls, thx. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chris.urs-o, the last missing plate 07.30. is on board. I hope the way to treat Potentilla × mixta is correct. In question Comarum palustre I can not say, what is the accepted name and what is the synonym. Every WP goes its own way and here is no to give a ruling:
[10]
[11]
[12]. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx ;) When I'm in doubt, I don't change, as a rule ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flower_9399.jpg[edit]

Was this image rotate request required? I feel the rotated version disturbs the view! --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. I was oriented to the normal position of the flowers of this genus. I will revert the picture to your satisfaction. Orchi (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orchi, I got disturbed as the background(leaves and flower) makes a feeling that its rotated. The picture alone doesn't make any difference in the look. But I feel; we should consider the background also. Thanks --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crocus speciosus[edit]

Beste Orchi,

I have seen that you have replaced the picture of Crocus speciosus on page Crocus by a close-up picture, which I have taken yesterday in my garden.

For your info, I have recently acquired a new, more performing camera, so that I will put in the future better-definition close-up pictures of plants.

As you have probably already noticed, I always try to upload only pictures of plants, which I have first correctly identified.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Belgien, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm templ[edit]

I think spelling variants should not be cited as synonyms ({{Sturm 09|20|Coluta arborescens}}), it confuses. There are so many typos (j/i, y/i, o/oe, a/ae, ...), and they aren't in the lists, most of the time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should not give all synonyms the same status, as in Tela Botanica/BDNFF [13]: Synonymes taxonomiques, Synonymes nomenclaturaux (for example: nom. ill., illegitimate name), Synonymes "au sens de (sensu)" and Spelling variants. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...o.k., I will correct it. If you see such "points", change it please. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteria[edit]

Hysteria has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−
EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry, I made a mess at Cytisus supinus L./ Cytisus hirsutus L. ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orchi, could u confirm me that Sturm's vol. three has only 56 plates and not 64 plates ??? Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chris.urs-o, that's correct. Vol. 3 is issued with 56 plates. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that u don't mind my asking, but do u have access to Thomé, Flora von Deutschland, vol. 1, plate 4 ??? It's missing here, maybe it's missing in the original too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can not help with Thomé. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hylotelephium[edit]

Hello Orchi, what do u think about Hylotelephium telephium? de.wikipedia uses it so Hylotelephium/ Große Fetthenne, as NCBI [14]:

  • Große Fetthenne, Hylotelephium telephium subsp. maximum (L.) H.Ohba
  • Rote Fetthenne oder Purpur-Fetthenne, Hylotelephium telephium subsp. purpureum
  • Berg-Fetthenne, Hylotelephium telephium subsp. fabaria (W.D.J.Koch) H.Ohba
  • Hohe Fetthenne, Hylotelephium telephium subsp. ruprechtii (Jalas) H.Ohba

Tela-Botanica.org uses [15], as ThePlantList.org [16] so:

  • Sedum telephium subsp. fabaria (W.D.J.Koch) Syme [1865]
  • Sedum telephium subsp. maximum (L.) Rouy & E.G.Camus [1901, Fl. Fr., 7 : 96]
  • Sedum telephium subsp. telephium

I don't think priority belongs to H.Ohba. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chris.urs-o, this question overextend my knowledge and responsibility. I like to refer this problem to a real expert: User:Franz Xaver. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx :) (I'm not sure, but sometimes I think that "Synonymes taxonomiques" on Tela-Botanica.org are valid names and "Synonymes nomenclaturaux" are invalid/ illegitimate names) I asked Réginald alias Meneerke bloem too (Hylotelephium telephium and Pseudoturritis turrita), he said that we should wait until Kew World Checklist rules. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear, that Sedum in the old sense is highly polyphyletic - see e.g. this publication. That's the reason, that in most modern floras Hylotelephium and other genera (Phedimus etc.) are separated from Sedum, e.g. in Flora of China and Flora of North America. Anyway, this is not a matter of priority, but of delimitation of genera. In this point, Tela-Botanica seems to be outdated. And The Plant List is not reliable, if it does not indicate "High Confidence level", i.e. three stars. In this case The Plant List accepts Hylotelephium, but it lists only the species names from Flora of China. Anyway, the type species of Hylotelephium is Hylotelephium telephium - see Tropicos. So, if the genus is accepted, it must include also its type species. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, also Pseudoturritis turrita is correct, and the name Arabis turrita is outdated, if you follow the most recent classification of Brassicaceae: see pages 101f. in the following PDF. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Servus Franz Xaver, vielmals Dank für Deine erschöpfende Antwort und Auskunft. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Réginald, dear Chris.urs-o, the best I could do, was to know, who is the right and best expert. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Orchi :D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danke, Orchi und Franz Xaver, für ihre Hilfe. Grüße aus Belgien, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies[edit]

Hello Orchi I noticed that u use Category:Vicia sativa ssp. nigra Many sites use subsp. instead of ssp. I moved Medicago falcata to Medicago sativa ssp. falcata and Ononis repens to Ononis spinosa subsp. procurrens Maybe Commons doesn't use galleries for subsp. NCBI doesn't seem to know that Ononis repens L., Ononis spinosa subsp. maritima (Dumort. ex Piré) P.Fourn. and Ononis spinosa subsp. procurrens (Wallr.) Briq. are the same. All ok? ;) Any comments? ;) Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris.urs-o, I think that I give a very simple non-scientific answer to you: In the past I prefered "ssp." (to save place on the little monitors). Now I saw, that the title in Wikispecies use generally "subsp." and therefore I believe it is good, to go the same way. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I and Réginald alias Meneerke bloem had to ask Franz Xaver‎ 'coz of Ononis spinosa subsp. procurrens. Are the subspecies ok? or is Subspecies - Varietas - Forma section allowed only? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
....that's ad libitum. Orchi (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gesehen?[edit]

Das da? Mit ein bisschen Geduld (mit dem Toolserver nach dem Klicken) lassen sich mit Martins Nutzervorlage beliebige Kategorien „beobachten“ (ohne jedes Mal per Hand die CatScan-Optionen auszuwählen). LG --:bdk: 09:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Bdk, ich bin immer erstaunt, wie Du auch nach längerer Zeit Lösungen zu Fragen oder Anmerkungen findest. Mit der Seite muss ich noch etwas testen. Auf der Seite von User:Martin H./CatScan habe ich „Culture of Africa“ mit „Orchidaceae“ getauscht. Das hat funktioniert. Kopiert und ausprobiert auf meiner eigenen Userseite, klappt es noch nicht. Aber so etwas habe ich gesucht. Dank und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-) --:bdk: 13:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epi - Ecuador[edit]

Hi Orchi, saw you correction on Category:Epidendrum philocremnum, that Category:Flora of Ecuador is not needed with Category:Orchids of Ecuador‎, and will remember. Thank you--Look2See1 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Hello Orchi Crataegus oxyacantha, is it OK or did I miss something? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't see any error. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons - Deletion requests: Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum[edit]

All ok? "Reason for the nomination: den är f43", is very strange :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orchi
Do u really want the gallery Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum to be deleted, or u just wanted one of the images to be deleted?
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.....is it so: "Commons:Deletion requests/Pedicularis sceptrum-carolinum" better now? Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I like Pedicularis, specially Pedicularis oederi and Pedicularis flammea, very strange ... Best greetings. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iris[edit]

Hello Orchi What do u think about Category:Iris × germanica vs. Category:Iris germanica? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris.urs-o, just I looked in the german WP and Kew and MBG. You are right. We should use Iris × germanica. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a very complicated story :[ I need some study time --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World Check List of Selected Plant Families (WCSP)
MBG seems to have both: Iris germanica, type species and Iris × germanica, nom ill. :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to World Checklist it should indeed be Iris × germanica L. (1753). See [17]. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orchi, in order to keep the history, I'd like to request the delete of Iris × germanica and the move of Iris germanica to Iris × germanica. What do u think? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chris.urs-o, I think the best way is your proposal. Iris × germanica = gallery and Iris germanica as redirect. Do you change the article? Thanks and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no time left for doing it, I can do it too. Best regards to you both. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I have just done it. OK? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
....Merci Réginald! Cheers. Orchi (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Taxa}}[edit]

Hello my friend,
Instead of:
{{taxa|97 species not accepted|source=Kew World Checklist}}
you can now use:
{{Species|count=97|accepted=no|source=Kew World Checklist}}
And if you edit {{Taxolang}} for innc-species (at the end) for de= you will have a german translation.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what does "not accepted" mean ? Why do we list species if they are not accepted ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand; "accepted" is the scientific name; "not accepted" are the synonyms; "invalid" is missing at least one of the 16 conditions of the botanical nomenclature; "illegitimate" got a milder invalidity, as the same name was used before (priority) on other plant, for instance. Once they are used in a publication, they are listed as synonyms, otherwise you aren't able to find out which plant is on discussion. Sometimes, different schools of thought, decades and database updates, list different names as "accepted" ... ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friends, as soon als possible I'm here again. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my german friends,
There are still some de translations missing in {{Taxolang}} (see the result in the bottom of the template).
I probabily could add them myself, but I feel that it is your german job ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent german work ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salu Liné1, I hope my (german) work in {{Taxolang}} is o.k. Your question for "accepted" or "not accepted" is perfect answered by Chris.urs-o. I use this term according to KEW gardens: «Names in bold indicate accepted names, plain list indicates non accepted names». (e.g.: = synonym of Galearis). This kind of writing I use in commons also. (Bollea synonym of Pescatoria. The general problem is, that there is no institution who says, what is the right way in taxonomy. And therefore I do not use "redirects" in orchids always. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feiertagsgrüße[edit]

Hallo Orchi, auch Dir alles Liebe und Gute für 2012 und hab' ein paar angenehme Festtage! *einpaarschneeflockenrüberpust* --:bdk: 15:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified orchid from Thailand[edit]

Dear Orchi

I have a request for you. Could you please identify this orchid I have photographed in Thailand: File:Unidentified orchid Thailand.JPG

Thanks in advance, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Réginald, first I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year 2012.
At the first sight I suppose, that the photo or your Thailand orchid is a Dendrobium cultivar. The next days I will look more exactly. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orchi, thank you again for your appreciated help. I wish you and your familiy too a happy 2012. Beste Grüße aus Belgien, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mit Dank für deine Weihnachtsgrüße wünsche ich auch Dir, Orchi, ein fruchtbares und friedvolles Neues Jahr! --Túrelio (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]




Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orchi/archive_2011&oldid=372583558"