User talk:Orchi/archive 2015

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

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

Best wishes for 2015[edit]

Hello Orchi

Danke für Deine Grüße und die Nachricht, after a long summer! I'm still quite busy with other things, but I hope to have some time again to spend on Commons, with our beloved orchids.
All the best for 2015 !
Herzliche Grüße,
Maarten
62.195.46.158 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diuris laxiflora[edit]

Hello Orchi,

Thank you very much for correcting my stupid mistake.

Gderrin (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APNI[edit]

Hello my friend,
I saw your modification of {{APNI genus}}.
I will propagate it to {{APNI species}} and {{APNI family}} and {{Taxasource}}.
{{Taxasource}} does the display of sources in {{Species}}, {{Genus}}, {{Taxa}}, {{Taxoconflict}}...
Still, I have a small doubt: In all Category:Biology external link templates we display the short version:

There are very few long versions:

I like long names in links ({{IOC}}, {{ADW}}, but not as source (in {{Species}}, {{Genus}})
I have created an example: in Category:Pomaderris I have tried to replace 'GRIN' by 'Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)'. Tell me if you like "Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)" which is a bit long
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salu Liné1, the modification was a little test. I wanted to avoid the many abbreviations for the reader. APNI and FloreBase were new links for me ;-) . I reverted my change of yesterday. O.k. GRIN is long.
Soon I have some questions for you as great specialist. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an honour to be you specialist ;-)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orchids[edit]

Hello Orchi. I understand you are trying to sort out the Orchids here on commons. Great job, most appreciated. I have two questions. First: shouldn't cultivars have the apostrophes in their category name or is there any reason to avoid them. I think Paphiopedilum Harrisianum looks like a proper name whereas with Paphiopedilum 'Harrisianum' it is clear that it is a cultivar. I know that the scientific name should be italicized, but that's unfortunately often not possible with categories. The other question was if it is common practice to delete common misspellings such as Epidendrum pseudoepidendrum? It was the name on the sign at Gothenburg botanical garden! I'll let them know about that next time I visit them (maybe tomorrow). But it is a understandable misspelling as there are many names starting with pseudo-. Therefor I thought that the common way was to redirect such misspellings in case someone else makes the same misspell. Regards Averater (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Averater,
first thanks for your excellent pictures from the botanical garden Gothenburg.
Now your questions:
A. The spelling of cultivars is common both with and without apostrophes; the main thing is, that the epithet is not written in italics and lowercase.
(The „International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants“ says with apostroph).
My proposal here: to write the Titel without apostrpoph, because worldwide the apostrophes are not easy to write. The different notation is useful in the text. See sample here: Paphiopedilum Maudiae.
B. I deleted the misspelled category, because it was a false name according to the rules of nomenclature. (This occurs in botanical gardens also  ;-) ) You can inform the responsible persons. Sometimes there are different opinions on names ( Pescatoria or Pescatorea), but here it is a clear write error.
Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, glad you like my photos.
I have already notified the staff of that misspelling and another possible error (where the name probably is a synonym). Since they have 1100 orchids of course some will have misspelled or outdated names. What I'm still confused of is if those misspellings should be redirects or deleted. What I thought was that they should be kept as redirect in case someone else makes the same misspelling. To be kept as a normal category is of course not an option.
Do you know of any standard here on commons concerning the use of apostrophes in category names for cultivars? I have so far used them but maybe I should stop doing that. Check for eaxample Category:Dionysia cultivars.
- Averater (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....I think for little misspellings (like: Epidendrum pseudoepidendrum) there is the function: "Menade du: Epidendrum pseudepidendrum". Existing name errors bring confusion. Give me some time please to answer the question about the spelling of the cultivars. I ask an expert. Orchi (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Request to license photo[edit]

Dear Orchi,

Me and my colleagues at Naturalis Biodiversity Center in The Netherlands are going to publish a scientific paper about automated slipper orchid recognition by image recognition and would like to use one of your photos in the paper. The journal we are submitting the paper to requires that the photos displayed in the paper itself be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Would you allow us to publish the following photo under the CC-BY license?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paphiopedilum_sukhakulii-Orchi_008.jpg

We will of course mention your name, Orchi, with the photo. Could you please send a reply to my email: serrano.pereira@naturalis.nl

Regards,

Serrano Pereira

--Figure002 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Serrano Pereira, gladly you can use my picture to publish. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

categorised redirects[edit]

Hi, on Commons, redirects generally aren't categorised, or is there an exemption for taxonomy categories (I'm likely not aware of)?    FDMS  4    18:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FDMS, in botany and zoology it is the only place to find these important names. Furthermore for these synonyms is the automatic construct, that you find the names in italic letters. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes[edit]

Thanks for creating and having interest in Category:Orchids of the Philippines, Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Judgefloro,....it's long time ago. Best wishes. Orchi (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florissimo 2015[edit]

Bonjour, je vous remercie pour avoir catégorisé les photos de la catégorie "Florissimo 2015". Cordialement. François de Dijon (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich danke Ihnen für das kategorisiert Fotos der Kategorie "Florissimo 2015". Mit freundlichen Grüßen.François de Dijon (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (Maschinenübersetzung)[reply]

Category:Florissimo_2015

Bots[edit]


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

File moves[edit]

Yet again a big thank you for fixing and keeping order among the orchids! Now mostly for finding that my photos of Dendrobium densifolium was of a Dendrobium densiflorum. I thought it was a wierd name but noted that it was a valid one and didn't check any further. So thank you for that! Now to my question regarding file moves. I do usually keep file names if it is a synonym as some synonyms changes more than once. Only for obvious typos do I request a file to be moved (as I don't have the rights myself). What are your thoughts regarding file names for synonym species? And also I did note that you didn't change the links to the moved files as others do, do you use some other tool? Best regards Averater (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Averater, first thanks for your excellent photos.
And now to your question: I think ist is correct to use accepted names or synonyms as file-names.
In categories or galleries should be used the accepted names (by KEW in orchids).
Normally should lead synonyms with "redirect" to the accepted names.
Perhaps following sample: File:Flickingeria fugax GotBot 2015 002.jpg. File name is a synonym, category and gallery use the accepted name. The link in your description leads to Dendrobium fugax.
If a file-name is not correct, I have the right, to change the name in commons (filemover).
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that the bot CommonsDelinker did fix those links to the moved files, it just took a few hours longer than usual.
Seems like a good practice to use accepted names or synonyms as file names. Andof course only accepted names in galleries etc.
That sample seems clever. I'll see if it is possible to make such links on all file descriptions (there are a few..). Oneproblem is that it is only among the orchids there is such good order. For example among the cactuses there is a big mess... If you have more time and want a second interest, I suggest that you give those some love :) . --Averater (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot typo[edit]

[1] seems to have a typo, missing out the brackets. I presume other recent changes you made might have the same problem? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Orchi (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up[edit]

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. :-) --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat a Lot[edit]

Do you have any knowledge about using Cat-a-Lot? The above User has uploaded tens of thousands of images and while some have associated Cats many are just accumulating space. He said Cat-a-lot was useful and I have only begun using it. I want to move larger amounts of images from unrelated Cats he has put them in to a more organized location and I can't locate instructions on such things as the bar at the top hen moving or deleting etc. Can you help at all? I recently cleaned up Category:Seed catalogs by hand and it took me three weeks. Fae moved them for me from Cat:Seeds where he had initially put them in an hour using Cat-a-lot so I need to use this program. WayneRay (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use this program also and I know the simple method only. Unfortunately, I find it hard, to formulate technical things in your language. Maybe you can answer your questions to user:Fae. Orchi (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but read this, please forgive me. All of those seed catalogs and such from Flickr are in some ways great (interesting, etc), but on the other hand, they are jpegs and fairly crappy files. PNG is preferred. And they all came from archive.org where jp2 are available. How come the bot gets such mangled images when it could be getting much higher quality (one transformation from the original scan) and use-able images from what is probably a more reliable source? -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....here I can not help. I'm not a fan of many cropped images, when important informations are not visible. Perhaps you write the User:Fæ. to upload the original scans with more and better quality. Orchi (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, that was maybe a mistake to ask Fae anything: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AMP-009-pg_0061-Hydrastis_canadensis.png&curid=44137207&diff=176299995&oldid=175905414 , etc. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RaboKarbakian, help you these examples: Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland and Category:Thomé, Flora von Deutschland (modified)?? Orchi (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this helps for new uploads. I will show this to Fae so that mistake might be fixed. Thank you very much! :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only there. It took me three hours a day for two weeks to clean up Seed catalogs, Gardening catalogs, Botanical illustrations. Fae has uploaded single pages, 2-10 pages and placed them in different Category of Books. They are not complete book scans and it has taken me another couple of weeks to clean up and still not finished. Cat a Lot doesn't always work either and I have made a couple of sort mistakes. His Bot just picks up any related Category word and images are everywhere they needn't be. I will continue working on the cleanup. It's just as bad in Geology and geology books and paleontology and other sciences as well WayneRay (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.....I try also to bring the quantity of the roboter-script to the quality of human work. :-) Orchi (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and a much better job than I. Danke WayneRay (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

Hi! I appreciate that you are looking at my gallery updating. 4 or 6 eyes are always better than 2!!

I made a gallery for Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten yesterday and was called away before I could link the taxonomy pages to it.

When I returned, they already had it scheduled for deletion as it is apparently "out of scope" and maybe it is.

I sure would appreciate your vote at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Gustav_Karl_Wilhelm_Hermann_Karsten_undeletion_request and perhaps a discussion about what the scope is so I better know what is wanted and how to answer for myself in such affairs.

Thanks! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RaboKarbakian, first: When I look after your activities, I am pleased to see your very good work here!! :-) and thanks!
Your special question for Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten: I saw it and I did not know, why this article should be deleted. I will ask the user:Túrelio. He is specialist in such things and perhaps we find a correct way to create this gallery. See you soon and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is something wonderful about such simple internationalization, I was following your example. :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RaboKarbakian,
I had deleted the gallery-page Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten because it had no content or only 1 image. If you think there will be more content in short, I can easily restore the page, just drop me a note. However, you should consider that on Commons, galleries have only a minor role compared to categories. If a category has a fair number of images, it makes sense to create a gallery and with a small number of images, usually the best ones, representing what is available in the category. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....danke & thanks. Orchi (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BHL direct uploads[edit]

Hi, my uploads from the Biodiversity Heritage Library are well underway. This means that plant book plates are directly uploaded from BHL archives. New collections can be added that were not on their Flickrstream, such as Category:Flora Javae et insularum adjacentium. However there are going to be duplicates for pages uploaded from Flickr and I have created a script to mark the lower resolution files as duplicates. This may mean some re-working, but I'm sure you will appreciate the higher resolution files being available. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....I hope, that the duplicates and duplicates and duplicates do not destroy all handmade changes, checking of categories, edits and galleries which are made with plenty of time. Orchi (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the deleting admin should make a call about merging details. If you feel they are losing any valuable information, then highlight it to the admin and ask for undeletion. "Merging" could be to overwrite the Flickr version and add the alternate source, or indeed to leave the duplicate and volunteers can choose to manually merge when they have time to examine the detail.
If at some point it is proven that we can improve the BHL uploads with re-transcoded or an alternate format file, then this would not change the BHL image pages as they exist now. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orchi, you'll be relieved to know that I've added more intelligence to my duplicate sniffing script, so that only the Flickr uploads which have yet to be edited by any other volunteers get marked. I think the best way of handling those that have changed will be to overwrite the image with the higher resolution BHL version, then delete the BHL upload as the duplicate. I'll think about it, it means customizing the uploader slightly to ignore identical duplicates, which is something I have not done before. --Fæ (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fæ, hi RaboKarbakian,
first thanks for your work; each in his own way.
I would first like to ask you, to forgive me, that my English is not so good, to understand all the technical explanations and linguistic nuances. ( I like and need a „simple“ English)
Therefore I propose, to perform this tech talk on the User talk:RaboKarbakian. (There is more space, than on the User talk:Fæ  ;-) )

Fae, and now a question to your last message:
I tried to overwrite an image with the higher resolution of BHL while retaining the old name and the Categories. I found no way. Can this an admin and bot only? Greeting. Orchi (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can overwrite a file on Commons, so long as you are uploading it from your local hard disk and the file is not already on Commons. So, the process should be to download the best quality file you can find on BHL's archive site, then upload it using the "Upload a new version of this file" link you can find on any image page.
If you have an example that is giving you failures, give a link here and I'll take a look at it. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Masdevallia caudata - botanical illustrations[edit]

I am uncertain the reason you showed me this photograph File:Masdevallia caudata Orchi 01.jpg <-- What a great photograph this must be in print!

When I started to poke around the directory and subdirectory, I found Category:Masdevallia caudata - botanical illustrations. Some of those, the violet seems to be turning orange. It is a problem with some inks not reacting well to acid which might be in the paper. Found some orange Larkspur, for instance ;)

It is more of an invasive edit than I usually do, so, I am wondering about all of your thoughts on this before I edit and please feel free to ask for additional corrections if what I do isn't completely right. :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RaboKarbakian, great thank for your perfect upgrading of the two Masdevallia. With joy I have attached the images to the species galleries.
My photo should be a small reference to the approximate color of this plant only.
I hope for further good cooperation. Thnaks and greeting. Orchi (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. The Wayside and Woodland images I have been working on are simple four color prints and not quite the joy that the Florae Columbiae print was. I am working on them for publication in another project so until they are done it is, for me, dreary four color work.
I mentioned the "orange" look that some of the illustrations had. When I investigated further, I found something horrible! All of the files found in R. Warner & B.S. Williams - The Orchid Album - volume I (1882) have been white pointed, etc. It is the "color adjusted jpeg" that I am fearful of.
  • What is there
    What is there
  • Original scan
    Original scan
  • today's edit
    today's edit
My opinion is that book galleries should contain untouched original scans. It would make commons a reliable source for individual book illustrations. They are not available like that anywhere that I know of; individual and easy to download.
In truth, it was so hard to look at the Volume 1 gallery -- I am afraid to look at the others. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....today I had the problem, to fight as human being against robot speed, for trying to arrange all the files in "orchid order".
Gladly I'm repeating myself. But I'm impressed by the quality of your image enhancements.
Orchid Album: give me some time please. First I have to repair the gallery Orchid Album I. (Orchid Album galleries in full version in your :png quality could be a highlight in commons.) Orchi (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this Category:Frederick Sander - Reichenbachia uploaded by BHL. Those files are from the BHL presence at Flickr -- it was confusing to me when talking to the uploader because JPG isn't available from http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org. PNG isn't either, btw. It was confusing to me because of the use of "BHL" in discussions. Category:Frederick Sander - Reichenbachia uploaded by BHL to Flickr is less confusing and more honest.
I am in the process of converting to PNG all four of these volumes. I was looking for File:Frederick Sander - Reichenbachia I plate 13 (1888) - Masdevallia shuttleworthii - Masdevallia xanthocorys.jpg in a format that can be worked with.
Help:Scanning#PNG_vs._JPEG <-- this was written when the software was not displaying large PNG. That has changed now, as you can see. But even then, with the display problems, the recommended format is PNG. That I have to go to archive.org and download the jp2 files and convert them so that I can edit them is kind of weird and sad. If I did not have the space on my computer, I would be unable to make these edits.
When I upload these files, they will need to go into a different namespace and if I don't make my upload script very smart, me or another volunteer will have to once again redo the work you did yesterday.
This is the perfect example of the technical problems I was trying to prevent. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for your informativ Mail-message!!
I'm sorry, but unfortunately I have very little technical knowledge (and as I said, especially in your language) I try, to take my suggestions in short and simple English.
1. I gave in Orchid Album and Reichenbachia all pictures the same logical name stucture (In Orchid Album all new names).
2. If you could use the same names, instead of ending xxx.jpg, ending xxx.png only??
3. The galleries und species article could be changed per copy and paste in minutes.
4. According to the title of the books, we could create a subcategory like "Orchid Album - uploaded by Gutenberg" for the xxx.png files. Orchi (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For #1 and #2 I can do that. The names I chose start with the page number so that they can be easily included when I (or someone else) makes the djvu and/or pdf. And, if there is a problem, the original file can be easily found and the problem corrected.
For #3, if pages of pure text are being uploaded, having the image name start with page number would be helpful for this also.
For #4, I got my originals from the Biodiversity Library. (They use archive.org for storage.) I could see that they had a good copy. These files are not the files being used for Gutenberg. Interestingly enough, I need to produce jpeg for them as that is what their publication software uses. Heh. :) But it is true, Commons wants PNG and Gutenberg wants JPEG. Both have published this preference/requirement.
Also, here is a treat that maybe you did not know about. Proofed Curtis's Magazine http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/7233 That means perfect pdf and djvu! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of my naming scheme for The Orchid Album showed that the name I used was flawed for my purposes also. Better would have been "Orchid Album-NN-NNN-NNN-Species name" where the first NN is volume number (010 and the next NNN is page number and the last NNN is plate number. Species name added to the edited versions. This makes the files behave well alphabetically for software to produce the PDF and DJVU. My name lacked the volume number. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us go, perhaps with some samples. Orchi (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to publish photos[edit]

Dear Orchi,

I'm journalist and editing an Orchid Guide in Brazil. I've seen many great photos made by you here @ Wikicommons, and would like to publish some of them in the referred bookazine. If you allow the use, we will surely mention your name with the published photos and in the credits section, in the way you prefer it - as Orchi or the name you want us to use. I'll wait for your response - here or by e-mail (p.meiwald@gmail.com) Thank you very much! Best regards,

Pauline Meiwald

Hello Pauline Meiwald, much joy and success with the desired photos for your planned publication; (as "Orchi"). Maybe you inform me here, where I can see the finished publication. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid question[edit]

As you are well aware of, I have uploaded quite a lot of photos of orchids from the Gothenburg Botanical Garden. As you have helped me before when there have been mistakes with the naming I hope you can help me again. I have uploaded a few pictures of Cyrtochilum serratum. The plant was standing just next to Vitekorchis excavata (named as Oncidium excavatum). As the two plants were very similar and that the plant Cyrtochilum serratum is not as similar to the other pictures in that category. Do you think they have made a real mistake this time (not just misspelled or used obsolete synonyms)? I will ask the staff when I get there next time, but I don't know when that'll be so I hope you can give me a hint before that. Thanks in advance. --Averater (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....your pictures of Cyrtochilum serratum seem to be Vitekorchis excavata also. Here you see photos of Cyrtochilum serratum, presents on a trusted source: [2]. Thanks for your great photos and best greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories (botanical illustrations)?[edit]

Dear Orchi,

i just wondered.. Is it effective to banish botanical professional artwork to a separate subcategory - as seems to be tradition here? If finished (not just studies), these images can show a plant with flowers, seeds butterflies etc. much better than a photograph ever can do (focus depth, not all characteristics shown, colour, etc.). This way, botanical artworks often are the best images extant of a species, so these should be shown in the main category. Sometimes coloured drawings even functioned as the type definition. By the way, we don't have subcategories "(botanical photographs)" ;-). Best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hansmuller,
I think, the botanical drawings have a good home in "botanical illustrations" and find the scientific attention. By the way, I love the old hand-colored drawings and the books of the 18th century, (especially if the images are well edited ;-) ). Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orchi/archive_2015&oldid=372583573"