Plebejus argusEdit

Hi Olei, Great picture of the Plebeius argus. I used it on the dutch page. -Svdmolen 18:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Svdmolen, thanks! There are little more pictures on my german user page. Most of them have to be moved to the commons. At the moment I'm searching for pictures about Lycaenidae. The german article is here and the english one is here. Greetings, --Olei 16:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I think Image:Unbestimmter.Bläuling.3449.jpg is a Aricia agestis. But there are some others in teh Aricia subfamily which are very similar. -Svdmolen 21:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi too ;-), Thanks for your hint. I guess it is possibly Polyommatus icarus or Polyommatus thersites. The undersides are very similiar and both of them occur in Saxony (Germany) especially at the location I took the picture. I have to verify your hint with the list of species for Saxony. Greetings, --Olei 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I have checked my lists - agestis is possible. But the second line of black points near the orange spots is different (in my opinion).
I looked at [1] to find the closest match. There is a picture of a Aricia agestis which looks very similar to your picture. Good luck with this difficult butterlfy. -Svdmolen 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You are right. It's very close! All three together: Polyommatus thersites Polyommatus icarus und Aricia agestis. Greetings, --Olei 19:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Image:Unidentified.butterfly.2005.08.05.547.jpg is a Pyrausta purpuralis. Almost the same as Pyrausta aurata but with slightly more yellow on the topwing. -Svdmolen 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! :-))) Are there any articles about this species out there in wikipedia? By the way, I have a full 1 gig compact flash card with more butterflies, beetles... Greetings from Germany, --Olei 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
On nl I wrote this article nl:Pyrausta purpuralis about this butterfly. I'm looking forward seen that 1 gig come on commons. If I can help with naming the butterflies just let me know :o) -Svdmolen 20:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't expect too much =:-). I only save camera raw files and i take multiple shots if possible so i can select the sharpest and best one for the upload. By the way, i can upload the files for detemination to the commons, but it is also possible to use some other space so no admin has to be informed to delete the stuff later. If you are a admin then it would be very easy... ;-) Please try the following link: [2]. Greetings, --Olei 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an admin here, although I am on the Dutch wikipedia, so I can't delete things here. But I think best is to make an file here like Image:Olie/detemination/butterfly and upload every time under that name so it replaces the pervious image. Now and then you can ask for deletion so it will not take to much space on the server (although I don't think that is a big problem). -Svdmolen 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Pyrausta purpuralis is now available with two files: Pyrausta.purpuralis.6857.jpg and Pyrausta.purpuralis.6859.jpg. The file Unidentified.butterfly.2005.08.05.547.jpg should be deleted or if you like it deleted and uploaded with the correct name. And here is my question: how does delete work in commons? Greetings, --Olei 08:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

More ImagesEdit

So, here I am. I did some programming in my database for the new digital EOS 20D so i can preview my old film numbered scans and the digital files too. I have collected some files for wikipedia so please have a look if the determination is correct.

  • [3] Pieris rapae (enhanced picture)
  • [4] Araneus diadematus
  • [5] unknown
  • [6] unknown
  • [7] Thymelicus sylvestris
  • [8] Thymelicus sylvestris
  • [9] Thymelicus sylvestris
  • [10] Thymelicus sylvestris
  • [11] Thymelicus sylvestris, 2nd
  • [12] Celastrina argiolus
  • [13] Celastrina argiolus
  • [14] Pyrausta purpuralis
  • [15] Linyphia triangularis
  • [16] Linyphia triangularis

More pictures will follow. Greetings, --Olei 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, very nice pictures. On the butterflies I can only agree with you. Spiders and bees look all the same ;o) to me so I can say anything about them. Best regards. -Svdmolen 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. In case of number 12 I have guessed that this is an older species of P. purpuralis. More pictures will follow, some butterflies and beetles. Greetings, --Olei 19:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your unknowns are of a honeybee (Apis mellifica if my memory for spelling is correct) on thistle blossoms. Probably the bee is of the "race" called Italians. (The "races" of western honeybees are sometimes regarded as subspecies, but there is actually no "narrow hybridization band" between them. Except for Cyprian bees it would be hard to tell where one starts and the other stops, or what to call the ones in middle. But what you have looks like the kind of commercially available Italian bee that I used to buy by the pound to populate new bee hives. Patrick Edwin Moran 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Here it comes:

  • [17] Lycaena tityrus
  • [18] Lycaena tityrus, male
  • [19] Chrysophanus phlaeas (Isn't Lycaena phlaeas the current name?)
  • [20] Lomaspilis marginata
  • [21] Drepana binaria
  • [22] Satyrium pruni
  • [23] Satyrium pruni
  • [24] Thymelicus sylvestris
  • [25] Plebeius argus, male, I know, it's difficult to distinguish between P. idas and P. argus
  • [26] Plebeius argus, female
  • [27] Polyommatus icarus

And there's a lot of raw-files on that damned compact flash card... =:-} Greetings, --Olei 12:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All I could add I did. Greetings, Svdmolen 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right in the case of Lycaena phlaeas. This old name has its origin from my database - it is corrected now. And many thanks for your help! Greetings, --Olei 08:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

For some while there has been a picture on the dutch wikipedia which I can't determinate. I uploaded it a while ago to commons: Image:Lycaena unknown (PeterPGS).jpg. Do you have any idea which species it might be? -Svdmolen 20:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this picture. My best guess is Lycaena alciphron (male). The blue color in front of the first wing should match and the yellow end of the antennas too. And I have also a question for you: de:image:Unidentified species 014 (aka).jpg Greetings, --Olei 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. The image form aka look like a Pyrausta aerealis, but there is little reference material on the internet. -Svdmolen 14:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
With your hint (thanks!) I started searching Crambiade in, then some research with google and found the following picture which should match: Endotricha flammealis. Greetings, --Olei 19:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Ya that is it for sure, here are some pictures of that species as well. Great to have an other pyralide to descripe :o) -Svdmolen 22:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for identified some buterflies I upload. I hope a made no mistake when i upload undentified buterfies, but I'thinks the pictures are nice and I'm lost in the latin names. Viel Danks. Best regards. petrus 13:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Any good picture is welcome. :-) Some hints if you take more pictures or upload unidentified species: If you are shooting in a zoo or a butterfly house: take a picture of the information table. In most cases determination is possible with this little help. If you do some outdoor pictures: put information about the location in the picture comment. This will help very much! Best regards from Germany, --Olei 14:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Morpho helenaEdit

Hi, its a Morpho helena, see also [28] Best regards from Holland -Svdmolen 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. And I thought they can put the correct name to their butterflies in Kuala Lumpur... =:-}. Greetings, --Olei 19:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi, do you perhaps know if Heliconiidae is conciderd a subfamily of Nymphalidae or as a family on it own at the moment? -Svdmolen 21:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a little search with google and found this. According to this page its a familiy ot it's own. But I don't know if this is the correct status of this familiy. --Olei 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why delete?Edit

Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, it is just a collection of free images. So don't put delete tags at random. The only good reason to delete images here is copyright violation. All other images, even of very little value, can be kept. Computer storage is cheap nowadays. — Monedula 14:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, a speedy deletion is not warranted here, but a normal request for deletion would be ok (even though I would not file it). While there are several reasons for speedy deletion besides copyright issues (redundant images, bad name, accidental upload, etc), I would like to make some points clear:

  • speedy deletion should usually be done with the consent of the uploader, unless the uploader does not respond or the image is used for vandalism or a similar blatant violation of policy.
  • when you mark an image for deletion (speedy or "slow"), please alway notify the uploader.

If you want to file a regular deletion request, my opinion would be that we should only delete this image if we have a better one. While usefulness (and thus quality) is an criterium, we should not be rash to delete images for poor quality. This is especially true for shots that are hard to make, like this one was, I guess.

Regards -- Duesentrieb(?!) 19:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Hallo! Thank you very much for your interest and identifying the caterpillars. Unfortunately my knowledge of them is very poor. I hope the pictures will be useful in some place in Wikipedia. Greetings! PrzemekL 19:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your pictures are welcome! If you have some unidentified species, just upload them (with date and location) and the experts will try to determine it. :-) Greetings from Germany, --Olei 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Erebia aethiops and Erebia ligeaEdit

thanks, i reload pict with the good name and make the changes in pages. the first pict is now to delete. greetings from Franche-Comté Jeffdelonge 08:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, good work! :-) --Olei 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Entfernung von Category:Unidentified Images of ButterfliesEdit

Hi Olei. Warum hast du die Einordnung entfernt bei Image:Moth Avelaíña GDFL 77eue.jpg? Mir ist nicht ersichtlich, dass die Motte bestimmt wurde. Nun ist das Bild verwaist. Gib ihm doch mal ein Plätzchen wo es sich ausschnaufen darf;-). gruß--Factumquintus 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Factumquintus, ich Trottelgesicht habe zwar die Kategorie entfernt, aber vergessen den Schnelllöschantrag reinzusetzen. Das Bild gibts hier. Viele Grüße und danke für den Hinweis, --Olei 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sveikas, Olei. Hi Olei. Nuoširdžiai dėkoju už paramą apibūdinant drugių nuotraukas. Thank you very much for your help to indentifay the images of Butterflies. --Algirdas
Hi Algirdas, the next three are ante portas, see your diskussion page. :-) Greetings, --Olei 20:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


(Added Deletion request. Same as Image:Avelaíña024eue.jpg with discussion page) --Gyllenhali 15:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your hint, this was a temporary Upload. Greetings, --Olei 20:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Hallo Olei, habe dir auf meiner Seite geantwortet. -- P.B.M.A. 22:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Und nochmal dasselbe. -- P.B.M.A. 14:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello Olei, you left a comment on my talk page explaning why you think that taxoboxes shouldn't be used in the commons. I agree with you that the commons is a "central image database", but i disagree with youre decision to remove taxoboxes. These boxes are just navigational aids for people trying to find pictures about plants and animals. If you do not agree with me, please leave a comment on my talk page. Have a happy new year. -- Sam916 04:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Olei war schon okay, das du die Taxoboxen entfernt hast. Das wird nämlich dann ein Problem, wenn die verschiedenen wikipedias eine andere Systematik benutzen. Da ich schön öfters mitbekommen habe, das User von der en wikipedia ihre Stempel aufdrücken wollen, bin ich da immer hinter her, den schließlich ist das eine Plattform für alle anderssprachige Wikipedias und keine Erweiterung nur für die englische. gruß--Factumquintus 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Factumquintus, ich werde manchmal den Gedanken nicht los, das du Gedanken lesen kannst, ich wollte dich heute um Rat zu diesem Thema fragen ;-). Viele Grüße und einen guten Rutsch! --Olei 19:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

P. audax imageEdit

The image you asked about is about as good as can be obtained. The problem is that this spider was feeling very active that day so I had to "shoot" her when I could. Also, the parts of her body that are visible, except for the green fluorescent parts, are all dead black. I already have tried to adjust the image, but black on black on a white background is just what it is. Sometime I may find a more cooperative specimen. Now I shoot images at higher resolution, so that may help too.

These spiders like to jump onto the lens of the camera, so if you get too close you may get really close. Probably I should have let her sit on my hand. Thanks for offering to help. Patrick Edwin Moran 07:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, I know about running and jumping spiders. =:-) Getting this image took about one hundred shoots to get some images like this. This Salticus scenicus was really fast... --Olei 10:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
She looks like a real sweetheart. Patrick Edwin Moran

Lycosa tarentulaEdit

I am looking for an image of these wolf spiders that are found in Italy because the articles on the dance called the tarantella all mention them, and because the "bird eating spiders" are called "tarantulas" in English so it would be nice to show people what a "tarantula" really is. So far I have found no image that could go on Wikipedia Commons. Do you happen to have any friends in S.E. Italy that might get a good picture for us? (They have been reclassified/renamed as Hogna tarentula I believe.) They are, I seem to remember, the largest wolf spiders in that part of the world. I think they live in tunnels dug into the ground. Despite their reputation they are unlikely to bite. Maybe if you squeezed one it would bite. A few days ago I was trying to manipulate a tarantula (Avicularia metallica) whose body length is about 5 cm. She is entirely black, it was rather dark in the room, and she had brought her legs up to her body making it a protective ball. I wanted her to move so I could put in a water dish. I pushed for some time without getting her to move, turned on another light, and only then discovered I had been pushing my finger right into her fangs. So even when you think they ought to bite they sometimes do not.

Some of the tarantulas in India are much more aggressive and can give quite serious bites, bites that may make you feel terrible for a few days. So don't surprise them if you decide to make a photograph. Patrick Edwin Moran 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, sorry I cant help - but it sounds very interesting. Are there more information available about locations? I have forwarded your request to the german wikipedia (de:user:Brummfuss). Best regards, --Olei 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
as far as I know- unfortunately de.wikipedia has got no pics of a Hogna the genera they have been transferred to, but you may have a look at the pictures in the German article [[29]] (Lycosidae). The pics , , look impressing (but unidentified, I even don't know the genera). You may have a look at , too. The pics are originally from the commons, so please check the authors if you want to use them- I couldn't find them here. If this doesnt help, try to find a picture site at (international, I don't know it but you'll find loads of links there). You can find more links on German/Central European spiders on my site, but probably nothing about the kind you're looking for. There are some "Vogelspinnen pictures" at Let me know when this will have helped and if you found a Hogna for us! CU, have a nice time with the spiders and say them a hallo from me! If they don't bite you they like you ;-) -- 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Newbie - am I getting it wrongEdit

Hi there, I'm a newbie on Commons, and am trying to follow the advice I was given under Commons:Help desk#Newbie: check my work?. But people such as your fine self have removed some of my images from categories, (eg Image:Mopane worm on mopane tree.jpg from both Category:Saturniidae and Category:Caesalpinioideae) so obviously I'm doing something wrong. Tell me what it is? And what cats I should add? Cheers? JackyR 20:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First: Welcome to the Wikipedia Commons! I guess you didn't anything wrong. :-) There are two methods of categorizing images in commons. First is: create an apropriate category and tag the image with it (Thats what you did). Thats ok. But: if there are a lot of images it would take a long time at a slow connection for loading them all. So it's a better solution to create an article and add all images of a species to it! One Example (its yours!): You uploaded Image:Mopane Worm by Arne Larsen.jpg and Image:Mopane worm on mopane tree.jpg. These Images are in the gallery of the article Gonimbrasia belina which is tagged as Saturniidae. Unfortunately this is different from cat to cat. It works very well for lepidoptera so if you have any questions - please ask! Best regards, and don't worry, --Olei 23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, some of the categories are a right dog's dinner: half sub-categories, half articles. I take my hat off to you for being involved in categorising here (and for following my colloquial English)! Danke und tchüs, JackyR 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Hallo Olei, gerade bin ich zufällig über Dein doch recht gelungenes Bild einer Rotknie-Vogelspinne gestolpert und nahm mir die Freiheit heraus, es hier zu nominieren. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ach du Elend, das ist doch hundmiserabel, weil viel zu frontal und daher für eine Enzyklopädie eigentlich gar nicht geeignet... --Olei 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Das ist hier kein Kriterium, Olei. Grundsätzlich geht es in den Commons nicht nur um die Unterstützung der einzelnen Wikipedia-Editionen, sondern auch um andere oder mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Entsprechend können Bilder hier auch für sich selbst stehen und nicht nur unter enzyklopädischen Aspekten Berücksichtigung und Anerkennung finden. Ich habe auch andere Bilder von Dir angesehen, die sicherlich das von Dir genannte Kriterium besser erfüllen. Aber rein subjektiv gefiel mir dies besonders gut, gerade weil die acht Beine mit den roten Knien hier wirklich im Vordergrund gestochen scharf stehen. Viele Grüße, AFBorchert 22:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Servus! So wie das Bild jetzt ist, steht es auf dem Kopf. Schau dir, bitte, zum Vergleich die anderen Bilder in Thunbergia mysorensis an. Grüße --Franz Xaver 23:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Moin Franz, du hast recht! Siehste mal: für Wikipedia mache ich sogar Kopfstände. =:-) Ich dreh es gleich. Viele Grüße, --Olei 10:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Herr ButterflyEdit

May I ask for your expert advice on the article w:Mopane worm. There are two variations of the Latin name: Imbrasia belina and Gonimbrasia belina. Do you know why? (I think we have to include both, because I have seen both in the literature, but I would like to explain it.) Many thanks for your help JackyR 20:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi JackyR, sorry, I am not Mr. Butterfly. ;-) I have very little information about non european species. A taxonomic database exists for europe, but this doesn't help in this case. The cause for this change could be, that scientists found that the belonging to a genus has to be changed according to genetic analysis. So I have no idea which name is now accurate. I would only mention the up to date one, other (older) names can be created as redirects. But you can ask in the german lepiforum, Mr. Nässig should answer your question easily (english language is not the problem). Or you ask via email, which can be found at By the way, is there a reason that someone created an article for a caterpillar of a butterfly? I would this information integrate to its butterfly article (I guess, at the moment there is no such an article?). Best regards, --Olei 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, will follow some of those leads. You're right that there is no article for the butterfly. The caterpillar article might continue to exist, though, as the caterpillar is a common food and therefore a household object with its own name, whereas the butterfly is more likely to be of scientific interest, I would guess. I didn't even know to what butterfly the caterpillar belonged before reading WP. Ta, JackyR 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, have just found your very elegant translation of Mopane worm on But be warned, it's going to change a lot more before it settles, I imagine. You may want to wait a while before checking for updates - some of the earlier info was definitely dodgy (although you and User:Hsuepfle seem to have gone back to sources and written a much better de article than en one...). JackyR 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi JackyR, I did only little additions at this translation. As mentioned above I would redirect the lemma Mopane worm to the english name of Gonimbrasia belina (I mean the name of the butterfly). All information about the caterpillar should included there. So if you change the article just let me know! :-) Best regards, --Olei 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) PS: If my english sounds crazy please correct me!
Hi JackyR, I already recognized the ongoing changes on the article. I will update the german article in a few weeks. I left out the various african names for the caterpillar, I think this will take some time to find out the correct translations if any. At the moment I'm busy with some Tockus ;-) --Hsuepfle 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird butterflyEdit

Hi Olei, on the Dutch wikipedia I got a question about a butterfly that was spotted on Bohol. Do you have an idea what kind of butterfly this is? Greeting, -Svdmolen 15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi svdmolen, I have asked your question at the german Lepiforum. Best regards, --Olei 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it now and then to see if there is a suggestion from the forum. -Svdmolen 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no comment until now. The thread is here. Greetings, --Olei 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Servus! Schön, dass sich der Fall hat klären lassen. Ich sehe es aber in solchen Fällen überhaupt nicht für nötig an, das Bild neu hochzuladen. Ein erneutes Hochladen ist nur dann notwendig, wenn es sich um eine Fehlbestimmung gehandelt hat, nicht aber, wenn ein Name in die Synonymie gewandert ist. Umbenennungen, sei es wegen der geänderten Umgrenzung von Gattungen, sei es, dass sich durch eine Untersuchung des Typusbelegs die Falschanwendung eines Namens herausgestellt hat, sind in der Biologie alltäglich. Dann jedesmal alle Bilder unter neuem Namen hochzuladen, wäre absurd. Das bedeutet nur Mehrarbeit für die Admins und bringt sonst überhaupt nichts. In diesem Fall kann im Gegenteil das nochmal eine wertvolle Info sein, dass das Bild ursprünglich als Titanopsis fulleri bezeichnet wurde. Es gibt nämlich immer wieder Fälle, dass "Splitter" und "Lumper" in einer Artengruppe unterschiedlich enge Artkonzepte vertreten. Damit halte ich es auch in diesem Fall für möglich, dass die bald einmal wieder als zwei verschiedene Arten betrachtet werden. Mit der ursprünglichen Bezeichnung ist es dann leichter, die Bilder wieder auf zwei Artikel aufzuteilen. Grüße --Franz Xaver 22:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So gesehen hast du recht! Viele Grüße, --Olei 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


hi, danke fuer deinen Hinweis auf meiner Talk page. Ich bin inzwischen schon selbst dazu uebergegangen, bilder in gallerien zu sortieren, und ihnen nicht im quelltext kategorien zuzuordnen. weil du meintest, der kategorien-baum sollte flachgehalten werden: gibts so was wie ne offizielle policy, ob man eher groessere gattungen-galerieseiten machen soll, wo dann jeder subheader eine arte zeigt, oder besser fuer jede art eine seite? ich mach eher das letztere, hab das andere aber auch schon gesehen. gruss :) Sarefo 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also für Gattungen würde ich keine Galerie einrichten - das wird schnell unübersichtlich. Ich denke es hat sich durchgesetzt pro Art einen Artikel anzulegen. Ob es in den Commons eine Richtlinie gibt weiß ich gar nicht, in der de-Wikipedia gibts eine. Die sagt, dass ab hundert Artikel pro Kategorie Unterkategorien erstellt werden. Das sollte man auch nicht unbedingt auf die Goldwaage legen. Immer schön mit Augenmaß. :-) --Olei 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • zum beispiel die seite hier: Category:Meropidae. da gibts ne unterseite Meropidae, wo alle arten aufgelistet sind. vom gefuehl her wuerd ich sagen, am besten waers die seite Meropidae aufzuloesen, aber andererseits ist die wegen den englischen trivialnamen auch ganz praktisch (und ist ne gute checkliste fuer fehlende bilder). und mir ist nicht klar, was der sinn hinter (category) ist; sieht mir halbautomatisch erzeugt aus. wenn ich drueber nachdenke, wuerd ich sogar sagen so was wie die Seite Meropidae waer gut als allgemeiner standard, aber ich seh solche (komplette, gut dokumentierte und offenbar fundierte) meta-seiten nur sehr vereinzelt. wie wuerdest du das loesen? Sarefo 00:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Der Sinn hinter [[category:...]] ist der, dass du im Suchfeld category:... eingeben kannst und alle Artikel und Bilder angezeigt, die diesen Eintrag im Quelltext haben. Das wird beim Anlegen des Artikels manuell mit eingegeben. Die Artikel der Kategorie Merops würde ich umkategorisieren nach [[categorie:Meropidae]] und für die Kategorie Merops einen Löschantrag stellen. Der Artikel Meropidae ist eine schöne Übersicht. Es steht dir frei weitere anzulegen - eine Richtlinie gibts da nicht. --Olei 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hab grad an Pentatomidae gesehen, was du mit 'flach' meinst. ich werd versuchen, mich demnaechst zu beherrschen, und wenn moeglich keine eigenen Gattungs-seiten zu erstellen :) gruss Sarefo 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Mach dir nichts draus, ich hab am Anfang auch bis zum "bitteren Ende" durchkategorisiert... ;-) Viele Grüße, --Olei 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bilder von naturspektrum.deEdit

Hallo Olei. Hast du noch mehr Bilder hochgeladen von Holger Gröschl, als dieses-->Image:Cicindela.hybrida.jpg? Es gab eine Emailanfrage an Holger Gröschl. Jetzt haben wir die Zusicherung, das wir die Bilder unter {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} benutzen dürfen. Die emailanwort von Holger kannst du bei Vorlage Diskussion:Bild-CC-by-sa-Naturspektrum sehen. Ich bin gerade dabei, alles richtig zu stellen. Übrigens bei dem angegebem Bild kannst du ruhig die größte Version hochladen. grüße--Factumquintus 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Factumquintus, meines Wissens war das das einzige. Wenn es eine größere Version davon gibt, darfst du die selbstverständlich drüberbügeln! :-) Viele Grüße, --Olei 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unknown speciesEdit

Hi, could you help me to determinate this Lepidoptera image. Algirdas 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Algirdas, this should be Panthea coenobita (Pantheidae). User:Kulac came up with this hint. Other Images are here and here. Greetings, --Olei 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Stick insects / Ctenomorpha chronusEdit


I'm a bit perplexed by these two edits [30] [31]. In what way is Image:Stick insect02.jpg not a duplicate of Image:Ctenomorpha chronus.jpg, and Image:Stick insect03.jpg not a duplicate of Image:Ctenomorpha chronus02.jpg? The files are (respectively) identical. The old files have been superceded by the new ones.

Obviously none of the older ones should be deleted as long as pages link to them, but that's not the point of the {{duplicate}}-template. It even says so quite clearly on the template: "Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced!" —Gabbe 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my mistake. =:-) I thought you mean Stick_insect02.jpg is identical to Stick_insect02.jpg! I will revert my edit after saving this message! Best regards, --Olei 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Olei, I got a question for you.... Do you know this caterpiller? I've been seaching but without result. I hope you can help me. -Svdmolen 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Svdmolen, my best guess is, that it could be some kind of a Nymphalidae caterpillar. I have checked this book:
  • Axel Hausmann, Michael A. Miller: Atlas der Raupen europäischer und kleinasiatischer Schmetterlinge, fotografiert von Burkhard Nippe, Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, 2000, ISBN 3-931-51679-2
but I found no compareable image. And I am not an expert! So please ask at, english language is ok. If determination is possible, it will be done there! Otherwise you can catch this one, feed it and lets see! ;-) Best regards, --Olei 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise. -Svdmolen 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have problems navigating through this german forum, let me know - I can ask for you! --Olei 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks more like a sawfly caterpillar. Regards --XN 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Found this --XN 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This should match! So this caterpillar is from genus Periclista, there are 11 species in Europe [32], and as mentioned in this forum five in Germany. I only found images from Periclista lineolata. Are there oak trees at this location? --Olei 08:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in the Netherlands there are also five species of this genus. There is indeed alot of oak at the location where I saw the sawfly larve. At a Dutch forum for recorded sightings I see only this species mentioned, with similar pictures. So I think it's save to say that this is a Eichenblattwespe, thanks alot :o) -Svdmolen 10:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestionsEdit

I am a sysop on Commons, and have nearly 4,000 edits, so I do know a few things. Thank you for the suggestions. Please bear in mind that had I uploaded my entire flashcard, you would have had numerous blurry images, images of my hand, my boyfriend as well as my dog. I specifically uploaded the best of my butterfly images but I'm not really good at discerning how best people will want to use them for their projects so I am allowing the user to choose which ones to use. They're not really overly big... it's only a 3.5 megapixe camera.

I'll attempt to work under the Tree of Life guidelines, which seem to differ from editor to editor... But note that these guidelines don't really apply to Commons as a whole, as there has been no resolution to the Category versus Gallery issue. My preference is both, however, since you apparently work prodigiously with Butterfly images I'll try to follow your lead.

Thanks Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bastique, I know, its difficult to categorize and link images in commons. It's the old gallery versus category problem. :-/ Articles can be moved easily, cats not. Articles can be formatted (eggs, larva, imago etc.)... But you are right, this is very special to life forms. Best regards, --Olei 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unknown speciesEdit

Hi Olei, could you help me to determinate these pictures? [33], [34] Thanks. Algirdas 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Algirdas, sorry I can't help you with these images. I didn't find them in my Tolman / Lewington. My hint is: ask directly at - english language is ok. If determination is possible it will be done there. Just prepare images smaller than 100 kb for upload, and specify date and location for your determination request. Best regards, --Olei 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


We're not seeing eye to eye on the categorization subject. Commons:Categories says The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category directly, and/or put on a gallery page which is categorized. Each category should itself be in more general categories, forming a hierarchical structure. When I look at other users' galleries, there is a big red box showing me which images are not part of a category. This tells me that every image should be a part of a category. My understanding is that the article page is for the "best of" media, with a link to other wiki projects, and the category pages are used to put every file that is related to that category. Please comment on Commons talk:Categories if those guidelines are incorrect. Cacophony 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cacophony, I didn't say you were wrong. I know about the above mentioned links. And it should be stated, that there is a second more sophisticated way. And this one is categorizing media files via an article. There are some advantages: an article with lots of linked media files inside can be easily moved to another cat by one edit! This happens with bio cats from time to time according to the latest findings. Sorting by media type is possible. Providing additional information like subspecies, form, variation ... is possible. Ok, look at my gallery. There are no red tags. But you are right someone should write about linking media files with articles at Commons:categories Best regards, --Olei 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Spider vdg.jpg‎Edit

Why was Category:Araneidae|Araneus diadematus removed from picture: Image:Spider vdg.jpg‎

 ? Name of species not correct? Please put image in correct cat. Vdegroot 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vdegroot, the species name is correct. Your image is linked by an article named Araneus diadematus which is tagged with category Araneidae. Double linkage is not necessary. If you have more questions about linking and categorizing you can ask me, or in your language nl:user:Svdmolen. Best regards, --Olei 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Olaf, if you don't mind I would like to ask you for some advice. Yesterday we both took a picture of the same species of geometridae as you did (Pelurga comitata). Your picture has a much higher level of detail and quality. I read that you use a 20D, I use a 350D. You use a 180 mm lens, I use a 60 mm. You use a Flash MR-14EX, I didn't use any. My question: what is most important to get a better result? Is it the flash, the lens or the camera (or perhaps the person taking the picture)? At the moment I'm thinking about buying a good flash, what would you advice me? Best regards, Svdmolen 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sander, thats crazy - same species, same day! ;-) I have examined the metadata of your file. I have no idea what 60 mm lens you have (maybe a zoom?). The lens is very important. When I began taking makro images (10 or 11 years ago) my first lens was a Sigma 100-300 APO Macro. This lens was terrible at any focal length. One year later I tried the (old) Canon 2.8/100 macro with an EOS 5 Body and a non system ring flash. With this combination I shot my first really sharp slides! I guess this one]] is the best. One year later I decided to by this expensive 180 mm Canon macro lens. In my opinion this is the best 180 mm macro lens which is available for Canon bodies. So my advises are:
  • Use (if possible) Canon fix focals. Sigma, Tamron fix focals are ok, but no one knows if they will work at the next body generation.
  • Use the three "Master modes" for exposure: M, Av, Tv. This depends from the light situation.
  • Remember: for a sharp image a shutter speed of 1/focal length is required.
  • Don't select f numbers > 22.
  • At a focal length < 100 mm (macro!) the Canon 580EX flash (the best Canon flash I know) is unable to fill the image complete with light. At 100 mm it works if the zoom reflector is set to 70 mm. A 580EX flash with a focal length of 60 mm is useless, a ring flash MR-14EX works very well.
  • my standard setup for "low light" situations is: ISO 100, 1/250, f22 with 180mm and 580EX (or MR-14EX)
  • my standard setup for "daylight" is: ISO 100 (up to 400 or 800 for a light background), 1/200 (minimum), f16 (f22 maximum) with 180mm and 580EX (or MR-14EX)
  • btw: with the Canon 180 mm macro lense you can use the 2x teleconverter!
So: check your money and decide. I would recommend the 180 mm Canon followed by the 150 mm Sigma. The Canon 580EX is a "must have". If there are any more questions, feel free to ask! Best regards, --Olei 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Olaf, thanks alot for your advise so far. The lens I use now is a Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro, a fixed focal. I bought that lens, thinking that I could make a nice macro picture without using a tripod. Although some are pretty good, most don't meet my expectations. I assume that you have to use a tripod for every picture with a 180 mm lens? Or is it possible to use it without? At the moment the 180mm is a bit too expensive for me. So the second best, for a good price will probably be my choice. Do you think it's still possible to use such a lens (the 150mm Sigma) without using a tripod all the time? Greetings, Svdmolen 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course you can use the Sigma without a tripod for macro captures. I do it with my 180 mm canon lens in most cases. For the beginning set up the body to 1/22, f16 (better f22) and let the flash fill the image with light. ISO values are ok up to 400, 800 is a little bit grainy. Just have a look at this images: ISO 100, 1/100, f16, 180mm, 1/100, f16, 360 mm (TC2x), 1/800, f7,1, ISO 800, 360 mm (TC2x), no tripod. The Sigma 150mm macro and the 580EX flash are very good combination. BTW: Your 60mm macro should work very well with the MR-14EX ring flash. I use it with my 180 mm and 100 mm macro lenses. For the 180 mm lens an adapter is required. But my hint is: try the 150 mm Sigma and then sell this 60 mm macro. The longer distance works much better for living objects! --Olei 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good to hear that it doesn't need a tripod for a good picture. That is perhaps the most important thing for me. One other question, of the pictures I take probably 80% or more I don't use because they are not sharp or have other problems. What is approxamatly your rate of success when you take a picture? -Svdmolen 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The success rate differs in depence of the image target. If the target is in motion I guess 80% are waste. If possible I take a series of images and select the best. Just select this at your cams body. If there is no motion or the light situation is very good (only little flash power is needed) 80% (up to 100%) are ok. Try some images with your new lens/flash combination - you will see. --Olei 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)



judging from your contributions, you might be interested in Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life and / or Commons:WikiProject Insects

regards, and keep up the good work!

TeunSpaans 19:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Phyllocnistis labyrinthellaEdit

Hi, you removed the category from Phyllocnistis labyrinthella backside.jpg. Could you please tell me why? --Ekko 06:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This image is already linked by its gallery article. Imagine what would happen to modem users if hundred or more images are grouped in one category. Linking only with gallery articles works very well, see Lepidoptera. I know Commons:Categories. In my opinion the most manageable way for pictures of animals and plants is the use of gallery articles and in special cases (unidentified images etc) the use of categories. This may look different for other non taxonomic categories. --Olei 09:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I see, and agree completely. --Ekko 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links to categoriesEdit

Hallo, Olei, ich habe gerade gesehen, dass Du in der Category:Coleoptera den "sisterheader" mit den Links auf die nationalen Kategorien entfernt hast. Da ich nicht regelmäßig die Regularien - Diskussionen verfolge, meine Frage: Sollen die verschwinden?, oder sollen in Zukunft Artikel mit Artikeln und Kategorien mit Kategorien verlinkt werden?

Dass mit dem Entfernen der Hinweis auf die "Wikispecies" gleichzeitig verschwindet, wird, so glaube ich, von einigen maßgeblichen Leuten der deutschen Wikipedia etwas anders gesehen, als von anderen Organisationen.

Kleinigkeit zu den "taxonavs". Ich habe mit belehren lassen müssen und selber ausprobiert, dass ohne "< br clear="all >" zum Abschluss der Taxonomie - Navigation bei verschiedenen Browsern und Auflösungen es zu Darstellungsschwierigkeiten kommt; insbesondere, wenn die Taxonomie - Reihe größer wird. Gruß Orchi 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, mit den Sisterlinks hab ich mich wohl vertan, ich nahm an, das verlinkt auf Artikel (dann wärs ja redundant). Ich revertiere das mal. Die Regularien verfolge ich auch nicht ständig, ich denke da nur an die unsägliche Diskussion mit den Galerie-Artikeln und den Kategorien um Bilder zu sortieren. Die aktuelle Regelung beides zu verwenden schafft nur Unordnung und Verwirrung (s. o.). Die Wikispecies sehe ich als reine Zeitverschwendung an, weil dieses Projekt für die Erstellung und Aktualisierung viel zu viele Resourcen frißt (dafür gibts Datenbanken wie die Fauna Europaea, die von Spezialisten aktualisiert wird). Man sollte lieber die Taxonomie in den commons ordentlich abbilden und aktualisieren und vor allen Dingen durchsetzen, dass jeder Artikel nur in einem Galerie-Artikel verlinkt ist und nicht noch in einer Kategorie. Aber das ist auch meine persönliche Meinung. Die taxonavs halte ich für eine gute Idee, kann man den das "< br clear="all >" nicht in die Vorlage integrieren? Viele Grüße, --Olei 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hallo, Olei, ich bin auch völlig Deiner Meinung bezüglich der Species, die nur in einem Galerie-Artikel, aber nicht noch zusätzlich in einer Kategorie untergebracht sein sollten. Ich habe die Diskussion nur aus der Ferne beobachtet. Das Einsortieren von Bildern, die in Kategorien hinterlegt sind, ist sehr zeitaufwändig und die sich wiederholenden Kontrollen, ob Bilder aus Kategorien schon einem Artikel zugeordnet sind, ist noch nerviger.
Ansonsten halte ich die Taxonav für ein sehr gutes Werkzeug zur Information und zum schnellen Auffinden von Artikel auch ohne Tastatureingabe. (nur beispielsweise) Die template:taxonav ist sicherlich noch verbesserungswürdig. Z.B. ist noch keine kursiv - Schrift für die Genera abwärts möglich. Vielleicht kann man, wenn die Akzeptanz noch allgemeiner wird, bei einer neueren Programmierung dann auch den erforderlichen Zeilenumbruch mit einbauen. Viele Grüße Orchi 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Moin Orchi, schön dass wir einer Meinung sind. Das kommt in einer Demokratie selten vor. ;-) Die Taxonav-Vorlage werde ich bei den Lepidoptera mal mit einbauen. Bezüglich der Länge: gibt es eine Vorstellung darüber, ob man in jedem Falle beim Urschleim anfängt? Bei einer Ordnung wie Lepidoptera ist das ok, aber bei einer Art? Ich konstruiere mal (Inachis io): Animalia - Eumetazoa - Arthropoda - Hexapoda - Insecta - Lepidoptera - Nymphalidae - Nymphalinae - Inachis - io. Viele Grüße, --Olei 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, Olei, ich habe gesehen, Du bist bei den Lepidoptera schon sehr fleißig gewesen. Ich hoffe, Du bist mir nicht gram, dass ich einige kleine Änderungen vorgenommen habe. Aber ich denke, es ist besser, wenn nur die wissenschaftlichen Bezeichnungen verwandt werden. Im Übrigen bin ich schon wieder Deiner Meinung, was die Ausdehnung der Taxonomie - Navigation angeht. Man sollte vielleicht wirklich nicht mehr als 6 Schritte in der Taxonomiefolge, die in Commons eingerichtet ist, auflisten. Im Moment sehe ich Genus und Species aus schon vorher beschriebenem Grund etwas außen vor. Wenn Du Lust und Laune hast, kannst Du ja mal bei der Familie Orchidaceae schauen. Dort habe ich Genus und Species unter die Taxonav gesetzt, um einmal die korrekte Kursivform zu erreichen, aber auch, um die Autoren mit aufführen zu können. Wenn mir noch was einfällt, melde ich mich wieder. Viele Grüße Orchi 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, ja ich hab bemerkt, dass ich ein paar Fehler bei "Familia" gemacht habe, ich hoffe du hast sie alle gefunden und korrigiert. Die Länge des Taxonav sehe ich inzwischen gar nicht mehr als Problem, da diese (bei mir) umgebrochen wird. Genus und Species kann man vielleicht auf Artikelebene integrieren (wahlweise als Kat oder Galerie)? Die Erstbeschreiber sollten da schon mit dranhängen. Ich schaue mich mal bei den Orchidaceae um. Viele Grüße, --Olei 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, Olei, ich habe nicht alle Deine Taxonav Leisten durchgeschaut, nur die, die mir gerade in den Weg kamen. Nun, mit dem Umbruch hat das ja geklappt, aber man sollte die Leiste vielleicht doch nicht zu lang werden lassen. Viele Grüße. Orchi 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Feedback about Acherontia atroposEdit

Thanks a lot, Olei. I never saw the larva, though I know well the adult! I'm going to upload other pictures in Wikimedia Commons --gian_d 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice! :-) --Olei 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Damora saganaEdit

This picture of Damora sagana looks more like a Limenitis camilla. What is your opinion? Best regards, Svdmolen 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have used googles image search. In my eyes D. sagana is ok. Compare yourself: [35] [36]. Best regards --Olei 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya, you'r right. What an amazing difference between the male and female. -Svdmolen 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This is really crazy! --Olei 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your work for classificationEdit

thank you for your work classification :-)

If you have a few minutes, I upload images without knowing the species very well. You can perhaps better classify them? They is the 5 last here:

--Luc Viatour 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Luc Viatour, I will do my best! ;-) Classifying is easy: just type in the scientific name. If there is no gallery article, create one. If you don't know the family, go to the Fauna Europaea homepage end enter the name (this works only for european animals). And please don't put categories to images. Best regards, --Olei 13:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Removing categoryEdit

Hi I noticed you removed the category from an image page. Do you have any particular reason to do that or you removed it just because it's listed on Libellula depressa? If it's the latter, then I'm afraid that it's against our established policy. Bogdan 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan, I know what is stated in the guidelines. But this doesn't work for life forms. Look around in Lepidoptera or Coleoptera. Images are linked by gallery articles and don't have a category link. Exceptions are unidentified images. They have only a category. I hope you can live with this? ;-) Best regards, --Olei 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding categoriesEdit

Hallo, Olei, schönes Neues Jahr wünsche ich. Für meine eigene kleine Welt und die Entflechtung und Reinigung der Diptera-Fotos würde ich gerne folgendes wissen. (1.) Wenn ein Foto nur bis zur Familie bestimmt ist, kommt es dann sowohl in die Katergorie der Familie, wie auch die der unbestimmten Taxa der Ordnung - Beispiel Pieridae fg01.JPG? Ich habe bisher solche Fälle innerhalb der Familie in einen Artikel UNKOWN FAMILIENNAME gestellt, z.B. Category:Calliphoridae. Kann man so verfahren? Mein Problem ist einfach die Größe der Kategorie UNKNOWN DIPTERA. Die Fachleute haben auch wenig Zeit und Lust hunderte unbestimmter kleiner Fotos durchzusehen, ob etwas aus ihrem Fachgebiet dabei ist. Daher setze ich diese (wenn die Info da ist) in Artikel innerhalb der Familien. (2.) Wie schafft man es, dass beispielsweise die Kategorie Unidentified Images of Butterflies auf Category:Lepidoptera gleich zu Beginn in der alphabetischen Liste erscheint? Vielen Dank. --Dysmachus 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Dysmachus, auch dir alles Gute für das Neue Jahr! Die unbestimmten Bilder sind ja generell die Sorgenkinder. (1) Prinzipiell würde ich ein nicht bis zur Art bestimmbares Bild immer dort einordnen, wo mit der Bestimmung Schluss ist, als im letzten sicher bestimmbaren Taxon. Man kann dann überlegen, ob eine Kategorie oder ein Galerie-Artikel sinnvoll ist. Ein Galerie-Artikel hat den Vorteil, dass man besser sortieren und auch gleich eine Information unterbringen kann. Generell müsste man langsam beginnen die "Unknown xy" auf Familienebene zu erstellen, denn in den Ordnungen (gerade bei den Schmetterlingen) wird es arg unübersichtlich. (2) Sortieren kann man die Artikel über das Kategorie-Tag: [[Category:Calliphoridae|!]] würde einen Artikel unter "!" einsortieren, alle anderen Buchstaben sind auch möglich. Viele Grüße, --Olei 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank. --Dysmachus 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Danke für Korrekturen an diesen Page. Wir möchte verschiebe Seite. Vielen Dank, --Mihael Simonič 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

bilder loeschenEdit

hi olei,

wie ich vorher gesehen habe warst du am kategorien loeschen, und ich seh grad dass die bilder von Jeremy Miller, die ich vor wochen zum loeschen getaggt hab immer noch da sind. da er die dinger auf keinen fall ohne watermark veroeffentlichen will, muessen die weg, so sehr es mir in der seele wehtut. mann, ich hatte da richtig arbeit reingesteckt. kannst du die loeschen, damit nicht noch irgendwer daherkommt und sie verwendet? ich moecht keinen stress mit dem mann. Category:Pictures_by_Jeremy_Miller danke :) --Sarefo 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ich bin kein Admin. Die Kategorien habe ich als speedy getagged. --Olei 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ah, alles klar, hatte ich falsch verstanden. --Sarefo 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

kategorien vs. gallery pagesEdit


ich bin grad dabei, auf den unknown species seiten kategorien gegen gallery pages auszutauschen. hast du ne idee, wo ich mich da am besten mal melden sollte, damit ich niemandem damit auf die fuesse trete? anfang einer diskussion ist (in ermangelung einer besseren idee fuer nen platz) hier. gruss --23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

und hast du ne idee, wie man das am besten regelt, dass man bilder, die noch bestimmt werden sollen, trennt von bildern, die nicht bestimmbar sind? am besten waer doch, ne unbestimmbare tephritidae einfach nach Category:Tephritidae zu packen, oder gibts ne bessere idee? --Sarefo 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Moin, im Grunde genommen ist es egal, ob Galerie oder Kategorie. Ich habe bei den Lepidoptera Kategorien auf Familienebene eingebaut, weil das für die erste Sortierung einfacher ist (fand ich jedenfalls - einfach nur ein Bildedit). Das Trennen unbestimmbarer Bilder von potentiell bestimmbaren wird nicht vernünftig möglich sein, denn das würde vorraussetzen, das sich ein Experte diese ansieht und dann beispielsweise reinschreibt Gattungsowieso spec.. Dieses eine spezielle Bild müßte dann mit einem Hinweis versehen und aus den Unbestimmbaren entfernt und in einem Galerie-Artikel Gattungsowieso spec. verlinkt werden. Aber besser eine schlechte Lösung als gar keine. Viel rumdiskutieren würde ich da auch nicht, mir fallen spontan noch folgende User ein, die bei den Insekten kategorisieren: Dysmachus, Kulac, Orchi. Ich denke mal, wenn wir zu fünft einen Konsens erreichen, dann läuft das auch sehr gut. Du kannst ja gerne zu eine kurzen "Informationsveranstaltung" hierher einladen ;-) --Olei 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing input on talkEdit

Hi Olei, I'd like to point you to a comment and a reply on User_talk:Pudding4brains#Sesia... dating a while back. Could you please comment? Thanks. Siebrand 08:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Von den Oedemeriden-Bildern sind Bild 1,6,7, von einem VZquez (oder so ähnlich) als O.nobilis und Bild 8 als O.virescens bestimmt worden. Ich kann dem nicht widersprechen. Bei den fehlenden Bildern 2,3,4,5 handelt es sich vermutlich um das gleiche Tier (gleiches Datum, gleicher Fotograph, immer ein Weibchen). Ich wage keine Behauptung abzugeben, eventuell ist es ebenfalls nobilis. Vielleicht sollte man den Vzq fragen, ob er sie nicht bestimmen kann, da er ja die andern auch bestimmt hat. Vermutlich kann er spanisch. Wenn Du es für sinnvoll hälst, würde ich ihn darum bitten. Ansonsten warte ich noch die Antwort zu dem Bild aus dem Insektenforum ab, vielleicht sind da eindeutige Merkmale angegeben. Du kannst hier antworten, ich habe ich unter Beobachtung gestellt :)--Siga 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inzwischen habe ich von Frank Antwort, mit Hinweisen über die Bestimmungsmerkmale. Danach wage ich zu behaupten: die 4 noch nicht bestimmten Bilder sind ebenfalls O.nobilis (Farbe, Verlauf der Außenrippe, interessiert Dich eh nicht, nehm ich an :))--Siga 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Siga, erst einmal vielen Dank für deinen heldenhaft Bestimmungseinsatz im Dienste der Wikipedia! :-) Wir debattieren im Laufe der Woche mal per ICQ drüber, dann sortiere ich die Bilder auch ein, was dich nicht davon abhalten soll es schon zu tun! :-)) Viele Grüße, --Olei 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
was ganz was andres hält mich ab: 120 Seiten Einführung zu der neuen Luminex! Noch grüßer --Siga 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Da bin ich aber auf die ersten Bilder gespannt! :-) --Olei 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

gallery vs. catsEdit

hi olei,

hab grad wiedergefunden wo ich die diskussion schon mal angefangen hatte.

ob categories oder galleries besser sind ist wie ich seit langem finde ne ziemlich uneindeutige sache. fuer und gegen beides spricht einiges. ich fand es bei den unknown-seiten besser als gallery, aus folgenden gruenden:

  • einfache moeglichkeit, die bilder zu annotieren, ohne auf deren seite gehen zu muessen
  • einfache moeglichkeit, zb. 10 bilder der gleichen spinne zu verschieben, ohne jede einzelne editieren zu muessen.
  • einfacher, mehrere bilder der gleichen art zusammenzufassen, so dass man nicht mehrfach bestimmt.

andererseits hast du natuerlich recht, dass man zwei dateien editieren muss, um ein bild in galleries zu verschieben (im unterschied zu cats). eine frage waere also, um ne praeferenz zu klaeren: was macht man oefter?, und die struktur dann daran anpassen. aber verschiedene leute arbeiten halt verschieden, hey, sogar ein einzelner (zb. ich) aendert seinen editierstil immer wieder mal und findet dann das andere besser.

also, ich bin im augenblick dafuer, es so zu machen (darum hab ich's so gemacht ;). aber am wichtigsten ist mir, dass das ganze relativ einheitlich ist, das andere nervt wenn man immer zwei strukturen durchsuchen muss. ich war grad zwei wochen weg, weiss noch nicht ob ich die naechste zeit sehr viel zeit fuer wiki habe, koennt aber sein. ich muss demnaechst mal auf das commons-project Tree of Life gehen, vielleicht sollte sowas dort diskutiert werden.

gruss :) --Sarefo 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Moin Sarefo, ich habe mich wahrscheinlich nicht klar genug ausgedrückt. Ich meinte mit der Kategory natürlich nur die, in denen unbestimmte Bilder gelagert werden sollen. Denn diese findet man sporadisch irgendwo innerhalb des Kategorie-Baums. Massenhaft verschoben werden diese eher selten. Daher meine Idee, dort Kategorien zu verwenden. weil man den Galerie-Artikel nicht noch öffnen muss. Also, wie wollen wir das vereinheitlichen? Auf große Debatten habe ich keine Lust, weil da höchstwahrscheinlich jeder eine eigenen Vorschlag haben wird (siehe gallery vs. cats). Grüße, --Olei 09:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006Edit

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Blaufluegel-Prachtlibelle-Weibchen.jpgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Blaufluegel-Prachtlibelle-Weibchen.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

putting your images in galleriesEdit

No problem :) i like to do that when i am bored.... gives me something to do. --Ltshears 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

usage of categoriesEdit

hello there Olei, thank you for your message and pointing it out. Yes, indeed there seems to be some confusion. Nevertheless Commons:Categories policy clearly states that images are categorised, I don't quite understand why this seems to be such a problem. As a sysop I have the obligation to follow these rules unless otherwise stated. I personally find categories also easier to work with, would it not help the situation to have categories as a system? In that case, you will still have order and not a mixed system. Gryffindor 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor, I guess you don't know much about a taxonomic tree. It often occurs that a genus is moved from one familiy or subfamiliy to another. According to this fact you have to edit all images of an species if such a change is necessary. The actual rules may work outside of a taxonomic tree (I'm not interested in this), but for life forms they are bull shit and will lead to an obscure dungill. Do what you have to do, as stated at dysmachus discussion page in the future my activities are restricted, I will only upload images. Anything else is waste of time. --Olei 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories which states: The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. To allow this, each file must be put into a category directly, and/or put on a gallery page which is categorized. If you disagree with this policy, then please comment on Please do not destroy the hard work of others who choose to follow guidelines. Again, EVERYTHING on commons should be within a category. Please do not orphan images. Again:The category structure is the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons. Cacophony 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with the same question/problem I dare to comment in this place: please note and/or put on a gallery page which is categorizedfrom your own quotation. This second option is no violation of the first one but much more better from several points of view. Especially with species putting it in a category makes sense only, if there is no gallery yet. Excuse my commenting here. --Siga 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Xysticus.spec.6890.jpg, which was nominated by Jnpet at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Xysticus.spec.6890.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


--Simonizer 08:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews PhotoEdit


Can you take a quick look at User:Symode09/Wikinews, if you can help, I would really appreciate it

Symode09 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This message has been sent to around 25 people

Removing categoriesEdit

Hello Olei. I am saddened to see that you have removed categories from hundreds of images. Are you aware of our policy at Commons:Categories, which says not to remove categories from images as you have been doing? I quote:

Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery.

Please stop making these edits against policy. Thanks, Quadell (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop categorizing at species level! The discussion about this is not over! See: Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/Polbot and here. --Olei 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have already stopped categorizing at the species level while discussion is ongoing. Will you stop removing such categories? Quadell (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I will recover the previous state. That will be the basis for any furthur discussion. --Olei 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are clearly against Wikipedia policy, which says not to remove categories simply because they are in galleries. If you continue to make these reversions, you can be blocked from editing. Quadell (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone will block me the german community will force an deadmin against you! So please realise: you tried to do something for which is no common acceptance available! EOD! --Olei 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Quadell. In fact, please take a look at COM:C, as that says to use categories as well as galleries. And lastly, please, please, be civil. (zelzany - framed) 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Quadell and Vishwin60. Please stop for the time being. MECUtalk 00:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
@Olei, who are you to claim to speak for the "german community" and in such a manner? Not in my name.-- Túrelio 05:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Note I will probably revert some of your deleted categories in the Lepidoptera. The sheer amount of images e.g. of geometer and noctuid moths has become very hard to handle otherwise, and we have pages on en:Wikipedia that would very much need these categories, being stubs and having little information on contained taxa - essentially the genus level of these diverse families is lacking while higher-ranked taxa as well as many species do already have articls. Commons can bridge that gap.
(As a side note, I prefer species gallery pages to species categories also, because the maintenance effort, redirecting etc is considerably eased in case of synonymies, homonymies, taxonomic changes etc. None of my reverts will affect the format in which images are presented at the species level. This time however, I will take care to include links to the Wikipedia articles, which I often forgot when I created the categories - perhaps you deleted them because they were hard to understand for non-specialist users, which is reasonable enough.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Versuche bitte höflich zu bleibenEdit

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | українська | +/−

Es ist wichtig einen kühlen Kopf zu bewahren, besonders dann, wenn man selbst oder das eigene Tuen kritisiert wird. Persönliche Angriffe und störende oder unpassende Kommentare führen nur zu einer Eskalation der Situation. Denk also daran: Der klügere gibt nach! Notfalls kann man sich immernoch an einen Administrator wenden. Versuche bitte höflich zu bleiben. Danke! Siebrand 05:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your mass reverts. Despite multiple requests to not revert, you have in fact reverted hundreds of changes made by Quadell. You have also threatened to start a desysop procedure against him. That is behaviour that is uncivil and unacceptable. I urge you to start discussing the issue with an open mind and to cease any uncivil behaviour. Cheers! Siebrand 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Olei! Gräme dich nicht. Es ist es nicht wert. Du wirst hier zur Unrecht angegangen. Wir werden eine Lösung finden bei uns. In diesem Zustand kann es nicht weitergehen und wahrscheinlich sollten/müssen wir unsere Bilder abziehen. Alles weitere bei unserer Diskussion bei den Lebewesen. Commons schneidet sich dabei nur ins eigene Fleisch. grüße von --Factumquintus 02:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Image CategoriesEdit

Hello I was just wondering if you only deleted categories and if you could have kept them in one of the scientific categories instead of wildlife either way I was just checking -- IvanTortuga 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I added your image(s) to the appropriate gallery article and removed the categories to avoid the creation of double structures. The problem is that there is no policy for sorting images especially for images of life forms. So this topic is discussed controversial. --Olei 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Olei from EntomoloEdit

Hello Olei! Sorry, very sorry, dear Olei, only this time i discover your message to my you send on april 2006,it's a long time, very very sorry , i do not think someone write to my on Wikipediacommons. But you do it. So I read yours devices to my. Ok, I understand need'nt category Lepidoptera but only this category or never category? Now,I going trying translate pictures descriptions in english but it'nt easy for my, only with dictionnary in my hand but i will try so more time. English language is difficult for my.Best regards--jph 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal concerning User PH-n templatesEdit

Hi, there is a proposal and vote concerning the {{User PH-0}},...,{{User PH-3}} templates, that you may be interested in. --Tony Wills 10:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ha! fooled you :)Edit

hi olei,

you categorized Myrmecotypus rettenmeyeri as an ant last year, but it's an ant-mimicking spider ;) see Myrmecotypus. cheers + happy new year --Sarefo 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarefo! Damned bastard! =:-) --Olei 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007Edit

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that an image of yours that became a Commons Featured Picture during 2007 is now part of the 2007 Picture of the Year competition. If you have > 200 edits you are welcome to vote too. Thanks for contributing your valuable work and good luck. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Eigene dupesEdit

Bitte {{Bad name|Anders Bild}} nehmen. Danke, abf /talk to me/ 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

mal wieder Gallerie/Kategorie ;->Edit


Hab grad gesehen, dass du bei Lepidopterawieder ein Redirect eingefügt hast und jetzt über deine Diskussionsseite gelernt, dass du eher gegen Kategorien und Gallerien zum selben Thema bist... ich lern gern dazu und wollt daher noch Mal nachfragen, was der Grund für diese Aktion war (ein anderer Grund könnte sein, dass ich mich in dem Fall etwas vertan hab und die Gallerie nicht ganz richtig aufgebaut hab, nachdem ich von einem englischen Artikel ausgegangen bin).

Ich selber finde verlinkte Gallerien mit einer Auswahl guter Bilder als Übersicht sehr hilfreich, um sich als Laie zurechtzufinden. So weiß ich z.B. über die Unterteilung der Insekten recht wenig und muss mich daher erst einmal informieren, bevor ich mit den ganzen lateinischen Kategorienamen irgendetwas anfang - wenn ich dagegen eine Gallerie mit Bildern zur Übersicht hab, find ich mich recht schnell zurecht - auch ohne die Namen in meiner Muttersprache zu haben, was in Commons auf Grund der vielen Sprachen Probleme bringen kann... Gallerien wie die auf deiner Diskussionsseite erwähnte Meropidae dagegen helfen mir nicht weiter - diese Information kann ich aus den Kategorien genauso schnell bekommen...

--Anna reg 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi! Yes I know, there was a problem with Goole query. I will try to correct it. Regards. Yarl TalkPL 09:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename errorEdit

When you copied this image: Image:Unidentified.butterfly.2005.08.05.547.jpg to rename it to this Pyrausta.aurata.6857.jpg, you cut it's resolution--check their pages. Try using "save link as" to not lose any data. RlevseTalk 02:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for deleting the second image. You did really a very good job. :-( --Olei (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

hi, can you help me?Edit

I have a problem of communication with italian wikipedia.

can you please write to explaining I have an adsl?

he said I am on a proxy, but I have a normal ADSL.

thank a lot for your help

Sorry, but I don't speak italian. ADSL and proxy are two different things. Maybe you read this. Best regards, --Olei (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted categoriesEdit

You just check out the deleted categories, en:Geometridae subgroups. As you can see, there is some more comprehensive information in a few of them, but most are stubby. And I soured the en: far and wide and thanks to some Dutch guy I got the lot of species we have already, but as you can see on Commons, the overlap (the amount of diversity that is represented on Commons AND en:) is not that large. A Commons category is helpful, because it shows other examples that would on any Wikipedia be a redlink that won't be done anytime soon, and just hang around, waste space and look stupid. On Commons, there are a few basic infos to those species. I think that one ought to be accessible via the other.

And besides:

  • what harm does it do?
  • in how far would the way it was after your romp improve things, with dozens and dozens of scientific names heaped in a category?

I think I am fairly good in zoology and I find it tedious and time-consuming to dig thrhoug 60 or 80 scientific names of unknown veracity, if there is some Wikipedia page that has some info on the diversity of taxa already. Hence, I tend to create "ladders" of connected taxonomic trees on en: and Commons. It helps to get the info you want. A lot.

But I think that unlike how I started it (lazily), there ought to be such a "ladder". These days, I try to avoid simply multiplying categories on Commons without linking the correspongind article tree on en:, because that is indeed unhelpful (I noted when I got lost in it). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to clean up categories though...

Check out Category:Fossil Hesperornithiformes. These are all over the tree. They inconsistently contain some but not all media of fossils, replicas of fossils, skeleton drawings etc of taxa prehistoric and extant. The tree is 3 times redundant in places, and it makes maintenance a hell of a nightmare. That one gy put them all in and insisted to keep them in, but they're cluttering up the tree and in half a year or so they have added no appreciable advantage I know of. Besides, they disagree with the "no category detours" policy. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing of categoriesEdit

Hi, i noticed, that you removed categories here or here. Are the categorization wrong? Every creature can be categorized within the taxonomic ranks, so why did you remove the family categorization? If the categories are wrong you should not remove it but replace it with the next higher correct category, so some other user will categorize the creature correctly. --Martin H. (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unknown AdelidaeEdit

Category discussion notification Category:Unknown Adelidae has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | ಕನ್ನಡ | македонски | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | ತುಳು | українська | +/−

--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you should have told me you were undoing a lot of my recent categorization. I'm open to other ways of categorizing, but there needs to be some sort of communication... Otherwise we're both wasting our time and going in circles. For example, please tell me why you are merging the tribes of Category:Ennominae? Do you think it's over-categorization? I have no strong feelings either way, but let's discuss how we're doing these categories. Rocket000 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you would have told me before, I could have saved you a lot of work. Most categorization can be change all at once with an edit to the template {{Lepidoptera}}, I can also give commands to the category move bot. Rocket000 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think using tribes is a kind of over-categorization and the belonging of a genus to a tribe changes frequently. I know it is possible to do some changes in the Lepidoptera-template, but changing cats is not the only change, I also will create missing gallery pages and add files to existing ones. Just now I have seen that you have reverted my edits without waiting for my answer. :-/ Sorry, that I didn't recognize that all these tribe cats were your work. So you are the owner - feel free doing what you want, I will never "disturb" you again. --Olei (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at all! I only reverted you until we decide on what to do because as it was most were still organized by tribe and kinda made it hard to continue working that way. Putting it back the way it was will make it easier for me to change it with a bot and/or with the template (also there's some taxo info on them that might be useful). Don't worry, I'll take care of those. And never call me the owner of anything here. ;)
Taxonomy doesn't always make the best hierarchy so sometimes it's hard to judge when to subdivide and when not to. Personally, I think most subfamilies should not be divided by tribe, and I normally don't do it unless some tribe categories already exist. For example, I only made one or two (I think) of the tribe cats in Category:Ennominae, the rest were already there, so didn't want to change the system by myself. I looked at the history of pages like Category:Ourapterygini and saw that this was your third time emptying it and getting it deleted over the course of 2 years and each time with a different user creating it. This implies to me some users think we do need or should have tribe categories. But as far as I know, this isn't a highly contested area. The problem is a lack of written guidelines or category schemes. We need to know how to categorize and communicate that so this doesn't keep happening.
So now do you think we should never use tribes? Or is it just for Ennominae? Because some families are huge. 1000s of genera. Even in some where we don't have that much, wouldn't it be better to prepare for the future? I don't think it's too unrealistic to think that we will eventually have images of every extant species. Right now my plan is to continue to apply {{Lepidoptera}} everywhere and then we can make decisions like this with a single edit. We can have tribes one day and subfamilies the next. :) We can even have both at once like how the plant categories are done... which might not be a bad idea. Rocket000 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
A temporary example of how that would work: Category:Genera of Ennominae (automatically filled by the template). Of course we can just as easily add other categories like that (genera by family, tribes by family, species by subfamily, etc.). I kinda like this idea because when you go to Category:Ennominae, you can navigate by tribe or genus, whichever you prefer. Rocket000 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That is indeed a really good idea and therefore I will never mention again that you own categories at commons! ;-) With these possibilities it should be easy to deal with tribe categories. So what is to do next? Adding the Lepidoptera template to all genera categories? What can be done by a bot?
BTW: My taxonomic sources are:
--Olei (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, at first I was planning on having a bot (a combination of AWB/pywikipedia since I can't program myself) add the Lepidoptera template to all relevant categories, however, when I started working on it I relaized there were too many variables to consider and I would rather review each one anyway. Many are missing authors which isn't something a bot could add (I guess it could pull the names from a list, but that's beyond my abilities). I also like to add {{VN}}, {{Synonyms}}, and {{Ws}} when appropriate. I sometimes run into synonymous/duplicate categories when doing this, so that's another reason to do it manually. Here's a list of all supragenric categories that might be helpful when working in this area.
It's good to know what classifications you're working from. For the most part, I use, which has been an invaluable resource. It's not a direct taxonomic authority but clearly lists the publications it's using for each taxon and even lists alternate classifications (it tends to favor the most up-to-date yet reasonably established sources as it's own classification). I have not found a single error there yet, unlike ITIS, zipcodezoo (aka synonym city), wikipedia/wikispecies (obviously), TOL (very incomplete, and a little too phylogenetic for what most currently use), EOL, and almost all other databases. I don't have issues with Fauna Europaea or Global Lepidoptera Names Index though and use them sometimes. For certain areas that have recently gone through major revisions (like Geometridae[37] for example), I have not found suitable lists to work from yet so I usually try and use the most common classification even if it's not that up-to-date (I guess this is another reason not to use tribes), but I would welcome using Scoble 1999 (although I don't have access to it myself). If there is major differences in sources, I sometimes state which one I using but I try not to overload the page with "taxonomic stuff" that most people don't care about. :)
Ok, so the next thing to do is decide if we should make "Genera of..." categories for all subfamilies that has tribe categories. There seems to be only about 10 families that currently have any. Looking at the list I made can help us decide whether or not it's even worth using tribes at all. For example Category:Euchromiini is really necessary. Actually I've been planning to get rid of Category:Ctenuchinae all together since it's so messy and confusing but I can't decide which classification to use. Any input would be appreciated for these areas. Rocket000 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping, BTW! Rocket000 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had in mind that it would not possible to create a lot with a bot. =:-) I suggest creating a little project page (could stored as a discussion page of category Geometridae) where taxonomic sources are listed. is ok to my knowledge, Fauna Europaea, the Global Lepidoptera Names Index and Herbulot too. Scoble 1999 is a large species list (about 1.000 letter or A4 sized pages, I can send you a sample scan via email if you are interested) based on the Global Lepidoptera Names Index but it does not mention families, subfamilies and tribes. It lists synonyms, the original author with publication, year and location and sometimes food plants. Another source could be Hausmann: Geometridae of Europe, but this book series is incomplete until now and the Ennominae are overdue. :-/ I won't use Beljaev 2007 because its incomplete. For Ctenuchidae maybe Jacobson / Weller: Cladistic study of the Arctiidae could bring some light into this taxon. You can have it as pdf. "Genera of..." should also include all taxa without having a tribe (within a subfamiliy). I guess this is possible? --Olei (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All genera should now be in Genera of Ennominae that have tribes or subfamilies (still just Ennominae for now but I'm almost ready to do it for all Leps). I guess I should remove them from the subfamily right? Or maybe make a incertae sedis category for the tribe-less ones so they'd still be categorized in two categories like everything else.
Having a project page is a good idea. I think I'll make it as a subpage of COM:TOL. Rocket000 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How did HotCat do that!? ;) Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 :-D I think a incertae sedis category is the best solution. --Olei (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera. Rocket000 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done! :-) --Olei (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I want to give you a hint when using {{SN}}. There's some issue with the template I can't figure out, so if you want to place the entries on separate lines you can do it this way or just put it all on one continuous line like I do. Rocket000 (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have seen your correction. ;-) --Olei (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Semiothisa and ChiasmiaEdit

Looks like we got a conflict of classifications here. I think I remember choosing Semiothisa simply because en.wp uses that, but since you added the info to Category:Chiasmia clathrata, I'll let you pick. I'm not sure myself. Rocket000 (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Uh oh, same with Category:Macaria, I guess the broad sense of Semiothisa isn't as common as I thought. Rocket000 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes we have. I tried to find a solution yesterday but without success. The combination Semiothisa clathrata is outdated, Chiasmia clathrata (Linnaeus, 1758) is correct according to
  • Malcolm J. Scoble: Geometrid moths of the world. A catalogue (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 1999, ISBN 0-643-06304-8
  • Günter Ebert (Hrsg.): Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs Band 9 (Spanner (Geometridae) 2. Teil), Nachtfalter VII. Ulmer Verlag Stuttgart 2003. ISBN 3-8001-3279-6
  • Fauna Europaea
The Global Lepidoptera Names Index has it as Asmate clathrata (Linnaeus, 1758):
For the latter Google reports only some hits. Therefore I recommend to use Scoble, 1999 as the standard for the Geometridae and we should mention other combinations as synonym or new. Unfortunately this catalogue is not available online. --Olei (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. this Semiothisa issue is worse than I thought. I did a little research and it seems most publications can't decided what to do with it either. Sometimes Macaria is merged into Semiothisa (subgenus/synonym), sometimes it's the other way around (!), and sometimes only some species are relocated and both groups are keep as distinct genera. The latter seems the most common, in current literature at least. Yes, let's stick to Scoble, 1999. Do you think you can maybe add the missing species to the list on Category:Macaria so I can help work on this area? Also Category:Chiasmia? I'll update Semiothisa as soon as I know what to do! :) Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found this list. The full list includes tribus and subspecies. :-D This should be the reference. --Olei (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Don't search the tribus Macariini (Chiasmia clathrata ;-) ) in the full list, they must have forgotten to include it. I asked for this via email. --Olei (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice find! I've been to that site a couple times and never noticed those lists! Although I can't say it makes the Macariini situation any clearer. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much for all the work you're doing on the Lepidoptera categories! Rocket000 (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 :-) --Olei (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your input pleaseEdit

Sniff, sniff.. no one's paying attention to the talk page. :-) I really don't know what to do with monotypic species. Any ideas? Rocket000 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I had it in mind. ;-) --Olei (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletionsEdit

Just letting you know that "does not meet wp quality requirements" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please read our guidelines on what qualified for deletion and particularly what qualifies for speedy deletion. You are welcome to start a deletion discussion for these images, but I believe they are within the project scope and thus would likely not be deleted by the community through a discussion. As I stated, it may help to read up on the deletion guidelines. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm thinking we should not use tribes here. For two reasons: There aren't that many genera (and right now the each only have one). There's a lot of synonymy that hasn't found a consensus yet. Compare: [38][39][40] and ours. Is it ok with you if we remove the tribe categorization? Rocket000 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can... ;-) BUT: is not a taxnomic reference. TOL: no source... The only serious site is If its possible to remove the tribe categorization without editing other categories - you can remove it. --Olei (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I know they are not taxonomic authorities but it does show that there are other popular classifications (either up-to-date or not) that people are using, making whatever tribe categorization we choose harder to use. Same goes for Wikipedia and Wikispecies. But the main reason is the relative size of the tribes. It is possible to remove the tribe categorization all at once via the template (making it simply ignoring the tribe parameter) which I plan to do once it's clear what all the categories are that should/shouldn't have tribes. Rocket000 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Make it so! ;-) --Olei (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


Aw, you stopped you're work on this category. I was hoping you would take care of it. :) I hate these higher rank conflicts (e.g. Xylenini vs. Xyleninae to name just one of many). Any suggestions for this family? Rocket000 (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have it in mind, but I need a taxonomic basis. I tried to get a copy of this publication: Lafontaine & Fibiger, 2006, Can. Ent. 138: (610-635), but without success (online availabe from 2007 until now. And this is a mixture of some sources. Give me some time... ;-) And we should make a notice of such conflicts at the project page. --Olei (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll hold off on it for now. I'll take a look through the category and see what we got so far. I'll find the conflicts and list them on the project page. Rocket000 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There is light at the end of the tunnel! :-) Yesterday I got a copy of the puplication mentioned above (Thanks to Engeser). The higher classification can be found here: Commons:Wikiproject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera/Noctuoidea. If you like you can have a copy. --Olei (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! That's really helpful. And yes, I would love a copy (my email's enabled). Thanks! Rocket000 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pterophorus pentadactylaEdit

The correct name is Pterophorus pentadactylus, as far as I can tell, and dates to at least 1836 in that form. The name you are converting to (Pterophorus pentadactyla) contains a grammatical error in Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check this and C. Gielis: Pterophoridae. In: P. Huemer, O. Karsholt, L. Lyneborg (Hrsg.): Microlepidoptera of Europe 1: 1-222., Apollo Books 1996, ISBN 87-88757-36-6. Grammatical errors do not affect origin names. --Olei (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and believe it is an error. See [41] vs. [42]. Grammatical errors are to be automatically corrected under the ICBN; I do not know whether the ICZN has such a provision. Unfortunately Gielis does not discuss the orthographic change at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, give me some time to check it. --Olei (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

License migration and File:Plagionotus.arcuatus.7757.jpgEdit

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons. I happened to notice that you reverted BotMultichill's edit to File:Plagionotus.arcuatus.7757.jpg. As you may already know, the latest version of the GNU Free Documentation License contain a relicensing clause that allows the operators of a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration site", such as Wikimedia Commons, to republish works uploaded to such a site under the GFDL and satisfying certain conditions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, which is considered by the FSF to be similar in spirit but more appropriate for such sites.

After a community vote, the Wikimedia Foundation resolved to exercise this option for all eligible content on its sites, including Commons. Since then, various members of the community have been working to sort individual GFDL-licensed files on Commons according to their eligibility for this relicensing. The bot edit which you reverted was part of this sorting project.

Obviously, we would be most thankful if you chose to release your contributions to Commons under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license yourself. However, being aware that some contributors who had previously uploaded their files to Commons under earlier versions of the GFDL might strongly object to the relicensing provision, we've provided a mechanism for contributors to opt out of the relicensing of some or all of their files. If, regretfully, you choose to do this, you should edit the file description pages of any files that you wish to exclude from the relicensing process and add the parameter "|migration=opt-out" to their license templates. That way, the files will be clearly marked so that no-one will later by mistake mark them as eligible for relicensing.

If you have a lot of files that you would like so marked, please post a request e.g. at Commons talk:License Migration Task Force. We have several users who'll be happy to run a bot to mark all your files so that you won't have to edit them all one by one. Of course, I'd like to say again that we'd be even happier if you chose to let your works be released under the CC-BY-SA license. Whichever option you select, though, I'm glad that you've chosen to contribute your work to Wikimedia Commons, and thereby to the growing pool of free content available for everyone in the world to use. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


So now that you did some work in this area, what's your opinion on what we should do? Should I change the template so that we start using the tribes again. Or just forget them for now and delete the categories (most of which are empty now anyway)? They are currently mixed in with the subfamilies in Arctiidae, which isn't good.. actually I'm going to add Arctiinae to the template for now, but I' not sure about Lithosiinae. It has a ton of species, but most are unassigned. Same with Ctenuchinae it seems. (Pericopinae isn't that big, so I won't worry about that one.) Rocket000 (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, deleting the tribe categories ist the best solution at the moment. The taxonomy of Arctiidae is difficult and in many cases not well discovered. And by now the number of images is not countless. ;-) --Olei (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems like funet, Wikispecies (thanks to ZooKeys), and possibly en.wp are in the middle of updating to Lafontaine & Fibiger (2006), which changes everything. Arctiidae is no longer a family but a subfamily of Noctuidae. See species:Noctuidae for references (but don't go to far from that page or it gets bad ;). Rocket000 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I just realized Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life/Lepidoptera/Noctuoidea is the classification I'm talking about and already includes Arctiinae. I never looked at it in detail before because I thought was for a family I wasn't working on yet! Rocket000 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I just realized it too. =:-) The question is: change it or not... Maybe we should wait some time. De-wp is waiting too. Btw. I have a new book about Arctiidae. Just let me know if you are interested. --Olei (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I have granted you patroller rights. This was done in an attempt to reduce a backlog at Special:NewPages. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Most of this superfamily (Xyloryctidae, Oecophoridae, Scythrididae, etc.) is in need of a good revision / stable checklist (or least someone in possession of the right literature to bring this info online). There's not a lot out there, but one site that I found surprising useful is the Australian Faunal Directory on I've been using this checklist and so far it seems to be the most complete and more up-to-date than other online sources (according to Don Herbison-Evans' site, Zborowski & Edwards' A Guide to Australian Moths (2007) makes a few changes like raising Xyloryctinae to a family again, but not much else changes in the higher classification). The main site I've been using is All-Leps ( also uses this). The Australian list is based on the same classification(s) as the Australian Faunal Directory I think. And there's the North America list. Wikispecies has an overview of three other possible classifications. None of which are any good. All outdated. This is one area where funet doesn't help much. It's very incomplete and unclear what the higher classification is based on (mostly Hodges' 1983 checklist it seems). So unless you know of something better, I suggest we stick to All-Leps. Rocket000 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lange Rede kurzer Sinn: I just downloaded this file today. :-) Fauna Europaea possibly helps with tribus information. But we should use All-Leps. --Olei (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
FE (and other sites) can help fill in the cracks (Europe isn't covered that well by the others). As long as info doesn't conflict, then more is better. BTW, be careful with getting lists of taxa from EOL. It's not a synonymic checklist—all available names are listed regardless of any taxonomic treatment (and I don't mean just the current treatment, it lacks any treatment, not to mention practically all the literature it cites is 100s of years old ;). The problem stems from CoL and other databases misusing NHM's LepIndex data. They simply imported all the names. The only thing they paid attention to was if the name was valid or not (the word 'valid' is misleading because even junior synonyms are valid if they have different type species). Another problem was that because of the way the LepIndex is formatted, a lot of subspecies and infrasubspecies names were risen to species level without any taxonomic evaluation whatsoever. (Others are finally noticing this too.) This why all these database sites don't work for Lepidoptera. If a list of names is what you want, which sometimes can be useful, try I use that when I run across old obscure genus/species combinations and need to figure out the current comb. It's also good for when you're looking for the author/year of a taxon. Rocket000 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
OMG! I don't think that ubio is a better solution. I have just searched for Feniseca porsenna. No information that this result is a synonym. In this case synonyms are greyed out. But there is no information available. Summa summarum: we have big taxon list problem. --Olei (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Correction: grey list entries are without images... --Olei (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting uBio for taxonomic information at all. All it is is a database of names. It uses the same dataset as EOL plus more. All the LepIndex/Species2000/ITIS/etc. names are there. Compare [43] with the results on EOL. You get a lot more results. Rocket000 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried starting on Gelechiidae, and didn't get very far without running into conflicts. I found this list which seems up to date (see [44]) but when I was making lists from it I noticed a lot of errors (typos, etc.) so I question the quality of it, yet it's the only global checklist I can find. For North American taxa, I found [45] (the abstract lists the new taxa and combinations). I started with funet and UKmoths, which was a mistake. There has only been three (possibly four) subfamilies for quite awhile now. The additional ones it lists should tribes of Gelechiinae. So in other words, ignore the little bit of work I did there. :) Rocket000 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I cleaned it up. Now we're all up to date following It's actually a great site for Gelechioidea. I'm tempted to use it exclusively for the higher classification of this whole superfamily.. but it would cause too many conflicts right now. It only goes to the genus level, so we still need All-Leps for species lists. Rocket000 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice. I can only help out with the often cited Hodges, 1998 (Hodges, R.W. 1998. Gelechioidea, pp. 130-158. In Kristensen, N.P. (ed.), Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Handbook of Zoology/Handbuch der Zoologie 1(1999). Berlin and New York.). If you are interested - let me know. For conflicts, errors etc. in your above mentioned list I would ask for assistance by the author, a valid email adress is given at the web site. Sometimes mentioning wikipedia opens a door very easily... ;-) --Olei (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is probably fairly pointless to use these 20th-century sources if one has not considered the Bucheli's newest review in Zootaxa (which I have not seen, but at least someone of the Wikispecies people apparently has). Also, the molecular data suggests that the 1990s arrangement for Gelechioidea are quite artificial; I wouldn't trust Hodges' phylogeny one bit before I have seen the Bucheli review give it the OK which I suppose it doesn't, as the molecular data doesn't really seem to square with it. At least it's a cladistic analysis, but as Hodges himself remarked, it was the first ever and I am not sure whether it's up to date methodologically (who uses Hennig86 anymore these days? en:List of phylogenetics software doens't even list it). Actually, funet did get closer than most at least regarding a) not elevating almost every subfamily to full family and b) not lumping anything that couldn't fly away fast enougn in the Elachistidae...

And as regards EOL: not a reliable source at present, period. They simply grabbed each and every taxon they could find on the Web it seems. For "micromoths", I'd estimate less than 10% of their articles can be trusted, anbd it's impossible to tell which.

The prime reason for sticking to the Mississippi site seems to be that Bucheli worked on it, so it is probably the next best we can get to the actual Zootaxa paper. I converted the en: articles to that layout on an as-needed basis (I ain't gonna do it all; Oecophorinae - which is the lumper dump under this approach - was sheer hell) so that we can at least have a common baseline there, in Wikispecies and here. Kudos for the work guys. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Awesome, you noticed my new little project. :) I really hate doing most of the beetles (kinda boring compared to moths), that's why I been taking my time. But it's good to see you helping out. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I did! :*) Cheers, --Olei (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That superfamilia parameter is deprecated. You don't need it anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. --Olei (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Aphelia viburnanaEdit

Hi Olei I just uploaded a pic of this species from Curtis using the Fauna Europaea spelling viburnana not viburniana. Is this correct and will you change either name for consistency adding the synonym? All the best from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question! ;) My guess is, that (my source for this name) made a spelling error. Other serios web sites name this species as Aphelia viburnana (Lepiforum, ukmoths), so I think viburnana is correct. --Olei (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


....danke für die Bestimmung. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Keine Ursache, ich bin rein zufällig drüber gestolpert. Die Bestimmungsseite auf de kennst du? ( Grüße, --Olei (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing taxonomic categoriesEdit

Please do not do this. Content must always be directly accessible from the taxa included. I know this is unfortunate for images containing many taxa, but there is a way to fix this: extract all content and make it separate images. Afterwards, the original work should indeed go only in an overall category. See for example File:F de Castelnau-oiseauxPl18.jpg.

Removing the categories is highly problematic for invertebrates in particular, since we have a huge backlog of imageless articles on en:wikipedia, and by removing taxonomic categories you force us to search every time whether there is content on Commons. As many Lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc have names taken from mythology, in such cases Commons search does not work well and may not work at all, because we have simply too much non-biological content.

To force users to browse through 100s of images to locate one particular one, when it should be accessible with a single click on the appropriate taxonomic category is not acceptable. 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do not remove higher-level taxonomic categories, because they are needed to locate multispecies images via the taxonomic tree. They may only be removed after a suitable lower-level category has been created. And e.g. File:HeteroceraPurkiss1.jpg had all content extracted, but it was impossible to tell if you did not search manually of accidentially found some of it. I had a lot of hassle with propering it up and annotating the extracted images, and this is simply unnecessary. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lymantria (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Funfood 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Case-bearing tineid Pantanal.jpgEdit

Hallo Olei. Ich finde deine Umkategorisierung nicht so gut. Oder bist du dir bei der Bestimmung sicher? --Leyo 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Leyo, du hast Recht. Ich hatte mich auf die Informationen in der Bildbeschreibung verlassen. Ich habe gerade im Archiv der Bestimmungsseite nachgelesen und würde das Bild in die Kategorie Unidentified Tineidae stecken. --Olei (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ja, OK. Ich hätte eigentlich gedacht „Es handelt sich wohl um Phereoeca uterella oder Praeacedes atomosella.“ sei klar. Falls du es verständlicher formulieren magst, bitte… Mir kommt momentan nichts besseres in den Sinn. --Leyo 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Gut, ich habs geändert. --Olei (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Is there a good reason why you emptied the Category:Tortricidae (caterpillar) and then requested speedy deletion for it? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Lymantria, mir fällt keine sinnvolle Verwendung für die Kategorie(n) ein. Es wäre dasselbe, als würde man die Lepidoptera anhand ihrer Färbung Kategorien zuordnen. --Olei (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Olei, Ich versuche etwas auf Deutsch, aber ich bin mir ganz sicher dass mein Deutsch nicht so gut ist. Ihre Reaktion überrascht mir doch etwas. Ich glaube doch das es sinvoll ist Bilder von Raupen in einen eigenen Kategorie zu haben. Ich erwarte das die meiste Wikipedialeser von ein Bild einer der Lepidoptera erwarten einen Imago zu sehen - und Raupe hat doch auch auf Deutsch ein eigenes Artikel. Also, ich verstehe die Leute die sich die Mühe genommen haben die Raupen, Eier und Puppen zu kategorisieren. Und dabei gibt es zu viele Bilder von Raupen um nur Category:Caterpillars zu haben. Weitere verteilung nach Familie, Gattung und Art können deswegen auch sinvoll sein. Und das ist doch ganz etwas anderes als Farben der Flügel? Und dann noch, Commons hat z.B. auch Category:Animals on orange background. Was macht Ihre Idee besser als die der Macher des Kategories? Haben sie sich mit die unterhalten hierüber? Leermachen und dan "speedy", hmmm. Nicht freundlich. Grüsse, Lymantria (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your actions in this case, as you seem not to have any arguments supporting it apart from your own opinion that this type of categorization would not be of any use. As it fits in a tree of categories with images of caterpillars, I do see I am not the only one who does see use in this type of categorization. Perhaps the situation among Category:Lepidoptera specimens might be less clear. Therefore I will request reinstallation of this category through an undeletion request. Lymantria (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Argynnis niobe Italien Seiser Alm 644.jpgEdit

Hallo Olei, könntest Du bitte Deinen fachkundigen Blick auf dieses Bild werfen? Vielen Dank und Gruß. Orchi (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Olei. Sorry for my bad English.) Why did you delete template Wikispecies from this category? Thank you for answer. Stuchka (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikispecies has no entry for Abacena. --Olei (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx, you are right). Stuchka (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wieder Urmotten?Edit

Hallo Olei, lässt sich da die Art bestimmen? Gruß aus Marburg, --Pristurus (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Pristurus, so aus dem Bauch heraus würde ich sagen, dass es sich um Micropterix calthella handelt. Schönes Video! --Olei (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Laut Bestimmungshilfe im Lepiforum wären ähnliche Arten Micropterix aruncella und Micropterix isobasella. Bei ersterer hätten die Männchen 2 silbrig-weissen Querlinien, das ist hier nicht der Fall. M. isobasella hat keinen Purpurfleck, entfällt also auch. Somit sollte deine Bestimmung wohl richtig sein. Besten Dank und Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Watsonalla cultrariaEdit


Hi Olei, stimmt Buchen-Sichelflügler? Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ja, Watsonalla cultraria ist richtig. Auf Günsel. --Olei (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Danke! --Pristurus (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I'm in no way a specialist, however I'm surprised to see a series of black dots in the submarginal stripe on the rear wing. According to Tristan Lafranchis book, Melitaea phoebe shouldn't show them, as opposed to Melitaea cinxia or Malitaea arduinna. Is this what's meant by aberrative? --Olivier Debre (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my late answer. This image was determined by specialists of the german lepiforum, so I have no doubts that Melitaea phoebe is correct. This species is known to build forms which depend on geographical location, season and altitude.[46] --Olei (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ocypus specEdit

Ocypus spec 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-- Tuválkin 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

New level {{User PH-4}}Edit

Hi ; new level 4 for you ?--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


Was war jetzt der Sinn der Übung????Edit

Du hast folgende Kategorien entfernt und löschen lassen: [47], [48], [49], [50]

Nachdem ich die Beschreibung durchgelesen habe, würde ich erneut dieselben Kategorien hineinmachen.

Was also war eigentlich der Sinn dieser Übung???? --Kersti (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe diese Kategorie im Rahmen der Umkategorisierung der Lymantriidae als nicht notwendig erachtet und sie dabei versehentlich entfernt, anstatt die Dateien in die Kategorie Lymantria dispar zu verschieben. Das ist behoben. Wenn du der Meinung bist, dass man für vier Puppenfotos eine separate Kategorie braucht, kannst du sie natürlich gerne wieder anlegen. --Olei (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Es ist ja immerhin beruhigend, daß das so nicht beabsichtigt war, trotzdem ist die Umkategorisierung immer noch mehr als schlampig.

Wenn man eine solche Kategorie ersetzt muß man sie durch beide Elternkategorien ersetzen und nicht nur durch eine von beiden. Auch hier fehlt jeweils Category:Lymantria dispar [51], [52], [53], [54].

Es geht einfach nicht an, daß jeweils entweder die Art oder die Kategorie für den entwicklungsstand fehlt!

--Kersti (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sich entspannt zurücklehnen und die große Klappe haben ist einfach. Mithelfen ohne Schaumschlägerei zu betreiben wäre produktiver. Sollte Ersteres der Fall sein, dann ignoriere ich deine Beiträge hier zukünftig. Möchtest du mithelfen, dann bist du herzlich willkommen, denn es gibt insbesondere bei den nur mit der Familie bzw. Unterfamilie verschobenen Gattungen noch viel zu tun. Und zu guter Letzt möchte ich dich daran erinnern, dass ich nicht von WMDE oder anderen für meine Arbeit hier bezahlt werde, sondern dies in meiner Freizeit tue. Da muss auch einmal etwas liegenbleiben weil andere Dinge wichtiger sind. --Olei (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also tut mir leid, wann ich an Dateien arbeite, hängt davon ab, wie ich Zeit für so etwas habe. Das war in denleltzten Tagen nicht so viel, aber du kannst wirklich nicht behaupten, du würdest auf Commons mehr tun als ich.

  • Kersti: 17:26, 30. Jun. 2008 bestätigt durch Passwort(?) — 189.125 autopatrolled, ipblock-exempt, rollbacker
  • Olei: 08:15, 9. Jun. 2008 bestätigt durch Passwort(?) — 35.111 filemover, patroller, rollbacker

Familien und Unterfamilien bei den Käfern neu sortieren, werde ich erst dann tun, wenn mir klar ist, auf welche Referenz sich das, was ich hier sehe bezieht. Sonst käme dabei nur Chaos heraus.

Allerdings bin ich auf deine edits aufmerksam geworden, weil sie Kategorien, die ich eingefügt habe gelöscht haben, und in solchen fällen versuche ich zunächst herauszufinden ob dahinter inhaltliche Bedenken stehen oder ob es auf Versehen oder Schlampigkeit beruht. Und ich halte das durchaus für eine vernünftige Vorgehensweise!

--Kersti (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Fix this category, please. The redirected category should be empty. Wieralee (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Olei (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Category removalEdit

Hi Olei. Please can you explain this? You have removed the only subject category on this file. The category was supported by an attempted identification by an entomologist (see the "album attributions"). --99of9 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Added category Unidentified Limacodidae. --Olei (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks from your contributions like you might be trying to clean up categories too much. For example in [55] and all the related files, you also removed their subject identification. You should only remove a species or genus cat if the file does not depict that genus, and even then it should be added to a more general family/unknown cat. If an image has many subjects, all valid categories should be used. Please can you go back through some of your recent removals with this in mind? --99of9 (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


Fix this category, please. The redirected category should be empty. Wieralee (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Olei (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

White butterfliesEdit

Why are you removing species categories from the category White butterflies? Has there been a discussion somewhere? --Pitke (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added this category for two species categories again. In the case of Campaea perlata this category is misleading because most of the specimens are not white but pale green or often yellowish when faded. --Olei (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Originally I intended the "butterflies by colour" categories to be more detailed (much like the "flowers by colour" categories); C. perlata could well be categorised under "pale green". I'm hoping that the butterfly colour cats could function as a help for amateurs trying to ID distinct-looking butterflies by virtue of comparison, and also as a help for media consumers to find specific colours for their projects without needing to refer to offsite species listings. But my work on the topic was cut short because my main domain with plants, horses, and dogs keeps me busy enough. That having been said, I still run into the occasional un-ID'd butterfly and wish I could do more than chuck it into the unidentified Lepidopter cat. Guess I'll get to it, finally. (After many years? :I) --Pitke (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pitke, I don't believe that identification by "<color> of <something>" will work. This database includes creatures from all over the world. This means - if we only consider Coleoptera - there are about 400.000 described species. According to this Category we have about three thousand species with images in commons. In the last few weeks I have spent some time with the Coleoptera family Buprestidae. There is a genus called Agrilus which contains nearly 3.000 species. Most of them have a metallic color and their coloration is variable. How would you categorize this? Colorful? ;-) There are more examples like this in Lepidoptera and probably also in other taxonomic ranks. It could work if the point of view is limited to a geographical region like lepiforum] does (Europe or middle Europe) . But this is in my opinion only a help for experts, because the number of species is too high. Another option is reducing the number of species to common ones *and* limit the number of common species to a geographical region. (example: "Raupenbestimmung"). --Olei (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Moin! Warum loescht Du die Taxonavigation box aus all den Kategorien? Ist das ein Versehen? Script entlaufen? Ich habe Dich erstmal geblockt. Bitte Rueckmeldung! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Hedwig, wenn du die Edits eines Benutzers ohne Bot-Flag nicht verstehst, dann hättest du wenigstens hier einmal fragen können *bevor* du mich indefinite sperrst. Und bevor jetzt das Argument kommt, dass kein Edit Kommentar vorhanden ist: Tut mir leid, ich bin kein Bot und dafür ist mir meine Zeit zu schade. Wer etwas wissen will kann eine kurze Frage stellen, die Klappe fällt von alleine wieder zu. Deine Kategorie-Reverts sind in in meinen Augen Vandalismus, aber keine Angst, ich werde dem nicht hinterher steigen. Vielleicht kommst du von alleine drauf, dass die Templates Coleoptera und Lepidoptera seit Jahren (!) als spezielle automatisch kategorisierende Taxonavigation für diese Insekten-Ordnungen verwendet werden. --Olei (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Moin! Nein. Wenn Du edits en mass ohne jede Erklaerung produzierst (Bearbeitungskommentar) die wie Vandalismus aussehen, kann sofort gesperrt werden. Und zu meinem Edit: Das war ein Fehler meinerseits, passiert beim reparieren Deiner Edits, es steht Dir frei diesen edit auf Com:AN/V zu melden. Kein Problem.
JA, die Taxoboxen sind mir durchaus bekannt. Warum werden diese durch Dich entfernt? Gallerien muessen auch Kategorien haben. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Woop. Erst lesen, dann schreiben. Die Taxoboxen sorgen fuer doppelte Kategorien wenn sie in Gallerien benutzt werden? Warum dann nicht die Taxobox lassen und die von Hand eingefuegte Kategorie rausnehmen? Habe Dich natuerlich entblockt, btw. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes on the galleryEdit

Your changes on the gallery, are damaging. Can you explain, thanks.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Archaeodontosaurus & @Hedwig in Washington, the Template:Coleoptera should only used in categories, because it categorizes automatically. The gallery is already categorized in its category and using this template and its derivatives leads to unnecessary double records in Category:Species of Coleoptera. For instance Acanthoderes clavipes. All other information like vernacular names, wikispecies links and taxonavigation are already available at category level. --Olei (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The category becomes overcrowded, it is urgent to take care Gallery; must be here as much information as they will be the entrances to Commons. We devont will pay great attention. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on: Bremse / Changes on the galleryEdit

Dear Hedwig, A~saurus & Olei.

Basically I'm totally "done" with the neverending, utterly useless discussions on wikimedia projects. Total waste off time ... but hey ...

First of all, it is ridiculous that Olei is blocked in this way. He is a long term and very valuable contributor to this project. At the very least there should have been more/better discussion (with him) before such drastic measures. If you want to loose valuable contributors for good, this is certainly an excellent way to go about it. Well done! *not*

That said, I would have to agree with Hedwig & Somethingsaurus that removing taxonavigation from gallery pages imho is a bad idea (damaging). Yes, I understand the argument put forward by Olei about the double cats, but I consider this behaviour of the template to be "broken" rather than that it would be pointless to have taxonavigation on the gallery pages "because it is available in te catetgories".

If memory serves (but I'm not going to try and find it) I have had this discussion before, maybe even with Olei himself?

IMHO commons should be working toward a system where the categories contain all available images and the galleries contain selected images that are of high quality and representative for the subject. In biology/taxonomy related subjects this would mean that the gallery could be a source for good images with a high level of ID-accuracy representing the species/taxon at hand. Gallery pages on a supra specific level (Genus, Family etc) as such should aim to present the user with a selection of images that help the user to browse the taxon tree into the direction of a plausible final ID. As such the gallery page for the Coccinellid genera Coccinella or Harmonia (IMHO) should present an overview of the species in that genus with a selection of the most representative images we have available for every species. Thus providing a "pictorial guide" to find an ID or more images to go with that.

This simply cannot be achieved in the categories and I strongly feel that commons should aim to achieve this in the galleries. In this system, evidently (imho) the galleries should also have taxonavigation(!) (as opposed to having taxonav only in the cats)

Historically most efforts I have made to contribute to some way of supporting pictorial browsing of the taxonomy tree through the galleries have been destroyed by the likes of Olei, with all sorts of reasoning such as the "categories already have taxonav" seen above and I'm totally done discussing this and have not been putting in more effort into achieving this. Due to that type of imho counter productive reasoning/discussions/edits, be it here or on wikipedia, I've pretty much stopped contributing at all, but for the occasional correction of horrific misidentifications or upload of images at the request of someone.

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pudding4brains: Mass edits w/o comment, so I asked if a script of his ran amok. I don't care who or what get's blocked. If Jimbo would have done this, the same thing would have happend. I can't prevent any damage to the project w/o block. The indef is just to give time to figure out what's going on. Nothing to it. Could have been 1 week as well. Doesn't matter, since I never thought of a permanent block in the first place. Regards, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pudding4brains, I agree with you. Commons is complete waste of time - and for me this has an end today. Cheers! --Olei (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

File tagging File:Latibulus.argiolus.6.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Latibulus.argiolus.6.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Latibulus.argiolus.6.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Guanaco (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Macroglossum.stellatarum.caterpillar.3088.Liosi.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Good quality. --Milseburg 16:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Important message for file moversEdit

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)