I disagree. It's important to be as precise as we can, and no more so. If we can id the species, we do so. Otherwise, we id the genus, or if we can't do that, the family. If we think we can ID it but we're not sure, then we do our best, but we also put in the word "probably" or "possibly". It takes time, but it is important - it's a major part of the value of the pictures, possibly the major part in some ways. And if I can say this, it increases my respect for your work, it's not just pointing a camera at an interesting bug, it's also knowing the bug, or finding out, a lot more work than I would have thought. I'd like to thank you for the time you're spending on it, and also thank Kulac as well because even though this causes stress now, it does improve these images greatly. Regards, Ben Aveling20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, admire your sense for diplomacy and agree. I allways did my best concerning the ID and welcome any improvement on a cooperative way. With nonsense (sorry for my english, iam not a native speaker) or better said "mischief" i meant the procedure which was applied here. Is this delisting, the right way to force a user to reconsider his ID investigations again ? I would say this must be done in a discussion, not like this. I excuse myself if i was to snappy or was running riot, but before, there was a really harsh and uncooperative | calling by this user on my german userpage, so excuse if iam still remain in my natural skepticalness. I found that calling just monstrous. Iam a artist and not made for harsh, Wikipedialike discussions ... to tell the truth, i cannot handle that. Sorry. --Makro Freak
Hmmmm, it's making me pretty sad to read this discussion and the related ones :-(
Makro Freak and Kulac, you are both doing marvellous work here regarding images – but with a very contrary focus (photo-optical vs. scientific). – Well, sometimes anger appears unexpectedly. This happens one and then, also in real life. It's not specific for Wikimedia projects.
So regardless of the bitterness that already occured … why not simply determine what exactly can be said about an object? If it's another species as it is said atm, I'm sure, Makro Freak will re-upload it under another name. The FP status could stay in such cases imo (it would only need some linkfixes and an additional note on the vote). And well, if one can't determine the species of one of the insects, then renaming to something more general like "Pretty_green_bug_(Curculionidae,_undet.).jpg" or so ;-) should be sufficient. This should also not be a big problem, I hope. --Überraschungsbilder01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt open it up for me, how someone offends a user because he assumed that a id could be wrong, started by a edit war on description pages. Its not cooperative to just crossing out a description, if he dont know it better. Compared with this harrasment at work, contributing to insect-pages is more thankful --Makro Freak14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist this picture does NOT properly show the species Phyllobius calcaratus. User:Makro Freak undid my edit on the picture, even though he agreed with me, that the identification about the species is not possible and he is not able to identify it. the action of Makro Freak is irresponsible, because misidentified pictures are the worst thing happening to wikipedia and commons. --Kulac15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, you can´t say if it is Phyllobius or Polydrusus you only see the differences on the sides of the head. rename the picture to Curculionidae, the familiy is the only possible taxon, you can determine. --Kulac16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why you took your precious time to post this delisting, instead of correcting it to Curculionidae, if you know it better. Iam not a entomologist. Iam a photographer. --Makro Freaktalk16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PhyllobiusPolydrusus
i ALREADY TOOK my precious time changing the description page (see here: [1]), but you reverted my edit! noone wants you to be an entomologist, but a responsible photographer does not throw his pictures in here, naming them the way he likes. --Kulac16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i discussed with you, i told you where you could possibly identify the species; the german wikipedia has a very competent portal for that. but actually you didn´t listen to me. btw: diptera.info gives informations about DIPTERA --Kulac17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the picture, not the title. Kulac, could you please talk to Makro Freak about this on his talk page before nominating to delist? And please be civil. Most of us are just photographers, and Makro Freak tried his best to identify it. Thanks. --Digon3talk17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
last edit for me here, i´m not wasting time anymore: you want to feature a picture, not knowing what it actually shows? and with this picture you will never know!...then go ahead. --Kulac17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging from the teeth on the femurs and the pointed antennae, this is indeed Phyllobius calcaratus. Polydrusus species have smooth femurs!. Lycaon17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the only way to distinguish those two genera is, to look at the base of the antenna. there you see the black cavities, which make the difference. you can´t distinguish the genera from the picture taken from above. and even IF you could, it would be difficult to determine the species. --Kulac17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. Why you dont took this effort, you demonstrate here, to aquire the propper id on its description? I would welcome that, because this is how Wikipedia is working, instead of doing it during a baseless delisting. --Makro Freak18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, it started with your revert of my edits, showing, that the species is not propperly identified. and now please stop flaming me, for showing up a problem. --Kulac18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sources (C. Schott, 1999, Catalogue et Atlas des Coléoptères d’Alsace – tome 10 : Curculionidae 1 (Cimberidae, Rhynchitidae, Attelabidae, Apionidae 2)) distinguish those two genera on the base of the toothed femura. This is visible. I have no access to German identification literature though (Hartmann-Schröder on polychaetes excluded). Lycaon18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my source is Freude - Harde - Lohse: Die Käfer Mitteleuropas, which is actually the german benchmark at coleoptera. hmm i can´t look it up today, so i have to believe, what you say, but at least the cavities i described above have to be mentioned in your book too. that what i wrote was discussed with a friend of mine, who is an entomologist, at the time, the picture showed up in de.wiki. --Kulac18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i got the answer from user:siga: he thinks that this beetle is indeed a Phyllobius, because he can see the mportant parts of the antennal base, but he wouldn´t be sure about the species. the best would be to reupload the picture with the genus name. if Lycaon is sure about the species, i wil believe him. --Kulac13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHi, Makro Freak, are you back already? I even have not had time to miss you yet. I saw your voting at Lycon picture just in time to save the day ;) and now I see your "touchy" debates over your pictures. Why,few insects more few less, who cares?;)--Mbz100:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Delist what a mess! i could list a hand full of missidentified pictures from the same user here. the method of identifying insects like "oh, it looks like species XY, so it must me XY..." is a catastrophy. --Kulac15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i trust you, if you prove the proper identification by an expert. but the beetle of the picture above can´t even be determined by an expert, because the only important details are not shown, and even with them it would be hardly possible! --Kulac16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, iam not in the mood for this nonsense. As i said iam not a Entomolgist, so you cannot trust me, and i would say even the friendly people at diptera.info, insektenbox or www.entomologie.de could be wrong. Should every Article on Wikipedia be proved by Brockhaus, Britannica or Diderot before they will hbe released? Maybe some real expert would stumble over this picture and give it the 100% correct identification, and in the meantime its ok to life with the convergence. Thats how Wikipedia is working --Makro Freaktalk16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
paste the link here and i will be satisfied. but it is NOT OK to life with the convergence. i know what i´m telling about the beetle, so i know the way you did your work. i´m sure the diptera pictures can be identified by a knowing person, so if so everything will be fine with them here. so where is your problem? --Kulac17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more justification . . .I paste you some nice regards from a retired Wikimedia photographer. Your behaviour and the very uncooperative discussion on my german wikipedia site which i transferred to your wikimedia userpage, shows me again why i wasnt wrong to gain distance to WikimediaWikipedia. --Makro Freaktalk17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so, here we go, i am not an expert in identifying hoverflys, but i can read books. Syrphus torvus has got 2 linked yellow stripes on the back of the abdomen (see here: [2]), our picture here shows up 3 rowns of 2 yellow spots, that are not linked. guess you belief me now?
there are many possible ways in my identification-guid here, so i can´t be sure, but the genus is probablyeupeodes (compare with Eupeodes lapponicus here: [3]). an identification from an expert is very necessary. --Kulac16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a cup of tea and watch this There is no history, so i cant find the old request, but iam shure the friendly people at diptera.info will identify it again--Makro Freaktalk18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, its the one, i assumed, a few lines above. thank you for clearing that out. did you also put the Calliphora vicina in the forum? --Kulac19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is wrong, then upload one with the correct name and tag this one duplicate or badname (depending on who uploads it). A misidentified species is easily corrected and is not a good reason to delist. That said, StrongKeep. --Digon3talk16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is wrong, then upload one with the correct name and tag this one duplicate or badname (depending on who uploads it). A misidentified species is easily corrected and is not a good reason to delist. That said, StrongKeep. --Digon3talk16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist this picture does NOT properly show the species Phyllobius calcaratus. User:Makro Freak undid my edit on the picture, even though he agreed with me, that the identification about the species is not possible and he is not able to identify it. the action of Makro Freak is irresponsible, because misidentified pictures are the worst thing happening to wikipedia and commons. --Kulac 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Phyllobius for shure. Calcaratus or argentatus ? Even Etomolgists wasnt shure, the tendency was calcaratus. --Makro Freak talk 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APhyllobius_calcaratus_spornblattr%C3%BC%C3%9Fler_quadrat.jpg&diff=5798773&oldid=5759807){kind=link}
CommentHi, Makro Freak, are you back already? I even have not had time to miss you yet. I saw your voting at Lycon picture just in time to save the day ;) and now I see your "touchy" debates over your pictures. Why,few insects more few less, who cares?;)--Mbz1 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Done File deleted and all uses replaced. --Digon3 talk 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
