User talk:Peter coxhead
Hatiora - Hatiora × graeseriEdit
- Yes, I think that they almost certainly are. I was mainly interested in getting them out of Schlumbergera! If you want to put them in Hatiora × graeseri I would support you. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
misidentified photo - how do I flag?Edit
Hi Peter, just came across this photo purporting to be Silene acaulis. Looks like a Primula (glutinosa?) to me. How do I flag this>
@Tristan He: I agree with you that it's not Silene acaulis, and looks to be a Primula. The photographer was fooled, I suspect, by the way it's growing though other plants. What you are supposed to do "officially", I'm not sure. I'm not really active on Commons. In the past when I've found mis-identified photos, I've just been bold and (a) changed the category to the correct one (b) added a note to the description. No-one seems to read the talk pages on Commons, so starting a discussion there doesn't work, in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, all the experts say that you shouldn't rely on patterns, but look at the genitalia of mature specimens, but this isn't much use here. In my geographically limited experience, the background colour is very variable, so not significant. Both species can look as if they have a cross shape on the abdomen, but when A quadratus looks to have a cross pattern, the central line is interrupted or weak, and the second pair of spots larger than the first. The central part of the pattern (folium) is notably darker than the surrounding colour in A. diadematus but much the same colour in A. quadratus. The angle in the queried photo gives a limited view, but I think "01_by-dpc" and "02_by-dpc" are the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Peter, please don't redirect to not (yet) existing categories because these redirects apppear to be broken and thus might be deleted without further notice. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I determined it as E. obtusifolia by Peter and Ingrid Schönefelder: Die Kosmos Kanarenflora, Kosmos-Verlag Germany, and according to that book this plant occurs on all Canary Islands,inclusive Fuerteventura. See also here, here, it is also listed in Gelandeliste zur Erfassung der Flora von Fuerteventura as well as in Gefährdete endemische Blütenpflanzen der Trockeninsel Fuerteventura. As E. obtusifolia is a synonym of E. lamarckii (it means the same species) and E. lamarckii is the valid name (not E. obtusifolia), this species occurs in Fuerteventura very well. So please remove back the pictures to the category "Euphorbia lamarckii". --Llez (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not so simple. The problem is that names have been changed. Some species have been split up. The most "scientific" of the online sources you give is the 2013 Gefährdete endemische Blütenpflanzen der Trockeninsel Fuerteventura. Besides just the name E. obtusifolia, this also mentions E. obtusifolia subsp. regis-jubae. If you look here, you will see that Euphorbia obtusifolia subsp. regis-jubae and Euphorbia lamarckii subsp. regis-jubae are both synonyms of E. regis-jubae, which does occur in Fuerteventura. I think that the sources that list E. obtusifolia and/or E. lamarckii as occurring in Fuerteventura are referring to subsp. regis-jubae, now known as E. regis-jubae. Look at the images in Category:Euphorbia regis-jubae. This is what I think your plants probably are. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- The specialist website for Euphorbia agrees that E. lamarckii is not found in Fuerteventura – see here. This paper explains the controversy over some Euphorbia names, confirming that as the name is used now, E. lamarckii does not occur in Fuerteventura. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Llez: see also here for a clear explanation of the issues if you can read Spanish. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:David Bowie Mural Edited.jpgEdit
|This media may be deleted.|
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:David Bowie Mural Edited.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!