Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.
Naturalmente usted puede usar esta imagen según las licencias GNU o "Creative Commons" bajo quienes esta disponible en Commons. Si quiere otro permiso, por favor envieme un E-mail usando el commando "Enviar un mensaje..." que se encuentra en la pagina "user:Strobilomyces". Solo por curiosidad, ¿a qué tipo de publicación de difusión se refiere? Saludos cordiales. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for informing me of this. No, I have not given permission to use the photos which you mention. However I do not intend to take any action. For me the only real problem with this situation is that somebody might accuse me of having plagiarised the photos. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Strobilomyces,
I'm currently writing a popular science book about the evolution of locomotion, to be published next year by Basic Books. I would very much like to include your wonderful Hemiscyllium ocellatum image: may I ask how you would like the work to be attributed?
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Matt Wilkinson
I should add that my email is mtw210 at googlemail should you wish to discuss anything further.
Thanks, Matt
Hello Matt. I don't wish to make any particular stipulation about how the photo is attributed. When you refer to me, I would prefer you to use my pseudonym "Strobilomyces" (with the quotes). I think you can find any other information you need from pages like Commons:Credit line. If you don't want to conform to the CC or GNU licence in every respect, just tell me and I will send you permission separately by mail. Best wishes. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your gracious permission. That all sounds fine.
Best wishes,
Matt
My name is Andrea Bong, and I work at Adventure Publications (www.adventurepublications.net). We’re currently working on a field guide about mushrooms of the Northeastern United States, which is due out next spring.
We’re writing because we’d like to use your image your image of the following species in our book:
Snowy Waxy Cap
As we understand it, you’ve shared the images via a Creative Commons Sharealike License. As we want to live up to the letter—and the spirit—of the license, we wanted to contact you to ask you how you’d like the photo attributed in the book. We will credit your work on the photo credits page, and we’ll also include the required information about the Creative License itself. The book will be going to print shortly, so we’d appreciate it if you’d get back to us as soon as you can.
Hello Andrea. I would prefer you to refer to me as "Strobilomyces", for instance 'Photo: "Strobilomyces" (Wikimedia Commons)'. However I do not make any definite stipulation - you can vary the attribution if you wish. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Strobilomyces, would you please be so kind to comment the contributions of the page Category talk:Clitocybe rivulosa? Best regards. -- Sacha47 (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2016 (CEST)
Hello. The fungus genus name Acetabularia is now considered invalid (the alga takes precedence) and I believe that this name has hardly been used since the 19th century, so I do not think the fungus name is important enough to make a page for it. The equivalent Cyphellopus is a valid genus but has very little in WP about it. I added a sentence on this to the alga etymology section; please change this if you prefer to do it differently. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes when reviewing some files uploaded from Mushroom Observer, I saw red links and then created the categories with the strict minimum, taxonavigation and the parent category. Christian Ferrer(talk)20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all but 3 Amanitas which I do have difficulty categorising, I'll think about it again tomorrow. New genera are coming thick and fast in Species Fungorum, and the various taxonomic trees we have are not always consistent. We need a unique tree of names in Commons so that all the photos of one species are on the same page and we need a unique tree of items in WikiData so that all the wikilinks of a given species are linked together. Do you know if there are any rules governing how the fungus names get updated, or whether anyone takes responsibility for managing this process? According to Species Fungorum, the current name of Amanita manicata is Saproamanita manicata and that of Amanita hesleri is Aspidella hesleri. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the current name Amanita hesleri is Aspidella hesleri, then categorise these images as Aspidella hesleri...and remove the Amanita hesleri categories. I have made a few edits here and here so people know it is the same species. I also did this Category:Aspidella hesleri I also did this for Amanita manicata: Category:Saproamanita manicata Unfortunately I am not an expert on fungi...I just upload images of Amanita species which are missing. And I am stopping my work after Amanita. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I have given you bad advice with the name Aspidella. Although the current name given in Species Fungorum is Aspidella hesleri (see here), the genus Aspidella as a fungus has been declared illegitimate (it was already used for a fossil which takes priority) and it has been moved to Saproamanita (see here). But the name combination Saproamanita hesleri has not been defined. So I think Species Fungorum is inconsistent and it is best to just keep to Amanita hesleri.
I can just put Amanita manicata under Saproamanita, making Amanita manicata a synonym, so that is what I intend to do.
That's OK. Just categorise the remaining Amanita's here if you have the time. That is all I ask. I usually trust only MycoBank as in this case for a species that has not yet been categorised. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mycobank uses the same identifiers as Index Fungorum and I think it normally follows Species Fungorum. I don't understand your comment with the link (Amanita cinereopannosa); that mushroom is also current in Species Fungorum and I think Mycobank is just copying Species Fungorum. Mycobank has both Amanita hesleri and Aspidella hesleri marked as legitimate, but really Aspidella hesleri is illegitimate. I don't think Mycobank sets the "Current name" field in a consistent way so as to define a preferred taxonomy.
It is considered bad to have the same file at different levels in the taxonomy, so category "Amanita" should be deleted when there is a species-level category. I was missing that but I will implement it; I hope that is OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished making the categories, now. According to Index Fungorum, Amanita cinereoconia is a synonym of A. chlorinosma, so I merged it into that category. I see that user:Thiotrix is doing A. murinoflammeum. According to Index Fungorum, the species name is wrong and should be murinoflammea. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Mushroom Observer, at the source click "Show Original Image" to get the MAXIMUM image size possible and save that image before you upload it to Wikicommons. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I did this below for these 2 image files and the image size difference is very large than the small image version you uploaded.[reply]
A 2009 paper by Co-David proposed that genus Rhodocybe needs to disappear (as Clitopilus is a clade embedded in it),[1], but they regard Rhodophana as just a section of Entoloma. And they name R. nitellina "Clitopilus nitellinus". Then Kluting et al. did a study where they resurrected genera Clitopilopsis and Rhodophana and also defined a new genus Clitocella.[2] The names of Kluting et al. now seem to be accepted by Species Fungorum and Mycobank (there are still obscure Rhodocybe species marked as current in Species Fungorum but I think these names are problematic or not used since a long time ago). So I think that the current name is now indeed Rhodophana nitellina.
Bringing Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia up to date for all the changes to Rhodocybe species will be a lot of work, and other similar fungus name changes are occurring very frequently. It is important to have one main name for each species in Commons (so all photos are together) and in Wikidata (so that the interwiki links will all connect together), but I am not sure that it is so important that our main name is the latest in Species Fungorum. It has been suggested that Wikidata can support alternative taxonomic trees, but I think that is wrong; one classification has to be selected for the interwiki links. Not everybody wants to move to the newest names and I have been reverted when I tried to make such changes in Wikidata. So far as I know there is no procedure for deciding when to change to the latest taxon names and it might be useful to have one - or even a rule about where to discuss it. Commons seems to be very progressive with its names but Wikidata is more conservative.
Do you have an idea about how to proceed towards having a consistent system? I mean, what pages need to be created or renamed in Commons, Wikidata and perhaps Wikipedia? I will continue to think about it later. I can change over to Rhodophana in Commons, but I am worried about the interactions with WD. Strobilomyces (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must think to the future specially with Commons:Structured data and with the new means of research that will be associated with it. My first thought is that we need to create here a category for each synonym and a Wikidata item for each of its categories. Then we will decide here on Commons which categories we use as redirect and what taxonomic trees we must have. The Wikidata items will not be changed when we will create a new synonym. And the fact to have an item for each synonym will help the search engine. In summary :
5 synonyms = 4 redirect categories + 1 category that contains the images = 5 Wikidata items
Well, also just one of the Wikidata items is special because it contains the interwiki links and perhaps other important information. I hope that the synonyms are linked together, but according to the taxonomy project tutorial, the way of linking from a synonym to a current name is different from the way of linking the other way. So that is another reason why a special Wikidata item has to be selected, but I don't know whether that will be the item with the interwiki links. This data structure worries me because old synonyms can easily be confused with current names and I think taxonomy software probably needs to distinguish them.
I think that the WD taxonomy project needs to recognize that one of the synonyms has to be selected as the Wikidata main one, even if it isn't the official current one. And if the Wikidata name gets out of date, there should be a procedure to move to the new name. A main Wikidata item for a species should have much more information than a synonym. In fact I think that the main Wikidata item should represent the real mushroom and if the mushroom changes its name, it should be renamed and keep the same Q-number. I think that happened in the case of Imleria badia. I would propose that the WD discussion page of the main Wikidata item should be used to manage updating the current name to another synonym.
I just found this plant species Arequipiopsis hempeliana on Wikidata with many synonym. Each synonym has an item but only the main item has interwiki links. I think with such system we can create as many redirects as we want here. We have just to add to the item of the synonym the property Commons category with a link to the corresponding category, category that would be a redirect category, and to list this item as a synonym of the current main item. Christian Ferrer(talk)18:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll think about that, perhaps then the main WD item doesn't have to be the same as the main Commons page. I am not sure whether the {{VB}} template will work with that, perhaps I'll try it on R. nitellina. I added genus Rhodophana to the English Wikipedia. Strobilomyces (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm a bit busy but I will take a look later at what we can done, at what was already done, and at the tutorial. If I find a good way to proceed then I will make you aware. The advantage to have a category redirect for each synonym is that it's maybe not necessary to have the same main species name on Commons and on Wikidata, the main thing being to tie the two. See you later. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet read the tutorial but this seems to be a good way:
The property / "Commons category" in the Wikidata item was changed to the new category [2], no matter that the "main" Wikidata item is a synonym. The most important is that our "main" category and gallery is linked to the main item. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your example of Oreocereus hempelianus, I see that the Russian wikilink is under Arequipa spinosissima, so it is not working 100%. I don't see anything linking from the synonyms back to the main item Oreocereus hempelianus, not even for Arequipiopsis hempeliana, which I suppose is a homotypic synonym. Looking at the Arequipiopsis hempeliana item, how can you tell that this is not an independent species? Strobilomyces (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a fact that the Wikidata interface is oriented for definition and not for reading information. It is needed code and queries to retrieve information, a pity in this case. When a species on Wikidata is defined as a synonym, the info should be visible and every wikilinks should be redirected on the item of the current species name. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds very good in a way, but I think it gives a lot of power to anyone who adds a synonym. Sometimes people don't agree as to which should be the current item. Presumably you wouldn't be allowed to add a synonym to a synonym or make a loop. It seems a problem to me that you can't tell from the object itself that it is only a synonym. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Threecharlie: I think we should use the current names from the "Species Fungorum" part of "Index Fungorum", which you can find here. If you choose "epithet" and put search string = "gilva", you can soon find that the current name is Paralepista. It is also sometimes considered to be just a form of Paralepista or Lepista flaccida, which is the view which is taken according to the Commons page. I think we should rename the Commons page to use Paralepista, which is quite well accepted now. I hope this answers your question, else please tell me. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria Hello. Sorry I did not see this message earlier. Species Fungorum says that Mycena tenerrima and M. adscendens are synonyms, and the current name is M. tenerrima. I believe that this is a recent change and that early in 2018 it said that M. adscendens was the current one. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. OK, so I will try to change it so M. tenerrima is the current name in Commons. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed this move (I cannot simply do the change). 20:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
About Postia stiptica and Pseudoinonotus dryadeus[edit]
Hello, i just reviewed two of your uploads, you had reversed the sources of the two images, I corrected them. It does not matter, it is just to notice to you this very useful too to upload images from Mushroom Observer, you have just to quote the photo ID, and the tool do the rest, including a warning if the file is already into Commons. Of course do as you want, it is just an info that I hope, will be useful. Best regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)19:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello !
About my - File:Mensularia nodulosa-Polypore du hêtre 1-20170311.jpg etc. - you did right to correct my error, I am not a mushrooms specialist and I would not risk eating those I photograph. Thank you Daniel Villafruela (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Macrolepiota konradii is a synonym of Macrolepiota mastoidea We know this - we rely on Index Fungorum. "Macrolepiota konradii" is categorized as inaccurate and outdated in Wikipedia. We do not throw away such taxa - they remain as historical taxa. Wikipedia Poland. Selso (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are happy with this situation on the Polish Wikipedia, it is evidently up to you.
There is no question of throwing away important synonyms, but I am sure that most Wikipedia projects prefer to have such synonym pages only in the form of redirects. There are many advantages to having the organism-level information in one place, and it is easy to explain the information related to particular names in just one section of a single organism page. There are many, many names if you also include the more obscure ones and I hope people don't start making separate pages for synonyms on the English Wikipedia. Wikidata is different, though.
Incidentally, the way I use the word "taxon", it means a particular class of organisms irrespective of the name, so for me Macrolepiota konradii and Macrolepiota mastoidea are two names for the same taxon. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Identification of File:Oasi Golena di Panarella, Macrolepiota procera (Panarella, Papozze).JPG[edit]
Hello, my ability to identify gener of mushrooms is very minimal, so if you are more experienced than me, and from what he writes it must be like this, do not worry about changing the name of the files and related categories, indeed I thank you for your patience in checking the mushroom images that are here in Commons. I don't have many possibilities to have a check of what I upload if not asking for a courtesy in the it.wiki project bar, but there are not always those who have the necessary skills, or that there is desire and time to do it. I assure you that I was in good faith in giving that filename and I thought it was more useful to give a name as generic as possible (we have too many of file called fungo1 (mushroom1), fungo2, fungo3 and so on) but to call an unidentified mushroom file I'm afraid it can remain dormant in a macrocategory and lose the utility for which it was uploaded in Commons. Sorry if you find this ungrammatical answer, I get help from Google translate because otherwise I would express myself with many more limits. :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm trying to move the photos taken in Italy into a territorial category, which I understand doesn't make much sense but at least I hope it helps identify a mushroom (or a plant, or an insect, and so on) that may seem similar to one that is endemic, for example, from Brazil, and from the photo alone I guess just how difficult it is to correctly identify a species. Thanks for what you do. :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: in 2012 I was definitely less experienced than now, if I had taken that picture now I would have been much more cautious to give it a filename.--Threecharlie (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you understand which is the mushroom family that I photographed in the garden of the building where I live? You can find this in Category:Nature of Rovigo, "fungo legnoso" series. Unfortunately last year they cut the tree so I can't take any more photos.--Threecharlie (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Strobilomyces, I spent almost a whole day in categorizing the Dutch fungies. I created also all fungi families. I found also many which are not categorized yet, see Category:Unidentified fungi in the Netherlands. Since you have a lot of expertise in this field I wanted to let you know that there are more unidentified fungies found. Maybe you can do a few, if you have time and like to do this. I will also do a few later when I have uploaded my pictures (many todo). Rudolphous (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will have a look at this some time. It is much more difficult to decide how to identify fungi from scratch than just to notice that some photos are definitely wrong. I will anyway be spending time in real life during the next few days. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you're very kind to ask before to change a category to a redirect. Me, I am not so conscientious, when I have a relevant source I ask nobody when creating the new category and the redirect, e.g. the last one this morning. In the extand you're involved in the mushroom topic, I think you can abstain to ask the permission when you change a category to a redirect. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. OK, fine, but sometimes people don't want to use the latest current name of Index Fungorum. Luckily here on Commons there is a fair consensus that we have to follow Index Fungorum but it is not 100%. Anyway, I have merged the categories. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Strobilomyces, I thought I created this category by accident. Therefor I deleted it. If you want to create it go ahead. Not sure if we already have enough to fill it though. Cheers, Rudolphous (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave it as you have done it. It is a common mushroom, there is a category "Imleria badia in Belgium" or the equivalent, and so I thought it would be a good idea. Strobilomyces (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Strobilomyces,
I found the following files which have are not consequent with filenames, categories or description, do you know what species these are?
This is categorized as both Boletus edulis and Boletus reticulatus (= B. aestivalis). The difference is in the cap cuticle, B. edulis has a thick greasy one whilst B. reticulatus has a felty one which cracks easily. I am not very familiar with that difference (perhaps I have been wrongly accepting B. reticulatus as B. edulis sometimes). User Paffka is definite that the mushroom in the photo is B. reticulatus and I believe that person (who seems to be a specialist).
Thanks for your answer Strobilomyces. Inconsistent was the word I wanted :-) I made various updates on multiple wiki's to reflect above outcome. Rudolphous (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, within next weeks or months, I will start to uploads images from Mycokeys, in the same way that I'm currently doing for Zookeys, with the images sorted by articles (exemple), I have no problems to deal with the categories for the articles, but the categorization for the relevant taxa will be time consuming for me as I'm not a specialist. Will you conent to help out for the categorization? Christian Ferrer(talk)11:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is done, the first images are there, the followings will comes in 2 or 3 weeks. I will take care to create all the categories for the articles "Media from...". I only know how to do uniform uploads and therefore the files have by default only one category concerning the taxa, but as some images depict several species it will be sometimes necessary to add categories. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the categroy for the article (in the kind "Media from Albert et al. 2014....") is red then let the image in order that I can find it and that I can create the category. Otherwise, if the category for the arcticle have been created then go ahead and remove the "to be sorted out" one. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, heu no that was just to help you... I removed the material that seemed to have the correct categories. Would you prefer that I leave them for you to check? The ping did not work but I noticed the message as you talk page is in my watchlist. Christian Ferrer(talk)08:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: I don't understand why the ping wouldn't have worked, I hope this one does. If you want me to continue as I have been, which is admittedly very slow, then I think I prefer you to leave them in the "to be sorted" category. For each figure I try to do at least the following operations.
Create Wikidata entries for any species not having them.
Create Commons category text (taxonomy header, links to databases, Wikidata Infobox, parent category) if that is not there. It is true that the taxonomy header and especially links to databases are rather redundant if the Wikidata Infobox is there, but the practice seems to be to have both.
If a figure has images for multiple species, split it into images for individual species and upload those images as new files. In that case I don't put the image of the whole figure in all the species categories, but move it to a higher level.
Ensure that the Wikidata links such as Commons category, the Commons site link and the image are present.
Perhaps add images to enwiki if easy and appropriate.
The ping worked that time. No, no that's fine you do an excellent job, thanks you. I do the almost the same kind of things for marine invertebrates images. When necessary I create wikidata items, the categories, I also extract images and sometimes I remove arrows, scales ect..., exemple, but not for all images, only the necessary image to have a suitable illustration of the species. I also add a depict statement for each species depicted. However I don't add the links to the Wikipedia articles inside the files descriptions. Besides I want to tell you that I am sorry not to put the names in italics in the uploads, it is not a very simple thing when using the batch uploads tool. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Removing arrows and scales etc. looks very complicated. Which batch upload tool do you use? I think there are quite a few. I would like one which just takes the file and the whole text (like the basic upload tool) and uploads a whole set of images, but I have not found one like that. Strobilomyces (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use Special:GWToolset, I put manually the infos (links, descriptions, articles, ect, ect..), included XML tags, in Microsoft Excel tables, then I generate a text file with the data. I convert that text file into the XML file needed for the GWToolset. It's of course not such as fast as a BOT, but the fact to use tables allow to save time with all data that is likely to repeat, furthermore I'm not tecknically able to run a BOT. If ever you wish to use such a tool I will be happy to provide you with further explanation and help if it is within my capabilities. Note that this can be a powerfull tool, e.g. I worked around ten or fifteen hours spread over several weeks to create the XML file needed to uploads those 17 000 images, but at the end it is more fast than to do it manually (though I have still the half of the images to categorize), but this is not the same thing as for Mycokeys because I managed to get the datas (taxon, URLs, description, author, ect...) from Darwin Core Archives from GBIF datasets. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Strobilomyces, I took and uploaded the following photos. Do you agree with the identification? are these mushrooms part of your area of expertise?
@Christian Ferrer: Hello, Christian. I wouldn't say that I have an area of expertise including these mushrooms, but I do try to look at pictures like this and intervene if they are obviously wrong. The putative Stereum hirsutum is terribly old and dried out (the woods in winter are full of bits of wood which look like this). Picture number 02 clearly shows the hairy top surface, so I think that this probably was S. hirsutum. When fresh this species is juicy and orange, but I think it can go like the picture after months of weathering. Similarly I agree that the other species could be old Tremella aurantia. I am not sure whether turning into a nasty-looking liquid like that in the lower part is part of its normal life cycle or whether it is being attacked by something. I don't disagree with the identifications, though I expect there are some other species which could fit.
@Famberhorst: Good evening. Please see the same talk page to know what happened. Because the file name no longer corresponds to the assessment page names, two additional parameters are needed in the assessments template.
Could you change it so that it is not "the most valued image within the scope: Lycoperdon perlatum"? It is a very nice image, but it is clearly not a Lycoperdon perlatum. In my opinion, mistakes like that bring the assessment system into disrepute if they are not corrected. Best wishes, Strobilomyces (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you changed it back to Lycoperdon perlatum. user:Richardkiwi had earlier changed it from Lycoperdon perlatum to Lycoperdon excipuliforme, which I think was right. By the way, from now on I will be busy in real life for a couple of weeks. All the best. Strobilomyces (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because Commons:Valued image candidates/Pearl dust fungus (Lycoperdon excipuliformis). Location, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.JPG. No longer exists, the photo is no longer a Valued image!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Famberhorst: Hello. Well, I don't know exactly what the procedure is here, but it seems to me wrong that it should have been a Valued Image when it had the identification Lycoperdon perlatum. The name of the file is "File:Plooivoetstuifzwam (Lycoperdon excipuliforme). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.jpg", and it seemed to me to be a valued image, but the link to its nomination page was wrong. I changed this to "Parelstuifzwam (Lycoperdon perlatum). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.JPG" and now that seems OK.
For me the problem now is that its scope "Lycoperdon perlatum", for which it said to be the most valued image, is completely wrong (though admittedly it was voted as such). We could easily change the VI template to say another scope, but I suppose that would be cheating, as it was not put to a vote. I think this is a serious error, which needs to be corrected. What should be the procedure to rectify the situation? Could you request it to be a Valued Image with another scope, such as "Lycoperdon excipuliformis"? Strobilomyces (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!
I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.
We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.
Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.
Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.
Hi Strobilomyces, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Hello Strombi, since you have already given me a useful hint regarding a mushroom photo of mine, I turn to you once again. I photographed a small mushroom in my garden of which I do not know the name. After two days, the plant dissolved like a crested pintling, only this one is much bigger. I would be very grateful for any information. The mushroom grew in a flower pot from the potting soil I bought. Thank you in advance for your efforts.--Ermell (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell: Hello. The mushroom is evidently a "coprinoid" (Coprinus, Coprinopsis, Coprinellus, or Parasola, formerly all called Coprinus). It is a pity that we do not have a photo from when it was younger. I believe you are saying that it is not Coprinus comatus and I think it should be a Coprinopsis. It seems to me that Coprinopsis lagopus fits quite well, but that is not at all certain. I am sorry I cannot help more. Strobilomyces (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting through those fungi photos[edit]
Hello Strobilomyces, thank you for your opinion about File:Gymnopus confluens 2 RF.jpg. I have actually hardly any knowledge of fungi. However, these ones were identified in a German forum, in a rather long and controversial discussion between two users. My question can be found via the link https://nafoku.de/forum/201808_0093_0001.htm. Colours may have been somewhat distorted by using a flashlight for both images. It was rather dark there. The most important point in identification was the hairy stems, which the expert (Lothar) did not know from any other Gymnopus species. You might try automated translation if you cannot understand any German. Thanks again and all the best --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed identification for many files of fungi[edit]
Hi Strobilomyces, it seems you are extremely knowledgeable about different kinds of fungi - I recently added depict statements to many files, trusting that they were in the correct categories. I know see a lot of those files plopping up in my watchlist, because you are saying, they might have been misidentified. It is really difficult for me to keep track of those disputed identifications. Are you checking the depict statements along with the categories? Kritzolina (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello user:Kritzolina, thanks for contacting me. I often look at fungus image pages which have recently changed in order to check whether I think the identifications are plausible, and you are absolutely right that your changes to the depicts information have brought to light a great number of old pages which I think are miscategorized. I still have a lot more such cases to work through. I don't check the depicts claims to identify discrepancies, but I ought to check them at the time that I update a category, and I will try to do this in future. Normally I don't change a category immediately in case there is disagreement, but I mark the file as disputed, put a comment on the talk page, and wait two weeks or much more before making the change - or perhaps less if the author has agreed. From now on , I will try to pay more attention to the depicts claims. I hope that this helps. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. We use "unidentified" categories for mushrooms, for instance there is a category for the genus "Russula" and also one for "Unidentified Russula". I don't see a WikiData item for "Unidentified Russula". Do you intend to lose this distinction in the depicts information? Strobilomyces (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for looking into this issue! On wikidata we don't mark anything as unidentified - we only mark it as exactly as we can. So if we only know the genus, but can't identify it further, we put the depict "Russula" in without any further markings. At least as far as I know. Kritzolina (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is important for maintenance - but this kind of mainenance is better done on Commons, where the pictures themselves are stored than on Wikidata. So it makes a lot of sense on Commons, but not on Wikidata Kritzolina (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that the Commons Structured Data, where the Depicts claims are stored, was going to be considered part of Commons. Anyway, I think it's OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips and tricks
Made a mistake?
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_-20191101-RM-150416.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_2_(cropped).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.jpg&diff=next&oldid=570506318){kind=link}
){kind=link}
