File talk:Plooivoetstuifzwam (Lycoperdon excipuliforme). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.jpg

Identification

@Famberhorst: Hello. This fungus isn't like Lycoperdon perlatum, but it is a classic Lycoperdon excipuliforme ("Plooivoetstuifzwam"). The latter is bigger, typically has the shape in the photo, and has smaller spines. In the case of L. perlatum, the spines leave a distinctive pattern on the surface when they fall off. Please could you change the identification accordingly? Best wishes, Strobilomyces (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Famberhorst replied by mail and agreed that I could change the identification, so I will do so. Strobilomyces (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem related to image assessments and User:Famberhorst continued on my talk page, so please see there. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi and Famberhorst: Hello. I woud like to summarise the story here. File "Parelstuifzwam (Lycoperdon perlatum). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.JPG" was promoted to being a featured picture and also a valued picture under category "Lycoperdon perlatum". But the identification was wrong and the file was renamed to "Plooivoetstuifzwam (Lycoperdon excipuliforme). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 10.jpg (section)". Then two error messages appeared from the assessments template: "This file does not link to the relevant nomination page! Please refer to Template:Assessments/doc!" and "This file's valued images nomination link is broken! Please refer to Template:Assessments/doc!". If the current file name does not correspond to the nomination page name, the com-nom parameter (for featured) and the val-nom parameter (for valued) have to be added to the assessment template. When I did this the error messages went away.

I think there are still some updates needed to this image - it should be a valued image in category "Lycoperdon excipuliforme", not "Lycoperdon perlatum". Strobilomyces (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Please be sure the information is correct before the rename request, I already doubted to change this, but I saw something about "mail with the uploader", otherwise I wouldn't have renamed it. I will try if I can do something, but I can't promise anything. In the worst scenario, the file has to be renamed back to what it was, but I will take a look.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it (I hope), but to be honest, the file was not promoted to being a .... (etc) in that category. So the people who have understanding of this, must decide what happens next, not a file mover. Thanks and good luck! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Famberhorst has continued on my user page, so please see there for more details. Currently for me the only problem is that it is claimed to be the most valued image of a Lycoperdon perlatum on Commons (and there are many images of that species) whereas it is definitely not that species at all. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for all the effort!--Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Famberhorst: That's fine, I'll try to do better to get the links right next time if I ask to rename an assessed picture (Featured Picture etc.) But can you correct the scope of this picture as a Valued Image? Strobilomyces (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)