File talk:Boletus sp. 165304.jpg
 | The factual accuracy of this description or the file name is disputed.
Reason: --- |
Correct name for this image[edit]
Some part of this discussion moved from Here to this place!--MehdiTalk 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can I ask, why did you removed the template? Current filename is wrong (misleading) and there's no consensus regarding complete identification of the specie. The most accurate and correct identification available is Boletus of Luridi section. Reason #3 doesn't require binomial filename. --Xth-Floor (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. This image used to many articles in Wikipedias! for example en:Boletus pseudosulphureus! Your reason is wrong and reason 3 is not usable for this image. plz be attention: You think this name is wrong and it's not a "Boletus pseudosulphureus" but you are not sure about correct name of this file, So you used "Unknown Boletus of Luridi section" name! you have 2 ways for renaming this file: 1- Find a correct name of this Boletus and suggest it! 2-Ask a question in user Biopics talk page and find a best name for this image.--MehdiTalk 05:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. 1. The name is wrong, but it's not (just) my thought. 2. It's not possible to identify this specie just by the image, even by professional mycologists. This image is taken from Mushroom Observer (as linked in description). According to professional and amateur mycologists in the discussion, the mushroom cannot be Boletus pseudosulphureus and exact specie cannot be identified just from the image (without molecular analysis). Current filename is definitely wrong and because of that, Wikipedia articles using this image are really misleading. I believe that a more general filename should be preferred to wrong filename. --Xth-Floor (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- But Your suggested name is wrong! Plz see history of this image! we can see 3 renaming request from u and Other user (Original uploader) and 2 complete renaming! It's not best way. Plz make a discussion with Original uploader and after this suggest best name for renaming. It's best way for avoiding of renaming fighting. --MehdiTalk 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suggested "Unknown Boletus of Luridi section.jpg". What's exactly wrong with this filename? It perfectly corresponds with the discussion at mushroom observer. --Xth-Floor (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- But file name in mushroom observer website is Boletus pseudosulphureus! --MehdiTalk 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please check the discussion related to the picture - here: http://mushroomobserver.org/74976 (esp. post by Irene Andersson and previous) - several professional and amateur mycologists pointed out, that this mushroom cannot be Boletus pseudosulphureus. Thank you. --Xth-Floor (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest using {{Fact disputed}} on the file page for now, while you try to come up with the true ID by consensus, if the current one is in fact incorrect. This will help to avoid having to rename the image multiple times. INeverCry 18:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please check the discussion related to the picture - here: http://mushroomobserver.org/74976 (esp. post by Irene Andersson and previous) - several professional and amateur mycologists pointed out, that this mushroom cannot be Boletus pseudosulphureus. Thank you. --Xth-Floor (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- But file name in mushroom observer website is Boletus pseudosulphureus! --MehdiTalk 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suggested "Unknown Boletus of Luridi section.jpg". What's exactly wrong with this filename? It perfectly corresponds with the discussion at mushroom observer. --Xth-Floor (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- But Your suggested name is wrong! Plz see history of this image! we can see 3 renaming request from u and Other user (Original uploader) and 2 complete renaming! It's not best way. Plz make a discussion with Original uploader and after this suggest best name for renaming. It's best way for avoiding of renaming fighting. --MehdiTalk 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. 1. The name is wrong, but it's not (just) my thought. 2. It's not possible to identify this specie just by the image, even by professional mycologists. This image is taken from Mushroom Observer (as linked in description). According to professional and amateur mycologists in the discussion, the mushroom cannot be Boletus pseudosulphureus and exact specie cannot be identified just from the image (without molecular analysis). Current filename is definitely wrong and because of that, Wikipedia articles using this image are really misleading. I believe that a more general filename should be preferred to wrong filename. --Xth-Floor (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
@Xth-Floor:We need a consensus about this file's name! I have not enough information about mycology. So plz invite familiar mycology users in commons To reach consensus.--MehdiTalk 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Consensus will not be realistic.
There is not enough information from a mere picture to identify this bolete.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
