User talk:Convallaria majalis

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Convallaria majalis!

Thank you[edit]

H! thank you for identifying this image: File:Fungi with basil.jpg !! I have seen that you have identified lots of other fungi images. That is fantstic work you are doing. Thank you!!! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me for help (I am an admin here). Cheers, Amada44  talk to me 19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Convallaria majalis!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:1 Fungi sp. - Kew 1.jpg[edit]


This fungi could be Armillaria mellea? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but the blue-greyish cap colour (instead of yellowish-brown for A. mellea) makes me doubt. One of the key features of 'mellea is a yellow-margined ring (seen, for example, here). --Convallaria majalis (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but my pictures are not so good, and I think those fungi are young specimens. DenesFeri (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, try to answer. DenesFeri (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a photo of young specimens of A. mellea. The cap color is clearly different from the ones in your photo. The colour reminds of the Australian species A. hinnulea, but that's just the color. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure even about the genus (the rings make me wonder a bit). All I can suggest is to try uploading these photos to MushroomObserver (you'll need an account there) and ask its users for opinion - that's what I usually do when I have no clue what a certain mushroom is. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK than; thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Coprinus - Coprinellus[edit]

Hi, I just undid your change to File:Coprinus spec.jpg‎ - I suggest that you a either do a complete job, including changing the file description accordingly (including some justifying comment), or better leave it as it is. The way you did it was rather sloppy: neitheran any useful comment/rationale/pointer re the genus change Coprinus to Coprinellus - nor did you care about the description text. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 80b80ba3b041be2c1cc02a1af201ab3e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Hi Convallaria majalis,

You named one specimen with two names.

Hypholoma fasciculare - Kew 1.jpg
Hypholoma fasciculare - Kew 2.jpg

The second picture is a closeup of the first one; and the light is different too. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that these clusters were identical... If the actual fungi did have a greenish hue on the gills (I can somewhat see it in the second photo), they are most certainly H. fasciculare. If they didn't, well, I'm not sure what they are... --Convallaria majalis (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This fungi could be Russula grisea? File:Gomba2.jpg DenesFeri (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess it is something like R. xerampelina. However, as far as I know, there is a bunch of species that used to be called xerampelina but have now been segregated from it... --Convallaria majalis (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks again! DenesFeri (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Insect CBD 1.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 10:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Спасибо за выявление биологических таксонов, особенно в фотографии, которые я взял.--Dendrofil (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Champignons près du lac Pavin.jpg[edit]

Thank you for identification of mushrooms of this photo. And congratulations ! --Tangopaso (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mushrooms in the park of Rentilly 3.jpg[edit]

Hi, Convallaria majalis
I have uploaded 3 photos of mushrooms in the park of Rentilly near Paris. As I appreciated that you identified the mushrooms such as File:Champignons près du lac Pavin.jpg, can you identify these ones. Perhaps Amanita rubescens ?
I propose also to move Category:Unidentified mushrooms to Category:Unidentified fungi because the difference between them is not clear. Can you put an agree/oppose advice in the discussion page.
Thanks and congratulations. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tangopaso: Those are some kind of Melanoleuca, a very hard genus to keep up with without loads of microscopic work (there are very few easily identified species — like Melanoleuca verrucipes). No idea which species this is. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ! I will let them as unidentified fungi... --Tangopaso (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your update of category. --Tangopaso (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Crataegus sanguinea?[edit]

Hi, I saw your identification of File:Sorbus torminalis in the Setun' river valley.JPG as Crataegus sanguinea. Are you familiar with that species? Do you think that File:Плоды боярышника, 2015.JMWGT+1.jpeg could also be that species? Its geographic coordinates suggest an area where that species could be present. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

C. sanguinea is one of the two (or, possibly, three) species of Crataegus with shallowly lobed leaves grown in European Russia, which made the identification of the other photo rather easy. Naming of Siberian Crataegi is more tricky. Yes, I do think the species on the discussed photo is C. sanguinea, but 1) I don't think we can see the color of ripe fruit in the photo, which is necessary for more certain identificaton, and 2) there may be some other [uncommon] species in that region. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hygrophorus agathosmus 262552.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hygrophorus agathosmus 262552.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dang it, forgot the template :-) --Convallaria majalis (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Korenskie rodniki in autumn 06.jpg[edit]

Благодарю за помощь в определении грибов. Скажите, а это действительно мухомор (Amanita)? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Какой-то поплавок типа Amanita vaginata: белый низ и разлинованный край шляпки у нас обычен только у двух родов - Amanita и Russula. На сыроежку это не тянет (ножка тонкая и длинная), и оттенки серого и коричневого встречаются не у многих сыроежек. В основании ножки, если туда залезть, будет вольва. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Благодарю. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Астра ромашковая KR 01.jpg[edit]

Разве такой ствол у молочая? На том же месте через неделю сделана эта фотография. Вы уверены? Молочай на том склоне тоже растёт, но на этой поляне я видел только астры и Лён жёлтый. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Не астра-то точно (хотя бы потому что у астр наибольшая ширина листа ближе к основанию, чем к верхушке, да и стебли у астр тоньше). А вот на лён похоже. И на другие фотографии молочая - не похоже. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Верно, в другом месте я видел молодой лён жёлтый — он именно такими пучками вначале растёт. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Горошек мышиный KR 03.jpg[edit]

Подскажите, а по каким признакам Вы определили, что на этих фотографиях (1, 2, 3) Горошек мохнатый (вика мохнатая), а не Горошек мышиный? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Двинул в V. villosa из-за того, что́ посчитал оттопыренным опушением на этой фотографии. Не могу до конца убедить себя в том, что оно всё же прижатое (а каким бы Вы его назвали?). По другим признакам (например, отношение длины флага к ноготку венчика) - получается V. cracca. Прошу прощения. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Фотографии сделаны хоть на одной территории, но разных растений. Допускаю, что они могут относиться к разным видам, на что я сразу не обратил внимание. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Может, и так. Но V. cracca очень изменчива... летом видел горошек из этой группы отчётливо фиолетово-розового цвета с белым ноготком, с отличной от типичной V. cracca (более широкой, что ли), которой там было в достатке, формой листочков. За неимением особого выбора решили считать его в пределах изменчивости V. cracca. Теперь кусаю локти, что не взял в гербарий, интересно же... По отношению частей цветка на всех фотографиях всё-таки получается мышиный. А стопроцентной V. villosa я живьём никогда не видел. --Convallaria majalis (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Благодарю. Вы развеяли мои сомнения. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
И свои тоже :-) --Convallaria majalis (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Определение растений[edit]

Просто пришла сказать Вам спасибо. И за то, что распознали целую пачку видов на моих фотографиях, и за то, что столько лет встречаетесь мне в истории правок отличных ботанических статей :).--Хомелка (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Flowerpot mold micro.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Flowerpot mold micro.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Imedeiros (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)