Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cupressus glabra cone, Sedona Botanical Garden.jpg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Cupressus glabra cone, Sedona Botanical Garden.jpg[edit]
This page is the subject of an edit war because another user insists that the botanical garden uses an inaccurate classification on their plants. As the original uploader, I request that the file therefore be removed. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep a dispute over the filename is not a reason to delete; the licence is valid, and image has potential for use. - MPF (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- The message you are giving me is that I should stop uploading images that have identifications made by someone other than me, since my responsibility to the botanical garden (or to anyone else who has identified a plant for me) cannot be fulfilled. That is not a good message. Perhaps there is a restrictive licence that I could use instead (or perhaps there is some restrictive licence that I could use if I upload to a single wikipedia rather than to commons). I will have to investigate licensing (and resist the urge to contribute the next batch of photos from a botanical garden). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nadiatalent: Not at all. This is a wiki; "This page in a nutshell: You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them.". Restrictive licenses that do not allow modification are not accepted at Commons. Conversely, you have no responsibility to the botanical garden at all (other than to heed their regulations when visiting the site - things like "don't pick the flowers"): there is no obligation to preserve the exact wording on their labels in photos that are uploaded to Commons. Note too, labels in gardens are expensive to replace; they may not be updated every time their database is updated. You must be prepared to accept that things can, and should, be changed, when the evidence demonstrates it. The evidence of the bark and foliage in these photos clearly identifies the tree as Cupressus glabra, and not as Cupressus arizonica (f.y.i., I have studied and collected herbarium material of both in the wild in Arizona, and had my identifications accepted by the herbarium where I deposited the specimens). So: do please continue to contribute your next batch of photos, but you must be prepared to accept changes made by others when changes are made on an evidential basis - your work, like that of everyone else on Commons, is not, and must not be, set in stone. - MPF (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely, my contributing images to Commons was a mistake. By doing so I have left myself open to this unpleasantness from you. Contributing to a wiki is a personal choice, and likely to stop when the experience becomes unrewarding. Enough. Please do not interact with me again. (I will wait to see what other editors think ...) Nadiatalent (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nadiatalent: Not at all. This is a wiki; "This page in a nutshell: You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them.". Restrictive licenses that do not allow modification are not accepted at Commons. Conversely, you have no responsibility to the botanical garden at all (other than to heed their regulations when visiting the site - things like "don't pick the flowers"): there is no obligation to preserve the exact wording on their labels in photos that are uploaded to Commons. Note too, labels in gardens are expensive to replace; they may not be updated every time their database is updated. You must be prepared to accept that things can, and should, be changed, when the evidence demonstrates it. The evidence of the bark and foliage in these photos clearly identifies the tree as Cupressus glabra, and not as Cupressus arizonica (f.y.i., I have studied and collected herbarium material of both in the wild in Arizona, and had my identifications accepted by the herbarium where I deposited the specimens). So: do please continue to contribute your next batch of photos, but you must be prepared to accept changes made by others when changes are made on an evidential basis - your work, like that of everyone else on Commons, is not, and must not be, set in stone. - MPF (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The message you are giving me is that I should stop uploading images that have identifications made by someone other than me, since my responsibility to the botanical garden (or to anyone else who has identified a plant for me) cannot be fulfilled. That is not a good message. Perhaps there is a restrictive licence that I could use instead (or perhaps there is some restrictive licence that I could use if I upload to a single wikipedia rather than to commons). I will have to investigate licensing (and resist the urge to contribute the next batch of photos from a botanical garden). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Dispute over filename is not a reason to delete anything. Actually this shows, that the file is valuable: who wants to argue over name of worthless thing? As MPF said, nobody owns images in Commons. If something like that happens with my contributions, then I say to myself: let it be. For example, during writing this reply I got this message. No file in Commons is worth of getting angry. But some people have stronger "owner instinct" and it is more difficult for them to say: let it be. I ask you not to leave Commons, although I understand, that free content does not fit to everybody. Taivo (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't my ownership of the image, it is my responsibility to the reputation of public institutions. This edit, which states that a plant is mislabelled is embarrassing to the Sedona Botanical Garden. The decision I am trying to make is whether to upload only those images that I have myself identified, or to include images of plants that have been labelled in public institutions. The latter group are the vast majority of the images I have uploaded and foresee uploading. At this rate I will have to stop using botanical gardens as a source of material to contribute to Commons. The issue relates to Authors' moral rights, which are independent from copyright. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- No-one has any "responsibility to the reputation of public institutions", nor any obligation to avoid embarrassment to them. If there was any such responsibility, I could equally point out that Sedona Botanical Garden are riding roughshod over the reputation of George Sudworth, past Dendrologist of the USDA Forest Service, in their failure to acknowledge his identification and naming of the taxon concerned. Read his description (end of p. 88, to p. 89), and you can clearly see that the Sedona BG specimen belongs under his then-newly-discovered species. The essence of scientific advance though is that there is no such responsibility; science demands that identifications can be changed when presented with evidence. Sudworth's evidence was that C. glabra is a distinct species; others (E. L. Little, here, in 1965) later thought it was less distinct and just a variety; now, genetic testing (e.g. by D. P. Little 2006 and Mao et al. 2010) has shown that Sudworth was correct in the first place. That's called scientific advance. There is no 'responsibility to reputations', that would stifle research and prevent scientific advance if it was required. - MPF (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't my ownership of the image, it is my responsibility to the reputation of public institutions. This edit, which states that a plant is mislabelled is embarrassing to the Sedona Botanical Garden. The decision I am trying to make is whether to upload only those images that I have myself identified, or to include images of plants that have been labelled in public institutions. The latter group are the vast majority of the images I have uploaded and foresee uploading. At this rate I will have to stop using botanical gardens as a source of material to contribute to Commons. The issue relates to Authors' moral rights, which are independent from copyright. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have posed a question at Commons:Village_pump#How_to_assert_right_of_integrity. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment (Nadiatalent, first I'm thanking you for your contributions here. Second, be patient and discuss with us in Commons:VP; deletion request is not a friendly way for dispute resolution.) I read the arguments from both sides, and my understanding is that this can be either Cupressus arizonica Greene or Cupressus arizonica var. glabra (Sudw.) Little. (ref: www.theplantlist.org.) I think wiki is following www.theplantlist.org; so Cupressus glabra is not the accepted name. I may wrong; but either is not a reason for quick rename and edit-wars. I can request at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants if an expert opinion is required. Jee 03:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: - Commons, Wikispecies, and en wiki all accept Cupressus glabra as a distinct species; evidently en:wiki doesn't follow the Plant List, and certainly neither Commons nor Wikispecies do so (either in this individual case, or as a matter of policy). In this instance, it is a case of the Plant List being out-of-date; it has yet to catch up with the recent genetic research, which supports species status (C. arizonica is not the closest relative of C. glabra: phylogeny). I'd think the Plant List is likely to change to accept C. glabra in the near/medium future; obviously, with a huge project like that, it takes them a long time to review and convert each of the [tens of?] thousands of cases they will have to deal with every year. I can find out, but it may take a few days (I know they have recently updated some other Cupressus taxa). - MPF (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @MPF: There was an inconsistency in en wiki that has now been corrected in line with the usual procedure that has been established by many discussions there at WP:Plants. The use of primary sources is not encouraged in the EN wiki, so that there is more stability (less thrashing) as well as (notably in medical matters) a preference for consensus opinions rather than possibly dubious sources. The Plant List had, in fact, been used at en:Cupressus arizonica. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) MPF, you may be right; but does it a big matter to edit-war over it as it is not a big mistake and just taxonomy update? I'm facing so-many such cases day by day. This is one where EN and Indian experts consider it as Pachliopta pandiyana where Commons as Atrophaneura pandiyana. In another case, wiki has both Pareronia valeria and Pareronia hippia sharing same photos. When I pointed out, experts say no two experts agree on what is right. So what I prefer is always take a middle ground in cases where not all database are up-to-date. (Typed this earlier; thanks Sminthopsis84 for your opinion.) Jee 08:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
Delete Unless someone explains to me by what policy the name was changed and how comes that this has happened thrice according to the history, I cannot understand it. After Krassotkin, MPF again. If there is an edit-war, it's by MPF. I don't agree deletion for the image: it is good. I don't agree for the respect to the institution Sedona BG, or their labels (maybe this perhaps). Or for the botany trend to classify. I agree for the treatment given, the procedure, the protocol: I cannot appease what I feel it's unfair. Sobreira (parlez) 23:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC) CORRECTED Sobreira (parlez) 07:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
