Commons:Valued image candidates/Costus spectabilis .jpg: Difference between revisions

Global usage

•  Comment I realize, that this plant flowers before the leaves appear, but to properly illustrate the species as the scope it should really still show the whole plant (to illustrate the subject well) and not just the flower. I would support though, if the scope was changed to Costus spectabilis, flower. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Flowers and leaves are not simultaneously. I take a few week in between normally. You get one or the other and taxonomically the reproductive part is (arguably) the most important one. Lycaon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we misunderstand each other. I am aware I can not get an image with both leaves and flower. My reason for proposing the scope change is that I cannot see where the stem ends. That is, I do not see the whole plant and IMO that should be visible in an image to illustrate the species. And concerning the importance of the flower - well if it were not for the leaves, I guess it would not be able to make the productive organ at some other time anyway;-) Since the flower is really the only completely visible phytotomic(?) structural element of the plant, I am really of the opinion that a change in scope is in order in this case. Do you follow my reasoning in this? -- Slaunger (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I follow, then, yet again... this is a cryptophyte. In Eastern Zambia, where I used to live and where the picture was taken in my 'garden', most of the year you see nothing, then all of a sudden the flowers appear from fleshy leafless rhizomes. Then a few weeks later four fleshy leaves come up, the flowers by then being gone. Actually, what you see is what you get and quite typical for C. spectabilis appearing after its period of dormancy (winter/dry season). So I still think the scope is appropriate. Lycaon (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose OK, I think I can conclude that we simply have slightly different views of whether the image illustrates the subject well. For me the image has to show all structural elements of the plant normally visible in its habitat at the given state in its life cycle. The problem is that I see a part of the (very unfocussed) stem, but not the plant in entirety. I would happily support the image if the scope was narrowed to "Costus spectabilis, flower", which is also a relevant scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. Would you also oppose a picture of a banana plant because the stem is not (never) visible? Or a picture of a dodder because you can't see the leaves (it doesn't have any). In this case C. spectabilis, which is a ginger, btw, has a rhizome from which the flowers and leaves come up. The trigger for the flowers to appear has to do with a combination of raising temperatures and air humidity. You will never see a 'stem'. Similarly, you don't see a stem on e.g. Colchicum (a stalk, yes) or even on a Dandelion?! The only way to show a complete plant would be to dig it out. Would that be the most valuable image? Or is a valuable image the in situ picture of a plant in its natural environment? In other (or your) words: all structural elements of the plant normally visible in its habitat at the given state in its life cycle are visible. It is furthermore not as if there is a great choice of pictures of this species on Commons or even on the internet (the only one in natural surroundings I found was this, and that one is from wet tropical forrest, where leaves appear earlier on, and not from a seasonal dry area as Eastern Province in Zambia, where leaves don't show up until the rains arrive.). Lycaon (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have confused you by using the word stem. I really meant "stalk" - I am not so familiar with the English phytotomic terms as with the Danish ones, and I was too lazy to look it up as I thought I had it right. And the flower sits on a stalk, right(?), and the stalk connects the plants with its roots and the soil. The stalk is only half visible and out of focus, and I cannot really see where it ends. Thus, I do not see the visible structural elements of the plant in its given state. Therefor I reason that it does not illustrate the whole plant well. And, no I do not want you to dig it up, nor to remove other naturally occurring plants next to it as it is part of its natural habitat, and it is also acceptable if other plants partially hide structural elements of the plant. The problem here is that the image is cropped such that I cannot see where the stalk ends, and I have no feeling of how elevated the flower is. I would not oppose an image of a banana plant because the stem is not visible as it is not a structural element which is visible. A valued image of this species would have shown the observer where the stalk ends (be it disappearing in weeds). Even though that is not the case it is still valued, but for only for illustrating the flower of this species. I do not think that is weird, but rather reasonable. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your swift decline and request some other knowledgable person commenting. All structural parts of the plant are shown and nothing has been cropped but by the soil the plant arises from. Lycaon (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment My comment. -- Example

•  Info My information. -- Example

•  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example

•  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example

•  Question My question. -- Example

•  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example