Talk:Papilio machaon oregonius

Images

I put the stamp image on there a while back for want of an actual photo but it would be nice to have both. I searched .gov on Google and came up with this excellent image from Wash. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, if anyone wants to figure out if it's copyrighted. All the other .gov images seem to be of Tiger Swallowtails or don't specify... Katr67 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The main page of the gallery says: "Images supplied on these pages, unless otherwise indicated, are owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or have been made available to the Department for public use. They may be used for non-profit or educational purposes provided that the Department or copyright holder is properly credited. Commercial use of these images is prohibited without approval of the copyright holder." Does Wikipedia count as educational purposes? --Esprqii (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand it, Wikipedia is considered educational but it is preferred that the images we put on here can be used by anyone, which could mean commericially. Pete knows more about it... Katr67 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also this Flickr search, again I am too lazy to figure out Flickr licensing. I think most of these depict "Swallowtails in Oregon" vs. "Oregon Swallowtails" but maybe the differences are clear enough to be able to tell them apart? I dunno, trees, plants and birds are more my thing... Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this guy! I think the photographer has it right, as Zumwalt Prairie is about the right area... Katr67 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can tell, it's up to the Flickr poster to tag his image with a creative commons tag, which I think would let us use it in wiki. None of the good P. oregonius pics are so tagged, near as I can tell. --Esprqii (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside of fair use, Wikipedia requires images to be permitted to be re-used commercially. So the educational aspect doesn't matter. And actually, when you see the disclaimer/copyright notice like the one above (you see this many places) they actually have no choice in that matter. The ability to use it in those ways are what fair use is, which is codified in the Copyright Act of 1976. So nobody can prevent you from using the images for an educational purpose, no matter what sort of copyright they claim. As to flickr, towards the middle right is where to copyright notice is for each image, click on it and make sure it is CC 2.0 or greater and no commercial use restrictions. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a picture of one yesterday. Public domain, enjoy. :) Colonelpanik (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Great job! The difference between this one and Papilio zelicaon seems mostly to be that P. oregonius has a more squished eye spot and yellow body with black stripe (instead of black with yellow). The eye spot is hard to see here, but the body coloring looks right. Glad you were quick with your phone camera, and nice to know they are flitting around downtown Portland! --Esprqii (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Expert attention

Need to clarify taxonomy. The disclaimer of funet does not allow us to cite it directly, we have to refer to the sources he uses. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Need for better photograph

Dr. Langellotto-Rhodaback at Oregon State University has discovered that my swallowtail photograph does not show the black line protruding through the black dot within an orange spot on the underside of the wing; consequently, this photo could show either an Oregon swallowtail or an anise swallowtail. I think it's best to remove this photo from the wiki and go back on the hunt.Visitor7 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Papilio oregonius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029102718/http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/OR150_Swallowtail_factsheet.pdf to http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/OR150_Swallowtail_factsheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This needs an image

It should have an image DemonDays64 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Papilio oregonius → Papilio machaon oregonius – This taxon is regarded as a subspecies of P. machaon in recent sources (see e.g. Dupuis & Sperling 2015, Bugguide and Butterflies of America)). LamBoet (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Recent taxonomic sources treat this as a subspecies. Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.