A fact from Trillium reliquum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
The current photo is nice and clear, and shows the habit of the species nicely. Unfortunately, it depicts one of the rarer petal color morphs, though, so it's not very representative of the species as a whole (most plants have purple-brown petals, not yellow-green). There are other photos available on Wikimedia Commons, including some that I have contributed. Should we change it?
Doppelbrau (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Case says the petals are "dark brownish maroon, greenish purple, or streaked with yellow." I assume the order of his list matters, right? Tom Scavo (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, descriptions in floras usually strive to document all possible variation, in descending order of frequency. But even this description doesn't describe the photo in this article. I'm just asking what the Wikipedia policy is for this sort of decision. Doppelbrau (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a policy, I don't know what it is. If the photo in the article does not portray the typical case, and you have a photo that does, I'd say replace the old one. We could start a photo gallery for the old one that gets pushed out. Does that sound reasonable? Tom Scavo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the observations in iNaturalist typical observations of this species? In any case, if valid photos of this species are available, and they exhibit different characters, they should be linked to this article IMO. Tom Scavo (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
