User talk:MPF

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful tags
  • {{rename|Bettername.jpg|filename mis-identifies species}}
  • {{low quality}}
  • {{Category redirect|Correct cat}}
  • Category renaming and pic moving at: User:CommonsDelinker/commands



Old stuff up to end 2007 Old stuff up to end 2008 Old stuff up to end 2009 Old stuff up to end 2011 Old stuff up to end 2012

Australian Lorikeet image[edit]

I can provide the location details for the image, however, i do not know how to go about adding it to the file. How would i go about adding the information? NotinREALITY 08:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, i will add the decimal location when i arrive back at work in a few hours. Cheers :) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat and indentification[edit]

Thank you very much for your help in categorizing the birds that I have photographed and identified. I live on the island of Margarita, photographing birds is one of the things that I like despite not having too good a lens. --The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome! (and keep them coming!) - MPF (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

cultivated tree?[edit]

Regarding this edit: why did you conclude that the tree was cultivated? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's outside the species' native range. So it has to be derived from cultivated material to be growing there, whether first or subsequent generation. - MPF (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picea orientalis MHNT.BOT.2005.0.970.jpg[edit]

Hello Cones are of Turkish. Reagards --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Identity?[edit]

The photos are my own, I checked my records and it appears I erred. I will correct the description. Thanks Samuell (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Dear MPF,

The pictures File:Pinus pinaster immature cones 01.jpg and File:Pinus pinaster male cones 01.jpg were indeed taken on two different trees, which were growing near each other in the Bay of the Somme (NW France), so that I thougth there were of the same species.

I do not think that File:Pinus pinaster male cones 01.jpg is from a Pinus pinea, because the location in too far in the North and because of the habitus of the tree. I will revert File:Pinus pinaster immature cones 01.jpg to File:Pinus nigra immature cones 01.jpg.

best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Piea breweriana[edit]

Dera MPF,

The pictures of Picea breweriana, which I have taken on a tree in my private garden, were originally correctly oriented.

So, I have rejected the asked rotation for the pictures of end-twigs File:Picea breweriana leaf2.jpg‎ and File:Picea breweriana leaf1.jpg. The end-twigs are indeed horizontal to slightly erected.

I have also asked for restoring the original orientation of the picture File:Picea breweriana (flowers).jpg. The male cones are on lateral, nodding or weeping twigs.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear MPF,
FYI: I have just uploaded an additional picture, on which you can see that the shoots are first erected, than nodding and eventually weeping.
Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dugong image[edit]

My apologies for the quite late reply, but I don't often see messages on this account. If you need my attention in the shorter term, please msg me on En-wiki.

That said, the information that I have from Mr. Scarani on the Dugong photos was that they were taken at Abu Dabab Beach, Marsa Alam, Egypt. Best of luck!

--[[User:Dante Alighieri|]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Coniferous trees of Arboretum Žampach[edit]

Dear MPF I took some photos of the coniferous trees in Arboretum Žampach in the Czech Republic in November 2012. You wrote that some of these photos are mislabelled. I am the botanist but I am not the specialist of the world coniferous trees. The most of the trees of arboretum Žampach are the young trees, younger than 20 years. The identification of the young Abies etc. may be very complicated. But in Arboretum Žampach they have the singboards, where is the sign of the species of the young trees. I copied the species from these signboards. It is posibble, that men of Arboretum Zampach do not known, which species of trees plant in your arboretum and some singboards are bad. But I mean, that some of these mislabelled trees are good labelled e.g: File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG --Don Pedro28 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Don Pedro - yes, unfortunately, many of the Žampach plants are mis-labelled. The example you give here File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG is not at all like Picea mariana, compare e.g. this photo: File:Picea mariana cones Yukon2.jpg, see how very different (short and thick) the leaves are compared to the Žampach plant. I suspect a lot of the Žampach plants are grown from seed collected from gardens, which often gives hybrid seed: File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG looks as if it could be a hybrid Picea sitchensis × Picea mariana, though it is not possible to be certain without cones. I hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rock Maple[edit]

MPF; Are you sure about this edit?[1] I found a source indicating that "Rock Maple" refers to Acer saccharum.[2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Walter - sorry, no idea! It was 6½ years ago, and I can't remember where I got the detail from! - MPF (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed the redirect to Acer saccharum. Thank you for commenting. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation "herbarium sheets"[edit]

Hello , I saw your modification on the category Abies alba for several files. Is there any recommandation about that, because I don't find it pertinent, in fact it kills the opportunity to find this type of picture by catscan. For an illustration, this modification has made [the explanation] of how to find a taxon inside the Herbarium project obsolete :-( IMHO it would be more efficient to add a category "herbarium sheets" rather than modifying the taxon category. cheers --Chandres (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are sufficiently many of the images to establish their own categories, particularly in taxa like Abies alba where the category already contains a large number of files, and they also form a readily distinguishable subset. So they meet the general Commons categorisation criteria. Surely it should be possible to adjust the search criteria, so that a search by the taxon name automatically directs you to the relevant subcategory? - MPF (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I will upload at the end around 50 000 pictures of herbarium sheet, I cannot say to people to guess what will be the nam of the category :-( I don't understant your argument, will you also subcategorize the other in "abies alba (pictures)"?--Chandres (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If you can suggest a standard format for the subcategories [whether e.g. "Category:Genus species (herbarium specimens)" or "Category:Herbarium specimens of Genus species"], I'd be happy to use that standard. But to insist that herbarium specimens must for first preference occupy the root category of the species, is not viable, particularly not for species for which there are numerous files. Remember that most users of files will be looking in the root category for photos of live specimens to illustrate wikipedia articles, and will not particularly want pictures of herbarium specimens. - MPF (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello MPF,
Be carefull when you reformat a cat to avoid suppressing the <noinclude> arround categories.
This is done by Kersti Nebelsiek as I explained here.
regards Liné1 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for identifying my bird feeder photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pinus sabiniana corrections[edit]

Thank you.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, AFBorchert (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That one should be deleted, as there's nothing to suggest it is PD-US (and it's also rather poor quality too) - MPF (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


for the identification of the giant sequoia tree in the Vosges mountains. With regards Rauenstein 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm rather disappointed that you would move File:Drought and heatwave effected London Plane Trees (Platanus × hispanica).jpg, against the set out guidelines in COM:MOVE. In Australia Platanus × hispanica is commonly known as the "London Plane Tree" and not "London Plane(s)". Bidgee (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with common names of the species. My inclination is to use scientific names. They may be disputed, but rarely with passion. But, "affected", not "effected", is correct unless Australian English is very different from American English. "Effect" is a noun. "Affect" is an adjective. Best wishes to you both. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't notice the change of "effect" to "affect" until you just raised that but to change "London Plane Trees" to "London Planes" within that same rename was wrong. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The main reason for the move, as Walter pointed out, was the typo in 'affected'. But I'm also not in favour of needlessly long filenames, so if there's a good reason to rename a file to remove an error, I'll often take the opportunity to remove any surplus while doing so. I did consider using just the scientific name (i.e., "File:Drought and heatwave affected Platanus × hispanica.jpg"), but not everyone is familiar with the correct scientific name, some still using the newer synonym P. × acerifolia (e.g. en:wiki, which still bases its usage on an outdated version of GRIN), so decided to leave 'London Plane' in. - MPF (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I see you've done a further renaming to put 'Trees' back in (superfluous quibbling, which is definitely contrary to guidelines). The 't' in 'trees' should really be lower case, if I'm to be pedantic, but yet another rename would be ridiculous. - MPF (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Effected to affected, I don't have an issue with. The main issue is removing something without checking, "London Plane Tree" is the common name in Australia (with the capital T). Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Check your own facts! It isn't necessary, see e.g. these Australian sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. - MPF (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank[edit]

für die Bestimmung der Vögel und hierfür. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Dear MPF

I took some photos of plants in Brno, particularly conifers. These trees grow in the arboretum of Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology in Brno. I hope that there are no errors.--Don Pedro28 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

bird deidentifications[edit]

Hello, please don't deidentificate the birds I photographed, as most of them are zoo birds and they have written their common and latin names there, so their identification is unambiguous. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I had good reason for doing so. The species Pycnonotus barbatus has recently (subsequent to your taking the photos) been split into four species, so the identification posted at the zoo is out-of-date and cannot be relied on as to which of the four species they are. As they have yellow under-tail coverts they could be either P. tricolor or P. dodsoni, but not P. barbatus sensu stricto; in the absence of provenance data, it is not possible to tell which, and therefore they need to be considered unidentifiable. - MPF (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If this is so, I will ask at the zoo, which bird they have. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
OK! If they need a reference, point them here - MPF (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
They say, they are using the categorization of the IUCN redlist.
On Avibase it is also. It seems different organisations or whatever categorize birds differently. I am annoyed and have no time for such things, it seems anyone can categorize and rename categories as they please. And I am annoyed by the Commons chaotic category system. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: See also --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Ask them what the provenance of their birds is, and what subspecies they are according to their classification. Then it should be fairly easy to categorise them to the IOC classification. - MPF (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your identification work of plants and animals. Thank you! Amada44  talk to me 20:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of your picture for a book[edit]


We’d like to use one of your pictures for a book that will be publish next fall. On wikimedia, it says that the picture are copyright free.

The title of the book is Secrets de plantes 2 and the name of the author is Fabien Girard. The initial print run will be 1000 copies.

We’d like to have your autorisation by e-mail to use this picture. If you accept, what is the exact name of the source that we must write beside the picture?

Here are the link of the picture.,_Martkophi,_Georgia.jpg

Stéphane Aubut Editor assistant for Les Éditions JCL

Use of your pictures for a book[edit]


We’d like to use some of your pictures for a book that will be publish next fall. On wikimedia, it says that the pictures are copyright free.

The title of the book is Secrets de plantes 2 and the name of the author is Fabien Girard. The initial print run will be 1000 copies.

We’d like to have your autorisation by e-mail to use these pictures. If you accept, what is the exact name of the source that we must write beside the pictures?

Here are the link of the pictures.

Stéphane Aubut Editor assistant for Les Éditions JCL

Help regarding contested id of Erigeron compositus[edit]


You recently helped me with an identification problem regarding some plants in Greenland I had photographed. User:Pitke has informed me on User talk:Slaunger/Greenland/Plants that he believes that also some photos of a plant I have taken in Greenland and previously identified as Erigeron compositus are misidentified and really some kind of Oxeye, probably Common Oxxeye. He may be right, but I would like a second opinion about that, as I do not understand how Pitke has come to that conclusion. Would you care to take a look? Best wishes from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File talk:El pi blanc de Nicolau M. Rubió i Tudurí.jpg[edit]

Please take a look at File talk:El pi blanc de Nicolau M. Rubió i Tudurí.jpg. Thank you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Étourneau unicolore sur un rocher à Sayada, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg[edit]

Thanks for all the work! Regards --13:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cytisus oromediterraneus Ardèche.jpg‎[edit]

Dear MPF,

My picture of "Cytisus oromediterraneus Ardèche.jpg"‎, as well as some other pictures taken in May 2007, was taken in the Ardèche, France. The pictures I have taken in the summer of 2008 were indeed, as I previously let you know, taken in Tigne, Savoie.

Ghislain's pictures of Cytisus purgans were, so far I know, taken in Spain, but I do not know in which region. I will ask him for it.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I fear I mistook the upload date for the photo date [embarrased smiley] - MPF (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
For your info: Next week we will be in the Alsace, were I presumably will take some pictures in the Vosges. In July we will be again in Vaujany and also in Les Deux Alpes, Dauphiné. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of Cytisus purgans[edit]

Dear MPF,

Ghislain let me know that his pictures of Cytisus purgans were taken in Central Spain. Logically they thus concern the species Cytisus oromediterraneus. I will rename and reclassify them accordingly. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So, I have renamed Ghislain's five pictures to "Cytisus oromediterraneus" and reclasified them accordingly. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request that category moves are better documented in edit summary[edit]

Hi. I am repeatedly being poked by people not liking category moves, this usually follows my doing a removal or catredirect from the commands page. I am asking all admins who add category moves if they would please look to better document the moves that are being ordered for SieBot. As background, I asked Siebrand if there was a better means to automate the "who ordered" statement, but he is unable to do so, such we are going to need to do this manually. Thanks for your cooperation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I know it is not completely your domain, but could you have look at the many red categories in this list]. Thank you.

Thanks! Took a look, but unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether the red cats are for valid taxa and to be created, or synonyms for redirection to other existing cats. - MPF (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

picture location[edit]

Hi MPF, the picture File:Birds on the wire.jpg you asked about was taken in the city of Silao, state of Guanajuato, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gracias! - MPF (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)



I hope everything is going nice. Can you take a look at File_talk:Dark_chanting_Goshawk_in_Tanzania_1414_cropped_Nevit.jpg. Thanks in advance. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nevit - thanks! I've added a note on that talk page - MPF (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for classification of biological species. Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Megascops albogularis 000.jpg[edit]

Ingles: The identification is that bird is the one I indicate, that bird was raised in my home from chick, was captured in the state Bolivar - Venezuela near the border with Guyana, the kind that does not exist in your appointments Venezuela. Greetings.

Español : La identificación de es esa ave es la que yo indique, esa ave se crío en mi casa desde polluelo, fue capturada en el estado bolívar - Venezuela cerca de la frontera con Guyana, la especie que tu citas no existe en Venezuela. Saludos.--Veronidae (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

English: Sorry'll ask you to delete the image, but you point identification is wrong, this bird some years ago was identified by ornithologists, At first they thought it was also a mistake. Finally after you check all things that wanted to review concluded that it was atypical of Screech albogularis case, I do not I can delete, but you if you delete it, no problem, I was the one who climbed commons, the idea is not to create problems.
Español: Lo lamento pedire que se borre la imagen, pero la identificación que señalas es errada, esta ave ya hace unos años fue identificada por ornitologos, En un comienzo ellos pensaban también que se trataba de un error. Finalmente después de revisas cuanta cosa quisieron revisar concluyeron que era caso atípico de Megascops albogularis, yo no la puedo borrar, pero tu si puedes borrala, no hay problema yo fui quien la subió a commons, la idea es no crear problema.--Veronidae (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me, I forgot the license information.

Errors in Koppen map[edit]

Hi, please see the discussion of this climate classification and see if you can help. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Done - MPF (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File Abies_concolor_needles_closeup.jpg[edit]

This file was originally labelled Abies lasiocarpa needles closeup.jpg, and was correct. It is lasiocarpa, not concolor. Range maps clearly show it is within lasiocarpa's range, not concolor's, and a picture of the whole tree which I did not upload, but will direct you to find <a href=""/>here</a>, clearly shows the extremely narrow form of lasiocarpa, not the wider form of concolor. Can you please move it back? Famartin (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced; the foliage looks more like drought-stressed A. concolor to me, and the habitat (~1900 m; hot, dry, fairly low altitude: that was visible from Google Earth when I first checked the pic, and is now confirmed by your other photo) is way out for A. lasiocarpa but OK for the low end of the range for A. concolor. While A. concolor is usually broader-crowned, it can be this narrow. The location appears to be out-of-range for both, though A. lasiocarpa is mapped not too far away on the McAfee Peak (3188 m) / Porter Peak (2824 m) range. - MPF (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong. There is an obvious wet spot there which is apparent by the sudden group of larger woody plants surrounding the tree; probably a natural seep of some sort. Its definitely lasiocarpa, and if you don't change it back, I will do it myself. Please don't change someone else's work like that; its disrespectful without checking with them. Famartin (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, though I'm not happy to do so, I still consider this to be A. concolor. - MPF (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Location? File:Bird IMG 4102.JPG[edit]

Thanks. Location added --Manojk (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I don't remember where exactly I took this image (in some forest?). I knew that, it was near Rybnik - my hometown :), best regards Pleple2000 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Haematopus palliatus[edit]

Thanks for identifying the species at File:Oystercatcher2.jpg and similar images! Much obliged, – Quadell (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Salix identity[edit]


you asked me recently about a Salix alba leaf. Now I have checked the trees in this area. There are some Prunus padus shrubs at the Salix trees, see File:20130712Kirsche Reilingen8.jpg (Prunus padus together with salix alba) and File:20130712Kirsche Reilingen7.jpg. The lower leaves at File:20120904Silberweide Reilingen02.jpg are probably Prunus padus. But there are as well some Salix caprea in this area. Greetz --anro (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm quite sure that's not Pinus virginiana. Looks like Pinus rigida. Famartin (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Needles are definitely too long for virginiana, and the growth habit isn't right. Too 'stocky'. Could be pinus pungens too, they grow in somewhat similar environments. It actually looks a lot like several trees shown in Famartin (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Picasa review[edit]

If you can, please mark some images in picasa an Admin. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Started on some, will do more - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

new Commons brochure draft[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look! - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mapa pinus pinea.png[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted the image to your version. Since it is a completely different image from the original upload, I think you should upload it again with a different name, possibly indicating also some sources. Cheers--Carnby (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The original upload was both very low resolution and very inaccurate. Improving accuracy of maps is within the accepted reasons for uploading new versions over old ones. If I'd uploaded a new version under a new name, it would have meant going in to lots of wikipedias to replace the old name with the new name. I'll add the sources for my update. - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pine idents[edit]

Thanks for going through my pictures and checking them! From what I understand, the needles of Pinus taeda are generally at least 13 cm long unless this is a subspecies or variation. I know that it's hard to tell the size of the needles in the picture, and I don't remember the exact measurement of these, but I know that they are shorter than those of other Pinus taeda in this region. If the species can't be determined, I'll just remove the picture- it's better to not have the picture up than to have one incorrectly identified. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, Pinus sylvestris doesn't occur naturally in Tennessee. You marked it as cultivated, but this guy was growing out in the middle of nowhere, so... I don't know what to say about that one. Either way, I was pretty sure those two trees weren't the same species. Maybe it's best I just remove the pine tree pictures- there's probably plenty of them up here anyway.Sesamehoneytart (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Indra-I radar SriLanka.JPG[edit]

If you can see a license for this picasa image, feel free to pass it. If not, I guess it will remain picasa review for a long time. I can't see the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I could find no evidence of any Creative Commons license either, so have deleted it as a copyright violation - MPF (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank You. That's the problem with these kinds of images on picasa where one cannot see the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not really know what you guys did wrong with this image. Here you can clearly see that this image is published under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0).
MPF, this image must get restored. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, the license (visible today, but not visible when I checked it before) is valid, so I have restored the photo. It appears to be a problem (as yet unresolved) with Picasa, that sometimes, unpredictably, the license is not visible. - MPF (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I know this (randomly occuring) problem but I always use this tool in order to determine the image's copyright status. It is a reliable tool and you only have to paste the link to image page. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually tried Flinfo to see if that would find the license, but it gave me an error message "Cannot determine image ID from input" (despite trying both numbers in the Picasa URL) - MPF (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Commons barnstar.png The Commons Barnstar
Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

These 26 Picasa Images[edit]

I don't see any license for these 26 picasa images. Since PD-Art cannot apply to them and there is no CC free license evidence for them, do you just delete them or can you file a mass DR on them? I am concerned that they will be in picasa review for many years now since no one will mark them with no verifiable license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv - thanks! I already raised them with the uploader, and am waiting for a response - as he is a license reviewer, he should be familiar with licensing so may possibly know of licensing that isn't visible to e.g. people who aren't paid-up Picasa members? - MPF (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. Without a vieweable (and verifiable) license the images cannot be kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a little banner on the top of the linked page that reads "Click here to go back to Picasa web album". If you click that the licensing becomes available. Maybe we should institute a special license reviewer for Picasa as this happens just about any time I upload pictures from there? I also responded on my talk page, cheers from a traveling mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this link works? Could we perhaps have the flinfo app reflect the "noredirect" portion so that this is resolved automatically? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Really strange, the CC-BY license is showing on the picasa pages now, which it wasn't yesterday. I'll review them all tomorrow (too late to go through them just now!) - MPF (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania 20120217.jpg[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the licence status and also uploading a higher-resolution version of the photo File:Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania 20120217.jpg. I tried to upload the high-resolution version that you were able to upload to Wikimedia Commons, but I did not find a way to do this. I was only able to obtain the lower-resolution version. It's been a long time since I obtained high-resolution versions of Picasa photos, but I recall clicking on the Download tab on the relevant Picasaweb page, but for this photo the Download tab is greyed out (for me). Can you tell me how you were able to obtain the higher-resolution version of the photo, please? GeoWriter (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had much the same problem, in that the 'Download' button to get the full resolution (1600×1068 pixels, 313 KB) was greyed out. But I was able to get this somewhat larger version (1,152 × 769 pixels, 247 KB), by clicking on 'Full screen' at the top left of the photo, and then saving that version. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your tip. I'll try that next time. GeoWriter (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Picasa Review[edit]

Dear MPF,

If you have some free time, feel free to mark some images in picasa review. I have been busy this week unfortunately with work and exams. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Started, I'll do more tomorrow (but there's also 150 pics in Category:Unidentified birds to try to identify . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
PS good luck with the exams! - MPF (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll mark a few more flickr images but really most of them are just banners. I marked the real images which aren't used as banners. Also DR'ed the panoramio image as there's no FOP in Italy. I don't have much free time sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Picasa images[edit]

I think what you say on the 2 picasa images is reasonable. So, please feel free to file a DR then and see what the uploader says. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my comments, but I saw your note about these two images File:Karol Gregorek.jpg and File:Przemysław Kocot.jpg on Leo's talk page and wondered if you looked at the contributors other Picasa image sets. He appears to have very significant access to that football team with numerous uploads, though admittedly none quite like that set of portraits. Personally, if I was reviewing them I would AGF based on his other images but the choice is obviously yours. Did you check the metadata, if it is there, to see if the camera was the same? Those two images were taken with a Canon 50D and, without checking them all, the images in this set are using the same camera. I'm swayed these are actually his images. Ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, that's exactly the sort of comment I was hoping for (I can't read Polish and am not a footballer, so have e.g. no knowledge as to whether the picasa photostream are all of the same team or not). Could you add your comment above to the two deletion requests please, that will help others decide if the pics can be kept. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Ww2censor (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


a lot. Cheers, --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Picasa Review[edit]

Feel free to mark a few picasa images if you wish. I marked a few but I have been busy sadly. The link Mr choppers gave helps to see some of the skiing image licenses like this. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see everything was resolved, does anyone know how to contact the flinfo programmer so that this will be done automatically? Cheers and thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I don't know who will know how to fix the problem. Some Admin might know. Anyway, I hope MPF can mark a few of the picasa images in his free time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll get a few done now! - MPF (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank You. I'll mark some flickr images now. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified Spatangoida[edit]


I added some files to Category:Unidentified Spatangoida. I could not identify the species. Could you please take an expert look?--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help here, it's not a group I know anything about :-( - MPF (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Panoramio Review[edit]

If you have some time, please feel free to mark some images in this category. I have been busy with other projects (uploaded 20 of my own images to Commons recently) and marked 25-30 flickr images today. If you're busy, that's OK. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:QutbIronInscription.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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sreejith K (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Image:Abies concolor seed-dispersal.jpg is in this week on Estonian wikipedia main page, because en:Abies concolor is the article of the week. Thank you for nice picture! Taivo (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Distribution Map of Pinus cembroides[edit]

Hello MPF,

please can you tell me the sources you are using? I think, I am using the most reasonable ones, as mentioned also on de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt. Therefore I would stick to the distribution map, as it was before. But unfortunately you deleted the former, in my opinion most correct version of the map. Please undelete it again and may save it under another name e.g. "Pinus cembroides range map Farjon.png" so that we in the German WP can use it. Regards --IKAl (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello IKAI - Farjon totally ignored genetic, phenological, and several aspects of morphological data in his very blinkered approach to the taxonomy of the pinyon pine group; his ideas result in a concept of "Pinus cembroides" which is paraphyletic with respect to Pinus culminicola. This concept is completely rejected by botanists with field experience of the taxa concerned (which Farjon does not have). Pinus johannis and P. cembroides are highly distinct in nature, and cannot hybridise (they pollinate at different times of the year); P. johannis much more closely resembles P. culminicola, to which it has also proven genetically closer to. As an aside, Eckenwalder's interpretation (treating P. johannis as a variety of P. culminicola, var. bicolor), while excessively conservative, is at least phylogenetically valid in having monophyletic taxa. Here are some of the references you require:
  • Flores-Rentería, L. (2013). Genetic, morphological, geographical and ecological approaches reveal phylogenetic relationships in complex groups, an example of recently diverged pinyon pine species (Subsection Cembroides). Molec. Phyl. Evol. in press, abstract.
  • Gernandt, D. et al. (2001). Variation in the nrDNA ITS of Pinus subsection Cembroides: implications for molecular systematic studies of pine species complexes. Molec. Phyl. Evol. 21: 449-467.
  • Gernandt, D. et al. (2003). Phylogenetics of Pinus Subsections Cembroides and Nelsoniae Inferred from cpDNA Sequences. Systematic Botany 28 (4): 657-673.
  • Gernandt, D. et al. (2005). Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon 54 (1): 29-42.
  • Liston, A., et al. (2003). Molecular phylogeny of Pinaceae and Pinus. Pp. 107-114 in Mill, R. R. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conifer Conference. Acta Hort. No. 615, International Society for Horticultural Science, Brugge.
  • Malusa, J. (1992). Phylogeny and Biogeography of the Pinyon Pines (Pinus Subsect. Cembroides). Systematic Botany 17 (1) 42-66.
  • Manzanares, A. R., et al. (1996). Pinus cembroides s. l. y Pinus johannis del Altiplano Mexicano: una síntesis. Acta Botanica Gallica 143 (7) 681-693.
  • Price, R. A., et al. (1998). Phylogeny and systematics of Pinus. Pp. 49-68 in: Richardson, D. M. (ed.), Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
I will reupload a version of the old map with a new name tomorrow, but I would very strongly advise against using it on its own, other than as an appendix to show how the species has been misunderstood by some authors with limited experience of the taxa. Do you want it exactly as E L Little's 1966 USDA original, or part-updated to exclude Pinus remota (as Farjon did do)? - MPF (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the upload.
There is lots of literature but no consense about the taxonomy of the pinyon pines. And you have to stick to one taxonomy. You mention Eckenwalder above, who distinguishes Pinus lagunae as an own species, which is now also on the distribution map for Pinus cembroides. Farjon sure does not ignore genetic, phenolological, etc. aspects. Quite contrary, he has the best overview on all these topics related to conifers, and does not stick to only one of the results. Some 3 weeks ago we discussed the topic in the redaction biology and decided to use the taxonomy of Farjon. It is also used by the IUCN as far as I know. You have to stick to one taxonomy, and it must be consistent, you cannot change it with each new publication. --IKAl (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, but de:wiki made a very poor decision there. Farjon has set himself up as the "top expert" on conifers, but his work is often deeply flawed and superficial, and not a good overview - the pinyons are far from the only case where he has made very poor taxonomic judgements. I would strongly encourage your group to reconsider this decision. Actually, I don't see why you "have to stick to one taxonomy, and it must be consistent"; there is no reason why a different taxonomy should not be used in individual cases where there is clear evidence that one taxonomy or another is in error. But if you want a single better authority to follow, go for Debreczy & Racz, Conifers around the World (Dendropress). The authors of this text have studied every (or almost every) taxon in the wild, and made far better taxonomic judgements than Farjon. PS you did not say whether you want the alternative P. cembroides map to follow E L Little (1966 original), or Farjon. I can't upload until you say which! - MPF (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to get both? I assume that one of E. Little is the one, which was there before. For me it matched totally to the description of Farjon. Therefore I don't have a speciel map of Farjon in mind. Regards and thank you --IKAl (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, they're not matching - E.L.Little's 1966 map (the original) comprises (by current taxonomy) P. cembroides + P. johannis + P. remota, whereas Farjon's circumscription comprises P. cembroides + P. johannis but not P. remota (thus, without the central Texas locations on Little's map). I can make both if you like (and even, if you really want it, the old Voss [1907] concept [E.L.Little's, + P. edulis + P. monophylla + P. quadrifolia, all as one species]). - MPF (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You are right with "Pinus remota". The map corresponding to Farjon would be sufficient for my needs. Thank you. Regards --IKAl (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I did both in the end: sensu Little and sensu Farjon. Hope they're OK! - MPF (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank, great job. Regards --IKAl (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I read now Flores-Rentería, L. (2013). Genetic, morphological, geographical and ecological approaches reveal phylogenetic relationships in complex groups, an example of recently diverged pinyon pine species (Subsection Cembroides). Molec. Phyl. Evol. in press, abstract. Following this paper neither Pinus johannis nor Pinus discolor are growing in the US but in Mexico. Then it is unclear for me, why you removed the distribution of Pinus cembroides in Arizona and New Mexico? --IKAl (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
They occur in Mexico, but with P. discolor also in USA (SW New Mexico and SE Arizona, with the holotype specimen from Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mts., Arizona). What I removed from the P. cembroides map is the area where P. discolor/P. johannis do occur, but P. cembroides does not occur. Are you sure you have read the paper correctly? Their Fig. 1 clearly shows P. discolor in Arizona. Remember the paper is by Mexican authors, it may simply be that the localities they sampled are all in Mexico. Further south in Mexico, both occur together (often intermingled, as I have seen myself, and also e.g. here with P. johannis [left], P. cembroides [right]). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Cones of Abies lasiocarpa and other species[edit]

I uploaded recent photographs of Abies lasiocarpa, Pinus albicaulis and Tsuga mertensiana just now that you may find of interest. It was an exceptional year for cones in this region. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

cat-dispute "birds of <country>"[edit]

a regular and trusted uploader, whom I know personally, User:Atamari, has asked me for a (sort of) "mediation" (due to his low english skills) as he was rather unhappy with your removal[4] of Category:Quelea quelea in Gambia from some of his uploads and the subsequent deletion of this cat. Though animal-categorization is not my field of interest, I explained to him[5] your likely rationale (as assumed by me). He then provided 2 general reasons for retaining cats of the "birds/animals of <country>"-type:

  • 1) For anybody who wants to know what birds (or other animals) occur in country X (or wants to write an article about it), such cats make it far easier, if not at all possible to get an overview over the existing images that fulfil these criteria (bird AND country X). If such cats are missing or if the files are only in less specific cats, an overview is hardly possible or requires a fulltext-search through the descriptions of all files. And you know well how bad our search-engine actually is.
  • 2) Habitat seems to be a relevant aspect, not to say a key parameter in biology and is best recorded via such "birds of <country>"-categories.

These rationales sound rather reasonable to me. I would therefore ask you to reconsider your opinion about this type of categories in the case at hand and probably also in general. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio - a couple of points I'd make in reply:
First, on a very important general principle, natural organisms do not adhere to human-created political boundaries. If subcategorisation of a species with a very large number of images is required (but see also below), then the subcategoriastion should be by natural differences appropriate to the species, such as subspecies, or by biogeographical regions, or by sex / age group, etc. Yes, habitat is very much a relevant aspect, but this is absolutely not best recorded with 'by country' subcategories, as their boundaries do not coincide.
Second, which also applies in this case in particular, where there are only a small number of images, it does not make good sense to split them apart into numerous subcategories each containing just one or two photos. That makes finding images far more tedious if one has to search through lots of subcategories. In this instance, removal of the Gambian images had left only a very few images in the main species category, most of which were plastic junk of dubious authenticity (captive, non-wild individuals, which may often be captive-bred hybrids or otherwise atypical of the species). It makes far better sense to group all of the photos of wild specimens together in one category, until such time as the category becomes unwieldy (approaching or even exceeding 200 images).
Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
More thoughts for a possible solution - an option that could work well is to have the 'by country' categories running alongside the classification categories, by using 'higher taxon by country'. Thus images from Gambia of Quelea quelea (which is in the family Ploceidae) could be both retained in Category:Quelea quelea, and also added separately to a Category:Ploceidae in Gambia. The images would then be easily found from both the taxonomic hierarchy and from the nation hierarchy. Would that be acceptable for Atamari? - MPF (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 Natürlich richten sich die meisten Spezies nicht nach Grenzen, es sei denn sie sind endemisch. Aber es soll ja nicht exakt nach enzyklopädischen Aspekten
 sortiert werden – sondern hier soll ein Bilderarchiv aufgebaut werden. Wir hoffen, dass dieser Bilderpool auch noch nach 25 Jahren bestand hat. Dann
 werden wir nicht nur 18 Mio. Bilder haben, sondern ein Vielfaches davon.

 Selbst bei einem kleinen Land wie Gambia wird die Kategorie „Birds of Gambia“ hoffnungslos überfüllt sein. Wie sie jetzt schon wäre, wenn nicht sinnvoll
 nach Taxon sortiert ist. Die Kategorien haben primären Zweck, die Kategorie unterhalb des Staats sinnvoll zusammen zu fassen. 

 Einige Arten sind schon so häufig fotografiert, wie beispielsweise Passer domesticus – da ist ein sammeln in der Hautkategorie nicht mehr
 sinnvoll. Im Beispiel ist schon category:Passer domesticus by country angefangen. Die Category:Passer domesticus sehe ich auch schon als
 ideal an, sie ist zukunftsfähig – so was gefällt mir. Was man sich dann noch gut vorstellen kann, ist eine
 category:Quality images of Passer domesticus.

 Also, meine Intension ist es nicht nur nach Spezies zu kategorisieren, sondern auch andere Themengebiete zu erschließen. Geografische Portale gibt es zu
 jedem Staat, da ist nur naheliegend – die Geografie/die Natur/die Vogelwelt/die Sperlingsvögel/die Sperlinge zu kategorisieren.

 Eine Zusammenfassung nach Gattung ist auch eine sinnvolle Unterteilung für category:Birds of Gambia - aber das wäre für den Weg in 25 Jahren auch
 nur ein Zwischenschritt.

via Google translator:

Of course, most species do not conform to boundaries unless they are endemic. But it is not supposed to be sorted exactly as encyclopedic aspects - but here is a picture archive be established. We hope that these pictures pool has existed even after 25 years. Then we will not only have 18 million pictures, but a multiple thereof.

Even in a small country like The Gambia will be overcrowded the category "Birds of The Gambia ". See how it would be now if does not make sense sorted by taxon . The categories have primary purpose is to summarize the useful category under the State together.

Some species are so often photographed , such as Passer domesticus - there is a gain not more useful in the skin category. In the example already category:Passer domesticus by country started. The Category:Passer domesticus I also have to be ideal , it is the future - something like that. What you can still find good, a category:Quality images of passer domesticus.

So, my intention is not only to categorize the species , but also to tap into other subject areas. Geographic portals , for every state , there is only obvious - the geography / nature / bird life / the Passerines / categorize the sparrows.

A summary of species is also a useful division for category:Birds of Gambia - but that would be the way in 25 years and only an intermediate step.

--Atamari (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"We hope that these pictures pool has existed even after 25 years. Then we will not only have 18 million pictures, but a multiple thereof" - that is true, but not relevant here and now. Cross that bridge when we come to it. The needs for category re-assessment should be made when they are required, not 25 years in advance of when they are required. For the time being, there are a few photos of Quelea quelea from Gambia, and even fewer - or none - from most other nearby African nations. It simply does not make sense to split up Category:Quelea quelea into 25 national subcategories when there are only 20 images in total, and would make finding the single best image of Quelea quelea a thankless task. It might be necessary by 2038, it might not. I suspect probably not. But wait and see - if it is necessary then, it can be done then. Not now. - MPF (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Flickr human review[edit]

If you have some time, feel free to mark a few images here. Perhaps 7-10 images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do! This one - File:Batmantheridebanner.png - it's in the USA, can a rollercoaster be a copyrighted design? If yes, with no FOP in the USA (it's in California), the license at Flickr isn't valid. - MPF (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I'll ask Admin Lymantria to decide here on this image. Thanks for marking some. I marked some images last night and the day before and it looked like no one else was marking any. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I strongly suspect it will have to go. Among the others I did, two were not commons-compatible licenses (one all rights reserved, one non-commercial), so I speedy-deleted them - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it doesn't, because a roller coaster is a "useful object", see for instance {{Useful-object-US}}. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting one! A useful object for keeping kids amused, I guess. Though whether the amusement park owner would consider their ride 'utilitarian' is another matter ;-) MPF (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's one of his money machines, isn't it? :P Lymantria (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought it might be utilitarian but wasn't sure. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please perform deletions[edit]

Hello. I need the deletion of two pages - a file and an obsolete redir, and need them deleted asap in order to possibly step on with derived edits and uploads. Thank you in advance. Orrlingtalk 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
You're thanked! Orrlingtalk 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for Identification of Aethopyga siparaja-Krish Dulal (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've done the renaming - MPF (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PinusFlexilis Image deletion[edit]

You removed my image: PinusFlexilis-NeedleDetail.jpg at 12:25, 23 September 2013‎ indicating it was improperly named. Please provide correct identification so that I may correct the professional botanists at the Krohn Conservatory in Cincinnati. I noted that there was a second Pinus Flexilis image that was considered to be incorrectly identified - is there a possibility that you confused the two images or are the botanists in error? Regards Greg5030 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greg - I renamed the photo as File:Pinus-NeedleDetail.jpg. It is clearly not Pinus flexilis, as it has needles in pairs with persistent needle sheaths (vs. needles in fives, and a deciduous needle sheath). Unfortunately, there isn't enough detail visible in the photo for an exact identification; my best guess is Pinus nigra, but there are two or three other possibilities - a close-up of a cone would help clinch the identification. Presumably, the tree is wrongly labelled at Krohn; I would suspect vandalism (kids switching labels as a joke) rather than an error on the part of Krohn's botanists. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Help for image uploads[edit]

Hello, how can we upload picture published by an organization with Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) ? One of our community member has got picture files in a pen-drive from the organization and uploaded in commons but those were deleted. Which license should we provide for such pictures? hoping for your quick response. -Krish Dulal (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Krish - unfortunately, NoDerivs (-ND) are not valid for Commons, any images uploaded here need to be licensed for derivatives to be allowed. Ask the license holding organization if they are willing to change their license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanx MPF, but what about pictures provided in pen-drive? They have allowed us to publish but not in paper. -Krish Dulal (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly the same - if the license is not compatible with what Commons allows, we can't upload them here. - MPF (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Archilochus colubris[edit]

Please comment on the identification of Archilochus colubris, if you would.[6] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. - MPF (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Thank you very much for this update. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinus greggii range map.png[edit]

I'm confused about your upadate to File:Pinus greggii range map.png about a year ago. I haven't found a copy of Donahue & Lopez-Upton's 1999 article, but I wouldn't think it would have dismissed the populations shown on the Elbert Little map. Were they found to have been another species entirely? Why weren't the newly discovered populations just merged with the old ones on the map? -- Nonenmac (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a mix-up at the USGS web source, the maps for Pinus greggii and Pinus patula there are switched (apart from the dot in Chiapas); obvious if you look at the original primary source of Critchfield & Little 1966 (which I have a paper copy of). Which reminds me, I never got round to correcting the Pinus patula map . . . better do that, too (so thanks for this, as a reminder!) - MPF (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes much more sense. -- Nonenmac (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been uploading "clean" versions of USGS maps (without the striping problems that most of those maps on commons have). That's how I noticed the discrepency with P. greggii. So I went ahead and uploaded some P. patula maps. You might want to check them to see if I missed something. I did finally put the dot in Chiapas. I've been uploading 2 or 3 different zoom levels of each map, including the full uncropped maps of North America, figuring users can crop those if my crop level doesn't suit their purposes. -- Nonenmac (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check it out. I'd already removed the striping from quite a few of the maps, though far from all. More widely though, there's a bigger problem with a lot of these maps, as USGS hint on their page, that taxonomy has moved on a long way since the data used to compile the maps (in particular for the 1966 data on the Pinus maps). Several are very outdated with respect to species splits, and also new discoveries (particularly in, though not limited to, Mexico). Some (mostly the same ones as I'd de-striped), I'd already updated the maps. But the new uploads don't incorporate the updates - I guess I should update all of them? I don't think it's a good idea to present 50-year old maps as "current" on wikipedia pages. - MPF (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Addenum - I checked the P. patula maps, yep, you got it right (not surprising as I see you found the 1966 original online!) I've converted the old inaccurate one into a redirect to the new upload. Though even the new upload has taxonomic problems, as that Chiapas population is now split as Pinus tecunumanii (split in 1983). But that's a separate matter from the USGS mixup. - MPF (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll go back and double-check the maps that I've uploaded to make sure I didn't miss any changes that have been made. I agree that they should be as up-to-date as possible.--Nonenmac (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! In a quick run through the USGS list, species with significant distribution changes I know of include:
  • Cupressus arizonica (split into 5 species)
  • Cupressus goveniana (split into 3 species)
  • Cupressus guadalupensis (split into 2 species)
  • Fagus grandifolia (split into 2 species)
  • Picea chihuahuana (split into 2 species)
  • Picea engelmannii (new populations [subsp. mexicana] in Mexico)
  • Pinus ayacahuite (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus caribaea (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus cembroides (split into 4 species)
  • Pinus edulis / Pinus monophylla (transfer of ssp. fallax from P.e. to P.m.)
  • Pinus maximartinezii (new population discovered)
  • Pinus oocarpa (split into 3 species)
  • Pinus patula (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus ponderosa (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus pseudostrobus (split into 3 species)
  • Pinus strobus (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus strobiformis (split into 2 species)
  • Pinus washoensis (now a synonym of P. ponderosa)
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii (split into 2 species)
  • Taxodium distichum (split into 2 species)
Probably also some others among genera I'm less familiar with. Not all of these changes are universally accepted; in particular some sources seem to consider E.L.Little's work as sacred scripture and immutable whatever scientific evidence shows, but I'm not greatly in favour of accomodating flat-earthers and creationists ;-) MPF (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks that will speed up my search. I've already fixed several.--Nonenmac (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello my friend,
Did you see that I am solving our very little disagreement arround {{VN}}:
Look at Caridea:

  • all the interwiki comes from wikidata.
  • all the blue links in the {{VN}} comes from wikidata.

We will soon get rid of all syntax about languages.
But the process of suppressing interwiki and lines in {{VN}} must be done carefully by a bot. This because all the info missing in wikidata must be left in commons.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liné - thanks for the note! I can see it solving many problems, but also creating some new ones. First, one in the example you gave, the category has lost its interwiki to Simple English (which it should have, as the page exists, but it does not have a taxobox to trigger wikidata inclusion?), but also Simple English has an entry in the VN list (which should not be there, as it is not a separate language from English). The French interwiki is also lost. More problems I can see also in that there has been a concerted attack in en:wiki against the use of capitalised English names in favour of a rather random but mainly lower-case style favoured by newspapers, despite capitalisation being the standard in most authoritative name databases (e.g. BSBI) and books; I strongly feel that in commons (and also wikispecies), we should follow the style of the official naming authrities like BSBI and not the newspaper style now enforced at en:wiki. Can you set wikidata so that any English names follow the official capitalised style? Also, one other thing I have noticed a couple of times in wikidata is it setting a single image as the 'standard' image for that taxon. I don't think this is a good idea; in one case I saw it resulted in the image displayed on a wiki not matching the existing image caption (in this case, I changed the image shown by wikidata). Also I think different wikis will often wish to use a different image, e.g. fr:wiki will want to have a specimen at a location in France, da:wiki a specimen in Denmark, es:wiki a specimen in Spain, and so on. So I think it would perhaps be best if wikidata did not include an image in its listings. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes it has lost the simple english. But is worse than that: they associated wikidata category with commons category and wikidata article with commons gallery. So they did reintroduced the war category vs gallery. This is under discussion somewhere, but I cannot find where. As fr.wikipedia can only have categories for order and families => 90% of commons categories won't have a fr interwiki
  • Do you want me to merge english and simple-english in the {{VN}} ?
  • Could you give me example of this capitalisation error ? So that I can try do something ?
  • About the image, it is an error of the taxobox template writer: he should take wikidata image only if an image is not provided as parameter.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liné - sorry, been forgetting to reply. First point, yes, could you merge Simple English into English, please. What would be a useful addition though would be en-us (or just 'us'?) for American language (where it differs from normal English, as at e.g. Uria lomvia, I have just put it in there), it isn't currently available. Second point; see the discussion here, where decapitalisation was rather railroaded in without good consensus; for an example recently decapitalised page, here. Thanks for the clarification on the category vs gallery problem, and the images, too. - MPF (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I added en-us for you.
I suppressed parameter simple from {{VN}}
and merged en= and simple= in their usage. The parameter simple was often wrong:
  • same as en (not wrong but useless)
  • scientific name
  • the vernacular name of only one of the subtaxon (scientificaly incorrect)
  • a shortcut of the vernacular name (without the 'american' part: a typical behavior to forget other part of the world)
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pteridium aquilinum[edit]


Thank you for the correct identifications! DenesFeri (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Пейзаж в Лебедівці 1.JPG[edit]

Hallo! Are you sure it is Chroicocephalus ridibundus on the picture? Am I not sure we have this species in Ukraine, because here we have similar species, Larus cachinnans! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Chroicocephalus ridibundus (Мартин звичайний) is common in Ukraine (maybe you know it under the old scientific name Larus ridibundus?). You can see the head pattern typical of a specimen moulting from summer into winter plumage. - MPF (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
OK! Not a problem! Best wishes. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Location[edit]

Hi. That picture was taken in Quinched, Chonchi, Chile. Accords GoogleMapss, its coordinates are -42.56575, -73.7668. Bye. Lin linao ¿dime? 04:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Gracias! - MPF (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Pictures of Podocarpus saligna were taken in Teja Island, Valdivia, Chile. Accords GoogleMaps, coordinates of first location are -39.8069 -73.2519, and for second one are -39.8062 -73.2530. Bye. Lin linao ¿dime? 05:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Eider down[edit]

I think, the category Eider down (singular is ok?) cannot be correct for skins(!) of Somateria mollissima. Bird skins are no downs, and the context to Somateria mollissima is also lost. --Kürschner (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a better category for it, please do! But all species of Somateria may be used in this manner, the individual species is not important in this context (can you guarantee there are no S. spectabilis skins used on the items in the relevant photos??) - MPF (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to add, yes, eider down is a non-countable noun in this context, so no plural -s - MPF (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Just short, before a walk outside: Better a not exact category, as a not findable image, I think. This is the chance for people which know it corretly to change it. --Kürschner (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


I took the pics from North China Shijiazhuang city, but now it is in winter here and the tree have no leaves. there are lot of pics in category I think.--Fanghong (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there are lots of photos in the category, but they are almost all of non-native (cultivated / naturalised) plants, not wild specimens in their native habitat. The latter are far more valuable scientifically, so it is best to get such images where possible. So if you possibly can, please do ;-) MPF (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Copernicia alba.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Copernicia alba.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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 21:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


For your problem I VI Suggested ask User:Myrabella Good day... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Just added location information to File:Kleiber pae.jpg Cheers, Paethon (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of categories.[edit]

Hello MPF !

I would like to know why you removed the categories Église Saint-Martin de Biez and Champ de l'Hospice, Grez-Doiceau from my picture L'église de Biez vue depuis le Champ de l'Hospice à Grez-Doiceau 001.

I know neither of both have been created yet, but in my opinion, the first one was justified because the aforementioned church (which I mentioned in the title of the file) was visible atop the distant hill, at the horizon, while the second one points at the path from which the picture was takenn which is called "Champ de l'Hospice".

I often walk around in Grez-Doiceau, taking pictures. When uploading these pictures to Wikimedia Commons, I had somehow in mind that anyone interested in the evolution of landscapes in this commune or interested in creating a small guide for walks and hikes could use them, in which case an odonymic indication might be useful. I intended to create categories for a number of pathways, streets and roads in the commune after having uploaded a sufficent number of pictures, when I would have some time.

Considering this, do you think it would be appropriate to add the categories back?

I wish you nice end year celebrations !  :-)


VerboseDreamer (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was (as you suspected!) because the categories did not exist; I am frequently removing 'red' categories from files. Having images categorised in non-existent categories does not help people find them! By all means add them to the image again when the categories have been created. Hope this helps! Best wishes for 2014 ;-) MPF (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It does help indeed.  :-) I'll try to create the red categories for my files later this week. Best wishes to you too. VerboseDreamer (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorghum halepense[edit]

You requested photos of Category:Sorghum halepense from Israel. I don't think I could identify it if wanted, but you need more than [this usable material]? Danny lost (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, but yes, I do need other than those from those from bugwood - as mentioned in my request, what Commons is lacking is specimens shown in their native environment. The ones at bugwood are all non-natural material. - MPF (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Hello my friend,
Would you mind:

I did a check to verify if ITIS identifior is the same as Property:P815 on wikidata.
In case of difference, it fills Category:Pages with biology property different than on Wikidata.
Of course, I did the same for other templates ;-).
Happy new year! Liné1 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

dead feral pigeons[edit]

Hallo MPF,

how do you know File:Dead pigeon in snow.JPG is a feral pigeon? To me it does look like a Fancy pigeon --> what is the reason, we desided to go without "dead feral pigeons", "dead fancy pigeons", "dead sporting pigeons", "dead racing pigeons"-categories and equals in Category:Pigeon life cycle.

Would it be OK to cancel Category:Feral pigeons (dead), again? If you are 100 percent sure it is a feral one, you may ad Category:Feral pigeons as well.

Best regards, --PigeonIP (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi PigeonIP - I have no proof that it is a feral bird (as opposed to one owned and cared for by someone), but my presumption is that a bird which is being looked after, is unlikely to end up dead in this situation. As to the plumage - "To me it does look like a Fancy pigeon" - 'fancy' pigeons with this plumage are as likely to escape and join feral flocks as any other breed. I frequently see individuals with this plumage pattern in feral populations. But do change it to whatever category you think most appropriate. - MPF (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Be sure: it was no feral one.[7]
as for: a bird which is being looked after, is unlikely to end up dead in this situation: Two days ago, I lost one myself (two more the last weeks) and it looked exactly like that.
The question is: are Categories like Category:Feral pigeons (dead), Category:Fancy pigeons (dead), Category:Sporting pigeons (dead) and Category:Racing pigeons (dead) really necessary or useful? Isn't Category:Dead pigeons enough? --PigeonIP (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi PigeonIP - thanks! Yes, from the page history, it was a captive bird (that category had been removed before I edited the file, though). Yes, I would say there are sufficient relevant files to retain Category:Feral pigeons (dead) and probably also to create a similar Category:Domesticated pigeons (dead) - Category:Dead pigeons contains all deceased Columbidae, e.g. there are a couple of dead Columba palumbus in the category, and several others not identifiable to species (actually, it should really be renamed Category:Dead Columbidae or Category:Columbidae (dead), to fit with the established scientific name usage). - MPF (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The couple of dead Columba palumbus should be sortet in a cat like Category:Columbidae (dead) + Category:Columba palumbus. pigeons-categories are for domestic forms of Columbida. (see Category:Pigeons, that was implemented, because Category:Domesticated pigeons did not work, the situation with new uploads is much better now. There were some pigeons/dove-discussions, as well)
--PigeonIP (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem there is that 'pigeons' is imprecise, it can mean both all Columbidae, and just Columba livia. How do you indicate to users that in the case of Category:Dead pigeons it is only to be treated in the second, restricted sense?
As an aside, "Columba livia f. domestica" is not a valid scientific name ;-) Zoology does not use the rank of forma, only botany does so. MPF (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Columba livia f. domestica --> I know! But I am tired of these discussions on Commons + Wikipedia + Wikidata, all over again (on data "my" breeds where feral pigeons for some time, cause someone merged feral and domesticated pigeons, maybe because both where marked as domestica.)
as for indication: ok so? --PigeonIP (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Watsonian boundaries[edit]

To which note are you referring to here? I've never seen any notes to that effect, although I don't often deal with botanical images. Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ultra7 - if you click on edit you'll see it; unfortunately this isn't visible when using things like Cat-a-lot or HotCat, so you wouldn't have noticed it. For more info on botanical recording, see en:Vice-county. When I can find the time, I'll split the Flora of Northumberland cat into South Northumberland (v.c. 67) and North Northumberland (v.c. 68). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't have seen that. If you need people like me (commons regulars who use tools for categorisation but don't regularly deal with botanical images) to know that, I suggest something like an information template, which can be added to the description page of every category in the branch that uses this convention (obviously it would be best to use a bot to place the actual template). That's where I would expect to find notes like this. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, agreed; unfortunately, I don't know how to create complex templates like that! - MPF (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but I've created one for you, at Template:Use vice-county. The way you use this template is to edit a category page, adding {{Use vice-county}} at the top, which will display the following:
English: Images in this category should be categorised by vice-county
You would need a bot to add it to every category, which I have no idea how to do (or even where to ask). Once that's done though, the advantage is that if you ever want to change what it says, you only need to edit the template page itself, the changes will then be visible on every category that it is used on. And then, whenever you create a new category, adding {{Use vice-county}} is all that is needed. In the meantime, it's probably best to simply add it to the top level cats, like Trees by county (which is where I looked when you first mentioned the note). It's not perfect by any means, but all the other features you normally see on these things are beyond my current expertise (adding an icon, colour, automatically mentioning the category name, etc). Obviously, add it to your watchlist if you're going to use it (and probably protect it, policy permitting - knowing about that sort of thing is definitely above my paygrade). Ultra7 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work on it and/or ask advice from others over the next few days - MPF (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I'm very unsure about using the vice-counties for categorisation in this manner. I would prefer to see some sort of consensus established on their use (possibly via CFD or the VP). The fact you pointed at a note, rather than a discussion, suggests there is no such consensus at this time.

I have a number of concerns:

  1. First off the vice-county boundaries are different - should we use the same name for the different concepts? eg The vice-counties of County Durham and North Devon are very different to those terms as used in local government (first includes half of Tyne and Wear, second is much bigger than the district of North Devon.
  2. Some of the differences are more subtle, which are harder to identify. eg Category:Werrington, Cornwall is in the vice-county of North Devon, and the Watsonian split of Norfolk and Suffolk looks like a straight north-south line not corresponding even to parish boundaries (generally the lowest level of geolocation).
  3. Aside the obvious confusion introduced, this makes error detection harder as well. Geograph files are mostly placed in "Geograph in county" cats which allows CatScans to detect errors. If vice-counties are used then File:Werrington, oak tree - - 457031.jpg should be in (North) Devon and would be falsely identified as an error. This is important, because the initial GeographBot categorisation got the county wrong in many thousands of cases (for instance). Using cats like Category:County Durham (vice-county) to make the distinction clearer would resolve these three issues.
  4. However, a more fundamental issue is when should the vice-counties be used at all? They aren't used by everyone in the UK for all biological purposes eg The Woodland Trust uses the modern counties for the Ancient Tree Hunt, as does Natural England for SSSIs. To me that suggests against using them for everything in Category:Flora of the United Kingdom (and Fungi, Animals etc) instead of the standard scheme, but their use should be rather more considered (eg via a parallel tree, or only in certain situations). eg Doesn't strike me as sensible to use them for ones like Category:Flower beds in the United Kingdom--Nilfanion (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:County Durham VC66 would make better sense for the name. As to whether they should be used: yes, absolutely they should. They may not be used by everyone, but they are used by most, including very importantly, the official biological recording organisations like BSBI, etc. Things like Category:Flower beds in the United Kingdom are not relevant to the issue, as cultivated plants are not part of the flora of a region and should no more be included in it than e.g. Category:Barack Obama in the United Kingdom should be a subcategory of Category:People of the United Kingdom. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the BSBI uses them - I am not automatically convinced that that means we should, which I why I recommend a stronger consensus is established on how to use them. There are 3 alternatives: Use standard county info only, use vice-county only, use both in parallel. Looking at Category:Trees in England, and its by-location sub-cats, the categories are following the standard non-biological scheme (eg Category:Trees in England->Category:Trees in London->Category:Trees in the London Borough of Enfield‎). This is probably best way to support location-based searches by general public (who are generally unaware of vice-counties). They wouldn't look for Enfield's trees in Hertfordshire, and would look for Newcastle's in Tyne and Wear. This suggests vice-counties are not a suitable replacement, at least for biologically broad categories like trees, birds or insects. As a complementary resource they are certainly useful.
Parenthetical disambiguation may make more sense, as it makes it more explicit what the cat is, and reduces change of good-faith changes to the admin county (like Ultra7's).
I brought up flower beds, because they are a subcat of flora. You could have a situation where you have an image in Category:Flower beds in Newcastle upon Tyne and Category:Hyacinthoides in County Durham‎, which is absurd. It may be unclear if a plant in a park is cultivated or not (especially trees), so the same species may be treated differently in different circumstances.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Anser cygnoides head.jpg[edit]

It seems the file-name and included category are different. Could you check and correct it? Jee 04:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Have look on this, please. Jee 05:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Note added. - MPF (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Setophaga coronata[edit]

MPF, thanks for editing categories for File:Pine cones Mammoth Lakes CA 01.jpg‎ and File:Pine cones Mammoth Lakes CA 02.jpg‎. It was exactly what the image files needed, as I can't tell pine trees apart, let alone pine cones; all I could provide was info on the location. BTW, I see that you are a species expert... and I was wondering if you could take a look at this issue whenever you have time. Thanks in advance. --Nandaro (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!, and Done - MPF (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Before the Chinese New Year ... I hereby bestow upon thee, this bright star, to bring thee Peace and joy. Sincerely Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ;-) MPF (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Buteo buteo dis.PNG[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Buteo buteo dis.PNG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Please restore the old version of File:Psittacopasserae.jpg and consider making it the current version. The "non-free" image was found to be free after all and restored at . Davidwr (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Done - MPF (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Milvus milvus (portrait).jpg[edit]

I just opened a discussion on the generic concerns on Commons:File renaming at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:File_renaming. Please share your opinions too if any. I see some merits in renaming; but concerned on some side effects too. Hope we people can arrive into a gentleman agreement. ;) Jee 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Estonia arbaro[edit]

Hello, and thanks for this (and for identifying the Eriophorum, too). What’s the related file that helps to locate this place on Estonia, though? -- Tuválkin 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tuvalkin - by going to the photographer's facebook account, it states Estonia there; the habitat in the photo does not conflict with that. Obviously there is a small chance the photo was taken away from the photographer's home base, but I see nothing to suggest it is not in Estonia - MPF (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you. I take the liberty of copying this discussion to the file’s talk page. -- Tuválkin 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Acer saccharides vs. Acer platanoides[edit]

I see that you edited File:Acer_saccharum_seedling_Quebec.jpg to show these leaves as Acer platanoides. Given that the file was apparently from Quebec, and that is outside the normal range for platanoides, it's very possible that the original uploader was correct. I'm reverting your change and discussing this on the attached talk page. I'm not an expert, my reversion is not a claim that you are incorrect, but that this has not been established based on any reliable source or information that is verifiable. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing some more looking, platanoides might also be found in Quebec. However, we still need to know how to differentiate platanoides from saccharides. This file is used on Wikiversity as part of a plant identification resource, so resolving this is important for the educational purpose. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abd - the original uploader and identifier was me ;-) - the Flickr original is only identified to genus. I realised I'd made a mistake when I compared it with other images, and corrected it. The important differences are (a) the sharply pointed (almost bristle-tipped) leaf lobes and (b) glossy leaves, both A. platanoides characters; c.f. blunt-tipped lobes and generally matt leaves of A. saccharum. Not sure if you'd noticed, but I also replaced the image at Wikiversity (using an ip number as I don't have an account there) with a true A. saccharum photo. As to distribution, A. platanoides is common in Quebec, being listed as an invasive alien (ref), as it is also in most of the rest of eastern North America. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the edit here because of the edit there. Yes as to distribution. I'm not utterly convinced, though, the bristle tips seem not as strong as on other images of platanoides. Nevertheless, I will restore your edit with a little change that calls attention to the misidentification. This should really be confirmed independently if possible. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

about ducks[edit]


On this picture File:Anas platyrhynchos - wetland 7.jpg the ducks might be Anas capensis File:Anas capensis wetland 5.jpg; because of the same date and place + the spots on their underside? Could this be File:Anas platyrhynchos - wetland 10.jpg Aythya fuligula File:Aythya fuligula - wetland 5.jpg? And thank you for the correct identifications! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denes - thanks! Yes, Aythya fuligula for the second - I was pretty near certain on that before, only put it in 'unidentified' as it is in a zoo so the possibilities (e.g. hybrids) are wider. I'll check the first one again. - MPF (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks also! DenesFeri (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

answer: Rhea pennata[edit]

Hello MPF. I'd rather not give details of the locations where I took some photographs. Greetings. --CHUCAO (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Checking images from Panoramio[edit]

Hi Sir. I uploaded new images from Panoramio and mentioned template:Panoramioreview. May you check the license like past time? thanx.Iranian engineer (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do! - MPF (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Why did you delete Category:Wheatgrass? This is name for a plant and food - see d:Q248408 for the various languages using this designation. You said "Undefined name of no useful meaning", but there are multiple Wikipedia articles about this topic. Could you recreate it and start a deletion discussion if you object? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There were photos of about ten diverse different species of grass that had been placed in the category which bore no common factor other than ultimately being members of (various subcategories of) Category:Poaceae. If a single species is involved, then we use the scientific name as the category, not an undefined name without any clear meaning. Looking at d:Q248408, the obvious category name to use is Category:Triticum aestivum, or to create a subcategory of it, perhaps Category:Triticum aestivum seedlings or Category:Triticum aestivum cotyledons - and then not include the vast majority of the images that had been dumped in the old category. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

too many categories[edit]

Many thanks for your help. Should I note this for the future or delete categories from my existing images? Charles (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi MPF, the account Lycaon is blocked since long and no longer used. You should notify the user at User talk:Biopics. He asked for deletion of his old talkpage, which I have performed. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinus bhutanica[edit]

Hi !

We were really really far from the subject when I clicked Buteo burmanicus . But surely will upload all that I have. Thanks for the info.

Identifying birds[edit]

Hello. Thank you for identification of the birds I uploaded using ZankaM account. Usually I have some ideas of what bird is on photo and use this in the description. Last Cuban photos (File:Cuba undefined bird2.jpg, File:Agelaius humeralis, Holguin, Cuba.jpg ) were completely unpredictable for me. Actually, I believed that these two are from one species. However, after you identified one of them, I searched one more time avibase list ([8]) and think that second species could be Shiny cowbird (Category:Molothrus bonariensis). What do you think about it? --Zanka (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that looks a good call. - MPF (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Great! Could you rename file than or we need some third opinion? --Zanka (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Done! Moved to File:Molothrus bonariensis female, Holguin, Cuba.jpg - MPF (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll probably upload few more photo of birds unknown for me soon. --Zanka (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find your emailaddres my name is Peter van der Sluijs username toilet the bird was taken in Brielle (Holland) my English writing is not so good I hope that you can understand me


I have locations for File:Plant .jpg and File:Plant 2.jpg, I'm not sure how to add them but they are Latitude 53.525663, Longitude -2.918589 Novalia (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also same to her. i am a new user to commons. plz help. how to add???--Aathavan jaffna (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cupressaceae in Slovenia[edit]

Hi, why are you deleting the category all the time? It fits nicely with the category tree, categorizing the flora of Slovenia by orders and families. We also have such categories for other plant families, therefore what's wrong with this one? Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 22:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC) P.S.: I think we have a discussion process for contentious categories.

Plants don't follow human political boundaries; neither is "Cupressaceae in Slovenia" a genus in Cupressaceae (as which you had it listed). This sort of subdivision also makes images difficult to find, as it means searching through (potentially) 190 subcategories, instead of just one or two - which defeats the purpose of categories. - MPF (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, I think that as we do list all the species living in a certain country in scholarly literature (e.g. for Slovenia, that would be Mala flora Slovenije), the same would be very usable here: to have a collection of images of (all) plants living in a certain country. If "Cupressaceae in Slovenia" was truly categorised as a genus, that's another matter, a simple mistake that can be quickly fixed. As to the searching, we can also categorise plants by species and genus and per month and plant anatomy to allow for easy searching, whereas large categories don't really allow to easy search for relevant material; it's like a needle in a haystack. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinus mugo[edit]

Hallo MPF, That picture of Pinus mugo was taken on Gothard Farm, in the middle between Ottawa and Montreal about 45.468293, -74.588658, where we took saplings for building decorative garden on Mazepa Farm, some 10 km to the north, about 45.4506587,-74.5301851,407. So now it grows there - in the Ukrainian article on Pinus mugo (Сосна гірська) there is also picture from Mazepa Farm. All the best, Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Sugar-apple 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 gallery, 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.
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 | 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Briarfallen (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron giganteum (trunks) category?[edit]

Hi, MPF. What did you intend to do with Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (trunks)? Delete? Redirect? I don't think we should just leave it empty... — hike395 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hike - I'm awaiting a response from User:Tangopaso who made it. The problem is, it wasn't well-thought out, and resulted in serious information loss with natural and cultivated trees mixed together in the same category, which they shouldn't be. One option would be simply to delete it; another would be to retain it as a subcat of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum, and make a new cat, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, trunks), as a subcat of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated). The important thing is not to mix natural and unnatural in the same category. Do you have any suggestions? - MPF (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I thought that it is interesting to create subcategories for cones, trunks, bark, foliage, and so on. Because :
I am not sure that a cone of a cultivated sequoia is very different from the cone of a sequoia in the wild. And gathering images of cones, foliage or trunks make an easier identification.--Tangopaso (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
And you created another redundancy in my File:Sequoiadendron giganteum (Rentilly) trunk.jpg.
Its categories are Category:Château de Rentilly, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum cultivated in Seine-et-Marne, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated). And obviously Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum cultivated in Seine-et-Marne, is linked to Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated) ; (Seine-et-Marne is a departement of France).--Tangopaso (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a simple compromise here. I think that categories like Category:Trunks of Sequoiadendron giganteum, Category:Cones of Sequoiadendron giganteum can easily co-exist with Category:Wild Sequoiadendron giganteum and Category:Cultivated Sequoiadendron giganteum. Namely, a photograph can reside in two categories (e.g., trunks + cultivated), and it does not violate Commons:OVERCAT, because all of these categories should be peers and children of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum. No wild/cultivated information will be lost, and users who are searching for specific trunk photographs will be helped. Everyone wins. — hike395 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about creating the odd redundancy as in File:Sequoiadendron giganteum (Rentilly) trunk.jpg, they can easily be sorted (I've just done that one). Cases like File:Sequoia sempervirens Big Basin Redwoods State Park 8.jpg are trickier; Category:Big Basin Redwoods State Park actually shouldn't really be in Category:Sequoia sempervirens, as the pics in it could be of any thing in the state park, not just Sequoia sempervirens. But neither should it be reversed (S.s. in BBRSP) as it isn't endemic there, yet a link between them is desirable.
"I am not sure that a cone of a cultivated sequoia is very different from the cone of a sequoia in the wild" - yes, they can be, and often are. Cones on Sequoiadendron in the wild are significantly larger than those on cultivated trees; the reason for this is not known, but possibly due to differences in climate. But that comment also misses the important ecological aspects of natural versus human-influenced. Published floras don't include cultivated plants, just as bird checklists don't include birds in zoos. In 'birder's speak', wild is "genuine, real", while cultivated / captive is "plastic junk" and "not tickable". Ask any field biologist, or anyone else with a strong interest in observing and recording wildlife; they don't want their wildlife lists "contaminated" with cultivated or captive plants and animals. Additionally (though unusually, not relevant in this case), cultivated plants are very often of dubious identity due to hybridisation, etc.
There is also another problem with dividing species categories into multiple subcategories: external Commons users like the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) harvest Commons images automatically by detecting the taxonavigation template. Splitting out e.g. the foliage images into a separate subcategory denies EOL access to the images. That doesn't matter for the low value cultivated material, but for EOL to lose access to important images is a major loss to that site. Having all the photos of natural material gathered together in one category is very useful. - MPF (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"For some species, it is impossible to publish flora with only wild plants" - sad that Commons does not yet have any images of these in their native habitat. But sooner or later, it is likely some will be posted.
EOL gets images from multiple sources; Commons is one of the more important. Regrettably, EOL is getting many fewer than it could do from Commons, precisely because of this problem of overuse of subcategories. - MPF (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose to create Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, foliage) and Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, cones) as you proposed. Idem for Sequoia sempervirens. And perhaps also categories for trunks. Do you agree ? Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine! - MPF (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done for Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, cones) and Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cones).--Tangopaso (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Fab5669 - can you get a close-up of the foliage of File:Châlons - petit jard (40).JPG, please? It does not look like Pseudotsuga menziesii, more like Picea omorika, but there is not enough detail for definite identification in this photo. Merci! - MPF (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am not from Châlons-en-Champagne, and went to this city only for one day. So I can't get such close-up. But a plaque has been placed next to almost each tree. For this one, the text mentions (in French, sorry...) :
Sapin de Douglas - Pseudotsuga douglasii - Hauteur : 40 à 50 m - Longévité : 500 à 700 ans - Écorce : gris-brun, lisse puis rougeâtre et crevassée. - Feuille : persistante, mince, aplatie, molle, 2 raies blanches discrètes à la face inférieure. Disposée de part et d'autre des rameaux. - Fruit : cône allongé, de 5 à 10 cm, pendant, ne se désarticule pas.
Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga douglasii - Height: 40-50 m - Lifespan: 500-700 years - Bark: gray-brown, smooth then reddish and chapped. - Leaf: persistent, thin, flat, soft, 2 white discrete stripes on the underside. Arranged on both sides of the branches. - Fruit: elongated cone, from 5 to 10 cm, does not dislocate. --Fab5669 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014[edit]

Wiki Loves Earth Logo
Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014
Patrimônio Natural
Chapada Diamantina Jericoacoara Ceará.jpg Rio de Janeiro from Sugarloaf mountain, May 2004.jpg

Oi, MPF:

Estamos na reta final do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014! Você ainda poderá submeter mais fotos até o dia 31 de maio e ampliar suas chances na premiação de até R$2.500,00! Além da premiação em dinheiro, as melhores fotografias serão publicadas na edição de Agosto da revista impressa Fotografe Melhor da Editora Europa.

A comunidade Wikimedia Commons agradece a sua participação desde já, obrigado por enviar uma foto, esse material será usado em vários dos nossos projetos. Acesse o site do concurso e submeta mais fotografias! Contribua também divulgando para seus amigos, contatos e curtindo nossa página no Facebook

Em breve anunciaremos novidades sobre os vencedores e a exposição das melhores fotografias do concurso.


Movimento Wikimedia

Elk image[edit]

Better late than never :) Updated File:Elgportraet han (Alces alces).jpg - as requested. The elk is in a park, so in captivity. -Malene Thyssen (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcluding categories[edit]

Hi - as discussed on Liné's talk page, do feel free to transclude {{Category:Species name}} on subcategories of Category:Species name. EoL won't pick them up until my modification to the commons harvester is OKed and set to work. But that should only be a matter of weeks. If you do transclude, I suggest that you put the template that Liné and I worked out onto the page with the Taxonavigation – the simplest is to use {{subst:NoteTransclusion/subst}}. Don't forget to enclose any [[Category]] declarations in <noinclude> tags too. HYanWong (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello MPF,
I think that all the modifications from Ebraminio in our biology templates can be reverted.
He did not test them in any way. Its modifications cannot work on half the browsers. He did not use the sandbox templates...
And he seems admin... Strange...
He did modifications in:

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can revert 3 of them, the other 2 are protected.
Can you revert:
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for identification[edit]

Thank you for ıdentification of Circaetus gallicus. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nevit - you're welcome! I've seen plenty of them, including in Turkey ;-) MPF (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

palm sp.[edit]


Actually Hindustanilanguage idenified the palm in that picture as P. theophrasti. I just asked the renaming of it. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2014 - Ein sichtbarer Wiki-Beitrag für den Naturschutz[edit]


Hallo ,

vor gut einer Woche endete der zweimonatige Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth. Du hast daran aktiv teilgenommen und wir möchten Dir dafür herzlich danken.

Mit rund 14.500 Fotos hat Deutschland einen Anteil von 20 % an diesem internationalen Projekt erbracht, an dem sich 15 Länder beteiligten. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl an 729 Teilnehmern allein in Deutschland. Einen Überblick zu den Fotos und Teilnehmern findest du auf unserer WLE-Projektseite.

Gegenwärtig ist die deutsche Jury dabei, diesen wertvollen Fotobestand zu geschützten Naturlandschaften und Naturdenkmalen zu sichten. An diesem Wochenende wird in Hamburg die entscheidende Jury-Sitzung stattfinden. Wir wünschen auch Dir mit Deinem Foto-Beitrag dabei viel Glück und Erfolg.

Der nächste Fotowettbewerb steht bereits vor der Tür. Im September findet nun schon zum vierten Mal der Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt, wo die Kulturdenkmale im Vordergrund stehen. Doch du musst mit dem Fotografieren nicht bis zum September warten. Vielleicht kannst du den Sommer nutzen um entsprechend den offiziellen Denkmallisten geeignete Motive aufzuspüren. Ebenso kannst du gerne dabei helfen, die hochgeladenen Fotos zu kategorisieren oder in Wikipedia-Artikel und Listen einzubinden.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Noch ein Hinweis: Du kannst zukünftig bei den Fotowettbewerben gerne auch mehr Fotos hochladen. Eine Begrenzung auf nur ein Foto gibt es bei Wiki Loves Earth bzw. Wiki Loves Monuments nicht.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 12. Juli 2014)

Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014[edit]

Wiki Loves Earth Logo
Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014
Patrimônio Natural
Chapada Diamantina Jericoacoara Ceará.jpg Rio de Janeiro from Sugarloaf mountain, May 2004.jpg

Olá, MPF:

É com imensa satisfação que anunciamos os vencedores do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil. Recebemos cerca de 7.000 fotos com a participação de mais de 900 fotógrafos de todos os cantos do Brasil, as fotos submetidas contribuirão para a melhoria de vários artigos da Wikipédia e demais projetos Wikimedia. Confira a seguir a lista dos vencedores da etapa nacional do concurso:


Categoria Melhores Fotografias
  • 1º Carlos Perez Couto
  • 2º Roberto Pavezi Netto
  • 3º Eduardo Muruci
Categoria Melhores contribuições

Lista completa com todos os vencedores e a relação das 10 fotos que representarão o Brasil na etapa internacional do concurso:


Realizaremos uma exposição fotográfica durante o 10° Paraty em Foco - Festival Internacional de Fotografia de 24 a 28 de Setembro, que será realizado em Paraty - RJ. Nesta exposição exibiremos as fotos vencedoras e as melhores contribuições submetidas pelos participantes do concurso. Para saber mais sobre o evento, acesse Publicaremos maiores informações sobre a exposição na do concurso e em nosso grupo no Facebook

Revista Fotografe Melhor

A revista Fotografe Melhor publicará na edição de Agosto os vencedores e demais informações sobre o concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil. A revista estará disponível em formato digital a partir do dia 28/07 e nas bancas de todo país a partir do dia 4 de agosto.

Obrigado pela participação, Movimento Wikimedia


Hello MPF,
could you please explain why you moved the page Rosa species to Rosa? After all, the page was well linked from the main gallery and most people don't think only of rose species when they talk about roses...
I probably will only be able to look into it in a week as I'm on a holiday at the moment, but I am quite unhappy with the changes I just saw... I'd also like to know if it's possible to still recreate the gallery content of Rosa as your move seems to have merged the history of the pages, overwriting the old Rosa with Rosa species. If that's not possible, I'd ask you to be much more careful in the future as you are distroying hours of work without discussion.
Best wishes and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that action, --Anna reg (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just found the old Rosa gallery (and am very relieved to know that it still exists ;->).
I'm still not happy with the change (neither the new Rosa nor the new title for the old gallery), as the gallery is not about roses in cultivation, but my attempt to create an overview over the topic, showing different aspects of roses - from wild species to candy roses - and rose parts and rose species feature prominently in it. As most people looking at the gallery Rosa aren't botanist, I think that such an overview is more useful than a gallery showing solely rose species, which are of interest to only a part of the people visiting that page (not that I think that my attempt at an overview doesn't leave much room for improvement). Still looking forward to hearing your thoughts (and now with a bit more calmness than in my first outcry ;->)
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes! The move of "Rosa species" to "Rosa" is to bring it into line with other taxon classification galleries with a taxobox. The other, your gallery formerly named "Rosa" is a good gallery, but is not a scientific taxon gallery with listing of the species, so does not have a taxobox, nor belong at the scientific genus name, but have (per Commons language policy) a vernacular language title (default language, English). I thought "Roses in cultivation" would be a suitable name, but am happy to consider other names if there is something you would prefer. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A lot of other galleries about plants also have sections for cultivars and plants in art. I could imagine making a bigger species section in the overview gallery I made, but I really don't think that it's necessary to have all the species in the main gallery. Roses are after all a bit different to some other genera where the wild forms are at least as well-known as the cultivated forms. What do you think of the gallery Lilium to give an example of another plant with well-known wild forms and many cultivars?
The problem with moving an overview gallery to a name as the one you suggested is that it probably won't be found by most people - and a name like Roses just causes confusion - even more, as I'd like to create a gallery that is botanically correct and useful for everybody - at least in providing the links to the pages providing more detailed information. It therefore should have a taxobox (providing links to related plants is useful also for non-botanists), should show the difference between cultivars and species and where to find more information on each - and include other aspects of roses (as do the plant in art section of species with less pictures on commons than rosa (Category:Rosa has more than ten thousand pictures in its subcategories!).
I am more of the opinion that galleries for other plants missing aspects shown in pictures on commons should include them, rather than changing the main rose gallery to a species gallery...
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, don't like the Lilium gallery too much ;-) I don't think there's any need to worry about people having difficulty finding galleries, they can easily be cross-linked, and humans can cope with that sort of thing; very often, they are more likely to look with the English name than with the scientific name. Computer robots are far less versatile, and this is where the problem lies: organisations like the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL) harvest many of their photos robotically from Commons, and they do so by detecting the Taxonavigation and using that to direct the images to the correct EoL taxon page. But they only want natural biological taxa, and don't want to be cluttered up with thousands of pics of plant cultivars (or domesticated animals) as these are not biological taxa. On Commons, having multiple galleries to cover different aspects of a topic is no problem at all, so separate galleries for the biological taxa under the scientific name (and with taxonavigation), and for cultivars and other wider aspects (without taxonavigation), is very sensible. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It does help to understand your point of view. I still don't share it as I'm not creating galleries for bots but for humans - and I still think that of the 80 persons a day who find 'Rosa', most are not looking for a species gallery and would be happy about the overview. In my opinion galleries are very useful to illustrate topics and provide links to the subgalleries and -categories existing on commons and could be an asset for readers in general (and they will normally find the gallery with the logical name, which is also linked from the different wikipedia projects - in this case 'Rosa' - only a part of those people will carry on to follow links to subpages and subgalleries - all the more if the link they are looking for is provided at the very end of a long gallery with things they are not interested in) - but that doesn't really fit with your plan to create galleries for bots.
I'd like to try to get some more opinions on this topic as it would be great to find a solution everybody can accept (and I'm still quite unhappy with your solution and don't see how I should go on working on plant galleries with the knowledge that at least some users think that they should be primarily useful or bots...) - do you know where this could best be discussed?
--Anna reg (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello MPF,
I just started a discussion on Commons:Village pump, as I don't know any better place - I hope I didn't misrepresent anything. Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Hallo MPF,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

About an edit on File:Vache.jpg[edit]

Hi there. Did you do that because you believe it is not a bos taurus? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius - just moving it from a category to an appropriate subcategory :-) Bos taurus -> Cattle (i.e., domesticated Bos taurus) -> Cattle in France (regional grouping of domesticated Bos taurus) MPF (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok. Didn't check the categorization above "cattle". Thanks. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cultivated plants of the United States[edit]

Hi, MPF, thanks always for identifying species. I have a question about plants. Can Category:Cultivated plants of the United States be used for non-indigenous plants that are found in the U.S.? I have photos of jacarandas, bottlebrushes, lilies of the Nile, lantanas, etc. taken in California. I'd probably have to create a subcategory for each genus or something, but maybe there already are categories for such things, since Category:Cultivated plants of the United States and its subcategories don't seem to be used much (and the word "cultivated" doesn't seem to fit exactly anyway). I thought I'd ask for your guidance before doing anything. Thanks. --Nandaro (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nandaro - yes, it can; what you propose sounds very sensible. - MPF (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've created Category:Callistemon in the United States, Category:Cultivated plants in California and Category:Callistemon in California. Please let me know if I'm on the right track (before I create more categories like these). I've also created Category:Phoenix canariensis in California to help make Category:Palms in California less crowded. Face-smile.svg --Nandaro (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've also created Category:Eucalyptus in the United States under Category:Cultivated trees in the United States, to fill a gap between Category:Eucalyptus by country and Category:Eucalyptus in California. --Nandaro (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thank you for updating the Category Birds of Washington (state) with a lot of detailed categories and fixing the descriptions as well! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

identity Malus sylvestris[edit]

Hallo MPF, the photo was taken in the botanic garden of the University of Karlsruhe, Germany (KIT) and was labelled as Malus sylvestris. I'm not a specialist and it is possible, that the label was wrong (on the other hand, it is the garden of the Botanic Institute of the University...). --Llez (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No objections in renaming. --Llez (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinus pinaster pics[edit]

Hi Jack - please leave the photos of natural (not cultivated) Pinus pinaster, etc., in the species category; there are well short of the 200 images in the parent category so subdividing is counterproductive and not necessary. If they are removed into numerous minuscule subcategories, it makes them exceedingly tedious to find, and denies access to them to external users like the Encyclopedia of Life which use the taxonavigation as a target to access images. Also, please be very careful, when categorising plant photos, not to mix natural and cultivated specimens in the same category. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello MPF. Category:Pinus pinaster is like any other category. There are many Pinus pinasters in Charente-Maritime (France). Category:Pinus pinaster in Charente-Maritime is a more precise category than Category:Pinales in Charente-Maritime. So please leave these categories by countries. But exceptionally (COM:OVERCAT, more than 2 levels between), we can duplicate these pictures to Category:Pinus pinaster. Jack ma (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Bristlecone signs[edit]

Easily corrected with the addition of a new category. Famartin (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


Hey there! Could you check I've filled out the Information template correctly for this? Also, I have to say: it's really impressive that an image from 2005, back when we were actively discouraging high resolution images is still, by far, the best image in its category. That's really a sign of a good eye for photography. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I can probably add a bit of extra data, like the date I took it. Surprised, as I just took the pic without any thinking about composition. I'll have to dig out the slide and see if I can re-scan it at a higher resolution. - MPF (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wild deer species[edit]

Hi, MPF, I hope all is well for you. I took pictures of wild deer in the Eastern Sierra region of California in April. I've uploaded some of these photos (below) with Category:Unidentified Cervidae. My best guess is Odocoileus hemionus (perhaps Odocoileus hemionus californicus?), but I was wondering if you could verify it. No rush. Thanks. Nandaro (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cedrus atlantica injured trunk[edit]

Location : way from Itzer to Ajdir (near Aguelman Azigza), some 5 km after "forestry house" of Imi Quram, province of Khenifra, Middle Atlas, Morocco.

I translated the comment in French and English.

Can you have a look at English text ?

--Lucyin (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The same trunk, on side view : File:Buk cede coixhî.JPG
--Lucyin (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

taxodium distichum cones[edit]

why the distinction exactly? most people going to "taxodium distichum" would expect a subcat of cones. Famartin (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To ensure that natural and cultivated specimens are not mixed up in the same category. As I'm sure you'll understand, of primary importance. - MPF (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, most people going through here are probably more interested in sub-parts of the plants than distinquishing between cultivated versus wild (since they would look about the same and this is a site of images), so I added these cats back and made the cultivated ones subcats. Famartin (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Not too good an idea; it is important for the likes of external users like Encyclopedia of Life that all the images of natural specimens be together on the main taxon page that it harvests from. Removing all the photos of foliage of natural plants to a subcategory makes them unavailable to EoL, which is not good. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, I was not aware that Commons primarily served another website and not general users... Famartin (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It's for all. But gathering all the images together in one or two categories is better when there are under 200 images, it makes it much easier for general users to find them too, without having to click through numerous subcategories each with just 2 or 3 pics in. - MPF (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, though I often find anything more than, say, 50 a bit overwhelming. Famartin (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Far, far easier to check through 190 images all on the same page, than through 10 images on each of 19 different pages! 200 is the limit where they won't all fit onto one page (see e.g. Category:Unidentified plants!) - MPF (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


F.y.i. -- Tuválkin 02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Junipeus sabina in the Queyras[edit]

Dear MPF,

The Queyras is a part of the French Alps, adjacent to the Italian Piemonte. I have photographed the plant on a slope, on which the endemic Astragalus centralpinus was also growing.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the category[edit]

Thank you for the categorisation of [9] and the following pictures. Lionel Allorge (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Juniperus californica in Joshua Tree National Park is not the same as Category:Juniperus californica[edit]

Category:Juniperus californica in Joshua Tree National Park is not the same as Category:Juniperus californica since it categorizes files which belong to a specific location. Is there any reason why you removed those files from Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park by species category tree? --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not the same it is true, but it does split the Juniperus californica files into too many small categories, making it tedious to find them, and unavailable to robot-based image finders (which use the taxonavigation template). When there's nearing 200 photos of the species, that's the time to split the category; that's a long way away yet. - MPF (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I was splitting Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park which become to crazy and hard to manage, I never looked at Category:Juniperus californica. --Jarekt (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrectly categorizing of bird photos[edit]

Once again you have categorized photos incorrectly. The photographer confirmed me by e-mail that this is a wild bird File:Händkakk.jpg. If there is not mention in the description that the animal is in captive, then it is not in captive. Do not guess or make your own assumptions. You have categorized a lot of pictures incorrectly, by guessing that close-up bird photos is taken in captive when really they have been taken in the wild. Please, STOP guessing. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't adequate evidence to prove that it was wild, rather than captive - no detailed (only very vague) location information, no photographer's statement, no habitat evidence visible in the background. For species like this which are more likely to be protographed in captivity, lack of mention cannot be taken as proof of being wild: that needs a higher degree of evidence. Obviously I am pleased that it is of a wild specimen, but I couldn't assume so on the (lack of) evidence presented. - MPF (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said, if there is not mention in the description that the animal is in captive or you can not see on the photo that the animal is in captive (fences, jesses etc.) then you can't make assumptions like that. Some professional photographers get offended by that kind of argument. It is disrespectful toward the photographers. It seems that this needs to be discussed more generally in the Village pump. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, one can make assumptions like that. With many taxa, the vast majority of the photos are of captive animals and CC-licensed in-the-wild photos impossible to find. For species like these, photos cannot be accepted as of wild animals without adequate proof that they are genuinely wild - for a more extreme example, see e.g. Ailurus fulgens. And if the photographers fail to document their photos adequately, they can have no complaint. - MPF (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with MPF. Occasionally, an image will be incorrectly categorized. If so, it is easily corrected, as in this instance.[10] In my opinion, a good faith effort to categorize images that are not well-described adds value to them and should be encouraged. Geocoding or a good description of the location of the subject generally suffices to determine if the subject is wild or captive. Such information adds value to most images, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for fix my photos of birds, regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


I wonder about this edit. Why unused? --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the 'implausible' part of the reasoning. The problem is if a photo of a misidentified item has erroneously been put into dozens of articles in numerous wikipedias, Commons does not have a clear, easy method of doing a single-edit bulk removal (or replacement with a correctly identified photo), so I had to use this work-around of deleting the redirect. - MPF (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Mapa pinus pinea.png[edit]

You should upload it with a different name since it is a completely different image from that originally uploaded by Patrol110.--Carnby (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The old version is woefully inaccurate and very low resolution; emendation of inaccurate maps is permitted under the guidelines for uploading new versions. If I uploaded it under a new name, it would need editing into the numerous wikipedia articles the map is used on. - MPF (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Polunin & Walters (and my direct observations) your version is inaccurate as well. The delinking editings are not a problem: they can be done in a few minutes (I can help).--Carnby (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What's inaccurate about my version? It is derived (as cited) from the work of noted authorities on the species. Patrol110's version by contrast, shows it (because of the thick sweep of pen used for drawing) native across e.g. extensive high altitude areas of the Rhodope mountains of southern Bulgaria, where the species cannot even be cultivated, let alone occur naturalised or native. - MPF (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think now is better:

Take a look at the description page; I have corrected also all the wikilinks.--Carnby (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Though File:Mapa pinus pinea.png remains highly inaccurate; the Bulgaria example I gave was just one of many errors, another is e.g. showing it as native along the entire southern and eastern Black Sea shores, which it isn't, and another is its absence from the extensive areas of inland Spain where it is native. - MPF (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have copied it from an Italian book written by a renowed botanist (Luigi Fenaroli). As far as Italy is concerned your version is inaccurate too: two of the most famous Italian pinete are that of Ravenna and Grado (North Adriatic sea), completely absent in your map; the pine is also present along all the coasts of Ligurian and Tyrrhenian sea, sometimes also on the hills in Tuscany countryside (I know it well, since I live there).--Carnby (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ravenna, and the other Italian sites you mention, were deliberately excluded by Critchfield & Little: "we have omitted those stands known to be artificial in origin, such as the well-known forest near Ravenna in Italy" (Critchfield & Little 1966). The problem in determining exactly what is native and what is human in origin, for a species cultivated for over 6,000 years, is a tricky one; Rikli concluded that it can only be considered genuinely native in Iberia, the only area where it occurs widely away from known trade routes. This is supported by the distribution of its primary seed dispersal agent (Cyanopica cooki), also restricted to Iberia. - MPF (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your map anyway says "Ancient cultivation and/or naturalised" and, in my humble opinion (and that of most Italian botanists), the Italian area with ancient cultivations or naturalised populations is too small.--Carnby (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to add some pink on my map as relevant, that would be helpful, thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added Italian pinete in pink according to Fenaroli.--Carnby (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Eadweard Muybridge-related bird categories[edit]


Yes, feel free to rename them to whatever you think appropriate. There were more than 16,000 images in a single category to begin with, so I didn't bother deviating from the titles of the individual motion studies in the initial subcategorization, but we certainly don't want people placing images in these categories thinking their scopes are broader than they are. Thanks for the message!

Neelix (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A bot sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, I've never created any bots and I don't know of anyone who could create one for this purpose. I'd also like to see the words "in the USC digital library" removed from all of these titles and replaced with a "Images from USC digital library" hidden category to be added to all of the individual images in these categories; there are a few rare cases in which some images in these categories are not held by the USC digital library, but creating sub-subcategories (like "Eadweard Muybridge's 'Storks, swans, and other birds' in the USC digital library" for the "Eadweard Muybridge's 'Storks, swans, and other birds'" subcategory) seems like a ridiculous way of taking these rare instances into account. Both of these tasks are too extensive for me to consider doing them manually. Do you know of anyone who is savvy enough with bots to do this for us?
Neelix (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ardea cinerea map.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ardea cinerea map.png, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Yours sincerely, 1989 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! A very old file from before the standardisation of sourcing details. I've added the missing info. - MPF (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Unidentified bird, Gembira Loka Zoo, 2015-03-15.jpg[edit]

  • Thanks for the recategorization. Do you think Acryllium vulturinum is a reasonable guess? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! Yes, it is; I'll change the category - MPF (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'll move the page. (And thanks for picking up the pied myna earlier. I knew I recognized the bird, but couldn't think of the name. It was in the avarium, so there were no name plates to refer to). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I just found you -- seemly an expert about plants -- moved my uploaded file in 2014 to a file with the name of Equisetum arvense. I think it is a good chance to discuss with you. The plant Equisetum arvense form fertile shoots like File:Equisetum_arvense_fr.jpg, but my plants did not. They were indeed Ephedra sinica that I bought from a professional in Taipei. Nothing was sown then. If you agree with me, I would like to move the file back to the one with a proper name, or maybe you can help me with this. --KasugaHuang (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Unfortunately, there is no Ephedra in your pot; if it was there when bought, it has died. The plant in the pot is readily recognisable as Equisetum arvense by its distinctive branching structure. The lack of fertile shoots can be explained by the small size / young age of the plant in the pot; fertile shoots are only produced by large, long-established specimens. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/154893241: removal of the ITIS link?[edit]

Curiously, what was the reason for the removal of {{ITIS}} from Category:Strix? The link looked sane, and the template doesn’t seem to be obsolete. Thanks. ⁓ [Gyft Xelz · talk] 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Because ITIS isn't a useful reference in birds (and also plants); its taxonomy and nomenclature is decidedly dated, and coverage poor, particularly for taxa outside of North America. In some other taxonomic groups, it can be a useful reference, so there is currently no justification for the deletion of the template overall, but it is best not used in taxa of Aves and Plantae. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alcedo Atthis location[edit]

Hi! I don't see where do I add a location now on the picture... Anyway, it was taken in Tel Aviv, Israel Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Passer domesticus" on my table[edit]

How did you understand that the bird was male? (I was so near and could not say the difference with a female one... :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare the head pattern with the plainer brown females ;-) MPF (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)