User talk:MPF

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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

Archive[edit]

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons![edit]

Dear MPF

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoC[edit]

Hello MPF,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Piapiac, in Lagos, Nigeria 5616609.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Piapiac, in Lagos, Nigeria 5616609.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  Bahasa Melayu  Bahasa Indonesia  azərbaycanca  British English  dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  euskara  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  norsk bokmål  română  Lëtzebuergesch  español  português  English  hrvatski  Plattdüütsch  français  Nederlands  norsk  Malti  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted - seems uploader changed license after a related file was uploaded a month ago - MPF (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

[1] In your edit summary you said: (you are not a horse, nor bird, nor a fish...;-)) Oh yeah? What if I'm part of one? Lot's of people call me a horse's ass, or a bitch, and I've even been known to flounder. What about that, huh? Huh? ^_^ Seriously, my apologies for the category overkill. I was thinking more along the line that I was categorizing the broad range of images on my user page. Silly me. Be safe - have fun (now there's an oxymoron for ya!) Atsme Talk 📧 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: thanks 😂!! Aye, in general, adding categories to user pages isn't a good idea, unless it's to a category of users; you were the sole user to appear in Category:Birds, etc., and it looks odd! Hope all's well! - MPF (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've been told I was "an odd bird." 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

[:Category:Psittacula krameri in trees][edit]

Hi, MPF. You deleted the category with reason "not a useful category - they are almost invariably in trees". I understand your thought, but please understand mine. We had more than 600 photos in category:Birds in trees, excluding subcategories. It was in my opinion too much and I started to create subcategories by species. I had circa ten rose-ringed parakeets in trees. You deleted the category. What's solution now? Do we have subcategory in "birds in trees" for other species, excluding rose-ringed parakeets? Do we have subcategory only for such species, which are not almost invariably in trees – how to make difference? Please give a solution to problem. Taivo (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Taivo: - go for Birds in trees by family (here: Category:Psittaculidae in trees), or by genus (here: Category:Psittacula in trees) if there's more than a hundred or so per family. Subcategories like this per species make it considerably more difficult for someone who is looking for a good pic of that species regardless of whether it is in a tree or not, it makes these pics less accessible; they also make it considerably more difficult to keep natural and non-natural (feral) individuals of invasive species like P. krameri in separate subcategories (had you considered that in making your subcategory? Or were you going to just mix up wild and non-wild together, and thereby undo all the hard work keeping them separate?) - MPF (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created a selection of subcategories by family, and moved files to them; plenty more to do, but it's a start! - MPF (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Erinaceus europaeus harilik siil 02 estonia.JPG The Hedgehog Prize
In Estonian mythology, hedgehog is considered one of the most clever animals. So this prize is for advice, which I could not think up myself. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! :-) An interesting and very nice piece of mythology, not one I had heard of before!! - MPF (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Baumläufer Certhia sp Nestbau 2163.jpg and 3 more pictures[edit]

Hi MPF, you changed the category of my 4 pictures from unknown Certhia to Certhia familiaris, does it mean you are shure about the species? I would like to have the species of this bird specified and will rename and describe them when you ack. Thanks, NobbiP 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@NobbiP: - yes, I am certain they are C. familiaris; the wing pattern with the 'stepped' notch in the wingbar (visible in at least one of the photos) matches this, and not C. brachydactyla. Yes, please do rename them! - MPF (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarify. Regards, NobbiP 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for letting me know that I should add the location of the photos to my pictures! I shall begin doing that now! :) ChasingFeathers (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

DR closure[edit]

Hello @MPF: I hope you're doing well. I came here to you with a humble request regarding DR for closure as keep. Please have a look at the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Category created by C1K98V. I never intended to do something which is against commons policy. But I always tried to contribute positively. You may find my comments on the discussion page as personal attack, which I regret in the way I presented my views to my fellow Volunteer. It's a collaborative platform and I want to learn and grows just like others. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Olea oleaster vs. Olea eueopaea[edit]

Hi MPF,

Looks like it was you who redirected Category:Olea oleaster to Category:Olea europaea, against those who appear in the Wikipedia: [oleaster].

I am not a taxonomist, but it is certain that the wild olive tree ("acebuche" in Spanish) it is not the same thing, in ecological, geographical, cultural and historical terms, as the cultivated olive tree.

A solution to this contradiction between Wikimedia sites must be sought. Suggest some one.

Best regards:

--LBM1948 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LBM1948: - Kew currently treat it as a synonym of O. europaea, I guess on the [reasonable] grounds that the cultivated olives derive from multiple origins of wild plants, so are genetically nested within it. The best solution is to keep Category:Olea europaea for wild plants, and to put all cultivated olives in Category:Olea europaea (cultivated) and subcategories thereof, though it does need keeping a regular eye on the species category to subcategorise additions to it. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@MPF:I'm not convinced by that solution. Moving most images (those of cultivated olive trees) doesn't seem very smart. On the other hand, solvents sources accept the name Olea europaea var. sylvestris (Mill.) Lehr < Olea oleaster Hoffmans & Link : [ibérica]. I do believe that we must create the subcategory for thew wild olive tree, despite your objections.
In addition, there remains the problem of internal consistency of Wikimedia: Will you redirect or reedit both Wikipedia articles about Olea oleaster?
--LBM1948 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @LBM1948: - it is what is done on Commons with most other similar cases, where a cultivated plant or domesticated animal is derived from a wild ancestor; I don't see a significant problem with it here. Note also there is no consensus on what names should be used; this article on the genetic origins of cultivated olives uses the name "Olea europaea var. sylvestris", also considered a synonym by the Kew Checklist. There is no internal consistency between different wikipedias over the treatment of debated taxonomic concepts; differences can be dealt with by the different links at wikidata. - MPF (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

About your edit and my rollback[edit]

Dear MPF, I know your intention was good trying to improve the photograph, however, this was not my original intention. However, I uploaded a original version in color (which by the way had great chromatic aberrations). You can compare this with this. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Wilfredor: - thanks! No problem ;-) MPF (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ring ouzel[edit]

Many thanks, don't know how I missed that Jimfbleak (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Back to nature.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:Back to nature.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Species name capitalization guidance[edit]

Hi MPF- Can you point me to the guidance on Commons for species names? I can't find anything, but I know that in the convoluted Wiki info universe, that does not mean it's not there. All I found, after dodging the many Int'l Olympic Committee hits, was this page on the World Bird List site. Eric talk 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Eric: - I guess there isn't any; Commons has been following IOC taxonomy and names since well before the disruptive and divisive change to decapitalise names at en:wiki (which cost en:wiki a lot of good editors), so it has never been an issue here. It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to try to change the status quo here. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

File:AnserFabalisIUCNver2019 1.png[edit]

Hi! You changed this map last year and it covers only three subspecies now and exludes Anser serrirostris as a separate species. The problem is not all authorities accept this taxonomy, for example IUCN still uses the one from original version of this map, the same old one we use on Polish Wikipedia (based on Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World) so this map is misleading in Polish article about Anser fabalis. I suggest to create a new map with this new taxonomical approach, and withdraw the change you made to existing one. Pikador (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pikador: - thanks for the note! As far as I know, the majority of wikipedias follow IOC taxonomy (as do Commons and Wikispecies), so while a return to the original map would fit pl:wiki better, it would be more disruptive to the other wikis that use the map. Also, I think it is best to hold fire for the moment, as further revisions in the status of the Anser fabalis complex are likely in the next year or two (possible split of Anser middendorffii, possible re-lumping of rossicus with fabalis, and maybe other changes). When that has happened, new maps can be made. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK thanks for the explanation, but could you recreate the old map as a new file? I would use it on Polish wiki until the new taxonomy will be widely accepted. Pikador (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Pikador: - here you are: File:Anser fabalis (sensu lato) distribution map.png. I took the liberty to transfer Alaska from the left edge to the right edge so the map is more compact without losing any of the range. - MPF (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Distribution of Cuculus canorus.PNG[edit]

Hello.

Can you add the border of South Sudan in File:Distribution of Cuculus canorus.PNG?

Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries

Yours sincerely, 31.200.14.164 08:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@31.200.14.164: - I'll see what I can do; first I need to find out where the border goes :-) MPF (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Nightingale Recording - Pines of Rome.flac[edit]

Hi, if I am not mistaken, this is an actual recording of a nightingale from the 1920s. --Gnom (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gnom: - thanks! It sounds very artificial and contrived for a genuine Nightingale song, but it does appear from the account to be a recording, so I've put it back in the audio category - MPF (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree that it is an old recording that has probably been produced using a number of different samples stitched together, but it is supposed to be real birdsong :-) --Gnom (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


Street Peacock in New Orleans[edit]

Hi. You've twice described a peacock as "captive" [2] - The bird in question is feral (rather notoriously so in the neighborhood - some like it, others are not pleased. It's been the subject of some local news articles over recent years [3]. ) Captive is "imprisoned or confined", which does not seem accurate in this case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: - Thanks! I checked up, and while it looks like Indian Peafowl is now officially listed as a feral species in the USA, that only applies to particular established feral populations in Hawaii and California (some discussion here); in Louisiana it doesn't appear to be accepted as an established feral species yet, they still just have the status of escapes from captivity. A species doesn't become accepted as feral immediately on escape, but only after it has been reproducing free from human influence for two or more generations. But it is true that I'll need to create a separate feral category for the photos of Hawaii birds at least - MPF (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks much! Hm, if not officially "feral", "captive" still seems a bit misleading regarding a bird that's been on it's own for at least a dozen years. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Aye, it might seem odd, but that's the way it's long been accepted in birding circles, captive birds "don't count" even when they escape. A while back there was a Great White Pelican near me which people thought at first might be a genuine vagrant, and I put some pics on Commons. It was later found to be an escape. So I moved my pics into the Captive subcategory ;-) MPF (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing bird knowledge! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Removal_of_categories_and_lock_of_files_by_administrator_in_a_content_dispute[edit]

To your information. Out of rule actions like yours of locking files and removing valid categories to win a dispute are reported. Overwriting files over the original ones, when said overwirtes are not be made like said in Commons:Overwriting existing files "✘ Controversial or contested changes", ✘ Major changes (e.g. a radical crop) or when it says "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)." As uploader, even more a reason for you to upload your versions under a new filename, but it seems that you prefer to remove valid categories and descriptions and to block the files to enforce your personal taste. Tm (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Quercus coccifera subsp. calliprinos[edit]

I notice that you have reverted the edit of Quercus coccifera subsp. calliprinos and several others. I would appreciate it if you would review the edited in wikispecies where with the current data from WCSP, PWO and Hassler it appears as a synonym for Quercus coccifera. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: - will do later today; reference for acceptance here; the ICRA is a reliable source - MPF (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Mödling 1561.JPG[edit]

Sorry, but not all, what is german is also germany. Also in Austria is spoken german ;-) ---- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 06:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Karl Gruber: Danke! - MPF (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
gerne - it should be only a explantion from my side --regards -- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 21:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bubulcus ibis location[edit]

Hi MPF, I added camera location to the files File:Bubulcus_ibis_R01.jpg - File:Bubulcus_ibis_R05.jpg. Kind regards, Marc (MJJR (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)).

@MJJR: - many thanks! I have added some extra categories to them now based on this - MPF (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Taxidermied animals in museums[edit]

Hello, since I saw you are the author of some related category here on Commons I ask you, in your opinion it is more correct Category:Sciurus vulgaris (museum specimens)‎, which I created now after finding Category:Athene noctua (museum specimens), or Category:Taxidermied Sciurus vulgaris?--Threecharlie (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

To me these categories are not the same. Taxidermied is related to "dermis" which means skin. It is a stuffed animal. "Museum specimens" means that something is stored in a museum and it may be everything related to the animal. In higher taxa there should be a "museum specimens" category to collect categories like "Mammal skulls in museum XY" along with stuffed animals. In species categories there first should be a "Taxidermied XY" category, as "XY anatomy" is the better category to tell the user where to find the skulls and skeletons. And bird eggs should be first in "XY eggs" as it is more relevant for the user that it is an egg. As long there are not many egg pictures one would take whatever is there - an illustration, a museum specimen or a nest of the bird with an egg in nature. If there are hundrets of museum specimens for one species the museum specimens category is useful too, als the subcategory with hundrets of fox skulls (for example Category:Vulpes vulpes skulls at Naturalis from the Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam) in one single museum could be added to the museum category, to the species specific museum specimens category and to the anatomy category. --Kersti (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Threecharlie: it is very useful - in terms of the workings of HotCat and Cat-a-Lot - to have separate name types for species categories, and for higher taxon categories. This is so they do not clutter up each others' category listings and "you know where things will be" very predictably. This is the main reason why it has developed as "Category:Genus species (museum specimens)" for species, and "Category:Taxidermied Family" for higher ranks. Yes, one could argue (as @Kersti Nebelsiek: might) that the two are not absolutely, totally congruent, but the difference between the two is as slender as a gnat's whisker. Thus the value of predicable category naming is greater than the minuscule differences between the precise etymological definitions of the two name types. So Category:Sciurus vulgaris (museum specimens)‎ is correct in this instance, which should be a subcategory of Category:Taxidermied Sciuridae. And when one is scrolling down the HotCat list for "Taxidermied Xxxxxidae" it is exceedingly useful to not have to scroll through thousands of unwanted "Taxidermied Genus species" making the right listing hard to find. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem is not, that they are not congruemt, but that it is simply wrong this way. (museum specimens) logically can't be a subcategory of taxidermied, as there are many museum specimens of an animal which are no taxidermied animals. It should be the other way round and starts to be a really big prblem in cases where there are that much museum specimens that both catwegories are needet to make a good category sheme. --Kersti (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kersti Nebelsiek, Threecharlie: Only if you insist on a very narrow definition of 'taxidermied'. You can also use it in a broad sense to include anything which has been through a museum curation process. It doesn't bother me to include a skull or an eggshell in a "Taxidermied Xxxxxidae" category; don't let it worry you! It is so much more important to have a sorting system that is easy to use, than one that is linguistically pure. The current system may not be perfect, but it works and is predictable, and that's what is most important. "It should be the other way round" . . . if you really fancy renaming tens of thousands of categories to satisfy etymological purism .. don't forget to suppress redirects, to avoid the sorting systems being irretrievably clogged up... ;-) - MPF (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I insist on this very narrow definition of taxidermied. It is not the only way, one could understand the word, but we need categories with this narrow category definition and I would like to include skin specimens and stuffed animals in this category, because these pictures are rarely used. The reason for this is, that this definition is needed in the museums themselves to discern taxidermied animals from bones, fossils and so on. A second reason is that it is needed to make up a category sheme for species with hundrets of museums specimens of different types. As this narrow definition is needed sometimes at both ends of the category-tree we mess up the whole tree if we don't keep this definition everywhere else, where it is not yet needet for itself. --Kersti (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kersti Nebelsiek: if you do insist, remember you are making things much more difficult for other editors - is it really worth it? At the very least, use a different format for species categories (e.g. Category:Genus species (taxidermied), and NOT Category:Taxidermied Genus species, as that clogs up the HotCat drop-down list for Category:Taxidermied Family). Also remember, that these pictures are very rarely used, is not because they are hard to find in the current category system, but because there are very few uses for them. It is very rarely that anyone would want to illustrate a wikipedia article with a photo of a stuffed specimen if there is a photo of a live specimen available; they are usually options of last resort, such as for extinct species, or species now so rare that no free photos are available. - MPF (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I insert myself 5 cents very oxidized: forgive my English, by reading I understand it but if I have to confront myself in a discussion I have obvious limits, so I resort to google translated. I am well aware that a category must be precise to determine what is correct to enter and what is not, however, I turn more to @Kersti Nebelsiek:, not all users who upload images are competent in the specificity of their uploads. The image that I have included in that category is the result of a collaboration between an association of museums in an Italian territory with the Italian chapter of wikimedia, specifically they are volunteers who also collaborate as a civil service, therefore not necessarily university students with orientation in natural Science. Among other things, from a simple image, I, who had the initiative to create a specific category for museum specimens, I cannot understand if the specimen is the result of careful embalming or is an equally accurate totally artistic reproduction, I limit myself to evidence, that is, that it is an obviously non-living animal species that is used in a museum as a didactic visual support. If in this case we obviously have a very common species (fortunately, I think) it is equally obvious that we can have images of live specimens, in their natural habitat or in captivity. However, this may not be the case for hundreds of other species. However, a problem remains: if there is a user, or even outside a collaborator in any wikimedia project who, for various reasons, is looking for a free license image, do we want to make things simple or complicated? What is the purpose of Commons? I think it is that of being able to give anyone the opportunity to take advantage of material that users have decided to share, but if we risk closing these images in smaller and smaller drawers for the sake of semantic, philological, taxonomic correctness, perhaps we do not risk depriving a user of an easy search? In conclusion, a pyramid system of the categories is useful for us who have to categorize thousands of images a day inserted, if all goes well, in useless macro categories, but somewhere you will also have to start... I hope I didn't write nonsense, thanks for your patience :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I need to replace my bird book ...[edit]

Hi MPF, thanks for the cleanup on the Australasian Darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae) at Kent Street Weir images. My (2000 edition) of Field Guide to Australian Birds does not even mention Anhinga novaehollandiae, only Anhinga melanogaster, which it just list as Darter. Looking at the English Wikipedia article of Australasian darter, the classifying of the four types seems to be a little vague (Quote: All four have also been classed as a single species). In any case, thanks for the clean up. I'm a bit weary now in uploading some bird pictures I took in the last few days at Coalseam Conservation Park here in WA but I trust you can point me in the right direction should I mess it up again. Calistemon (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Thanks! Glad to help :-) You can always check for up-to-date names and taxonomy at IOC; use the drop-down at 'BOW (Birds of the World)' to find the species you want to check, or drop me a note here if you have any queries - MPF (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at File:Bird of prey at Lesueur National Park, September 2021 02.jpg and see whether you can identify this bird of prey? There is four more images of the same bird but that one is the best. I have tried Atlas of living Australia and done a search for the location, Lesueur National Park, but have not been able to identify it. Calistemon (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The suggestion that has been made to me is that it is a Brown falcon (Falco berigora). Would you agree with that? Calistemon (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Calistemon: - yes, Brown Falcon for certain, that double brown stripe below & behind the eye isn't shared by any other Australian raptor. I've added them to Category:Falco berigora and can rename them too if you like. The other I fear you've missed though, Australia's Ospreys were recently split as Eastern Osprey (a.k.a. Australian Osprey) Pandion cristatus, I'll recategorise your new pics of them too :-) MPF (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Calistemon: - all done :-) MPF (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, MPF, your help and efforts are greatly appreciated! Calistemon (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Answer to "Location?" (of swallows)[edit]

At least, I tried (not very successfully). Annatsach (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)