User talk:MPF

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/5616609

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

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ British English ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Well, I've been told I was "an odd bird." 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks for clarify. Regards, NobbiP 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ring ouzel[edit]

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

File:Back to nature.jpg[edit]

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!

Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thanks for sharing bird knowledge! Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulls[edit]

Hello user MPF. Here I am again with an other problem, now concerning my file "Five Common Gulls" which got renamed by you from "Five herring gulls". That was allright. But I had published the file with "herring" in the challenge "Five". So I renamed the file in that challenge too, but now the link is broken, the challenge entry indicates a broken link. I do not know how to fix it. May I ask you for help? Thank youǃ Hartmut SchmidtFoeniz (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Hello. Everything is fine by now. Thank you very much again for your care.Foeniz (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Sorry, I made a mistake. The link still is broken. So my question for help persists.Foeniz (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Karl Gruber: Danke! - MPF (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kersti Nebelsiek and 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Calistemon: - all done :-) MPF (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MPF, your help and efforts are greatly appreciated! Calistemon (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slater's Guide to Australian Birds has Australian darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae). Sardaka (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fauna of Coalseam Conservation Park[edit]

Hi MPF, there is a few images in Category:Fauna of Coalseam Conservation Park that I'm not sure about. Could you please have a quick look and let me know what you think? In regards to File:Unidentified bird at Coalseam Conservation Park, September 2021 03.jpg, File:Unidentified bird at Coalseam Conservation Park, September 2021 04.jpg and File:Unidentified bird at Coalseam Conservation Park, September 2021 05.jpg, could it be a Spiny-cheeked honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis)? All three are of the same bird. File:Unidentified bird at Coalseam Conservation Park, September 2021 02.jpg and File:Unidentified bird at Coalseam Conservation Park, September 2021 01.jpg I'm really not sure about at all. Don't feel obliged to rename the images, as you usually do, I'm quite happy to do that myself! Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calistemon: - yes, Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater for 03, 04, 05; that pink base to the bill is distinctive. The other two are Pallid Cuckoos Cacomantis pallidus; a grey morph for 02 (can be either male or female), and a brown morph (always female) for 01. - MPF (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have changed the file names and associated information accordingly. Much appreciated! Calistemon (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaby's black cockatoo[edit]

Hi MPF, I came across a couple of what I presume to be Carnaby's black cockatoos today right here in Perth on a bike ride (see File:Carnaby's black cockatoo (female) at Canning River Regional Park, September 2021 03.jpg) and I'm wondering about the category for the birds. Wikipedia has the bird down as Carnaby's black cockatoo (Zanda latirostris) but the commons category is at Category:Calyptorhynchus latirostris, not Zanda latirostris. The same issue exists with the Baudin's black cockatoo (Zanda baudinii), which sits at Category:Calyptorhynchus baudinii and the Yellow-tailed black cockatoo (Zanda funerea), which sits at Category:Calyptorhynchus funereus. Am I missing something or are the category names outdated? Calistemon (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calistemon: - yes, the category names are out of date. There's hundreds like that, unfortunately; the main reason is because it's become such a faff renaming them, it is no longer a simple move, you now also have to make corrections at wikidata, etc., and to be honest, it's a complete pain :-) MPF (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, a know what you mean. Just wondering, should a redirect Category:Zanda latirostris to Category:Calyptorhynchus latirostris be created so if somebody places an image into the former a bot will move it into the later? Calistemon (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: It probably should, but I've mixed feelings about that; having the redirect creates more work for whoever does finally get round to renaming the category (the redirect has to be deleted first...)! I'll try to get round to updating the Black Cockatoos later today, it's not too many to do - MPF (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: - I've started on the update, got Baudin's moved to Zanda so far . . . it took over an hour and a half (and I've not even started on wikispecies yet, either). That's why Commons is getting so out-of-date ;-( MPF (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: - whew, over 3 hours to create a new genus page and move 3 species to it! Wonder if all the massive changes in families like Leiothrichidae will ever get done, they'll take weeks of solid work ... :-( A query for you, your Stirling Range pics like File:Calyptorhynchus latirostris (Carnaby's black cockatoo) in Stirling Range National Park, April 2021 03.jpg, would {Location|-34.466535|118.063453} based on the text be about right? Worth adding if it is, a few km either way N or S wouldn't matter either. - MPF (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What an effort! In regards to the location, it would certainly do. Nowadays, I add coordinates to the images (my camera doesn't do it automatically) but, on those ones, for some reason I didn't. Calistemon (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the location template to all seven Stirling Range National Park images. Calistemon (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming files and categories[edit]

Hello. The file is not visible after renaming . Maybe it needs to be removed or merged. In the category all leaves from one plant. Rename this category or create a new one? --Knopik-som (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knopik-som: - very strange, I can't understand what has happened here! There should be a redirect, something has gone wrong with the file rename. I have manually converted it to a redirect for now. The specimens in the whole category show more the characters of Acer ginnala (syn. Acer tataricum subsp. ginnala) with strongly trilobed leaves (compare File:Acer tataricum Klon tatarski 2018-06-10 01.jpg and File:Acer ginnala.jpg). Do you know the origin of the tree? Is it wild, or cultivated? - MPF (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was wrong with the name. This is a wild maple. Grows in a forest park and forest. What's better? Rename this category or create a new one? --Knopik-som (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knopik-som: - Спасибо! I looked at the location; although growing "wild", it is (like your Acer negundo) not native there, so must originate as a self-sown seedling from a cultivated tree. This means that Acer ginnala is very likely, as it is a popular ornamental tree and frequently self-sows. It is probably simpler to rename the category rather than make a new one, but chose whichever you prefer. Maybe it is better to make a new category if you might find a new Acer tataricum somewhere.

As an aside, I looked at some of your other herbarium photos:

Category:Elektrostal. Herbarium - pinus — Pinus sylvestris
Category:Elektrostal. Herbarium - oak — Quercus robur
Category:Elektrostal. Herbarium - fraxinus — img-011.jpg → img-053.jpg I think are Fraxinus pennsylvanica (introduced from North America; slender seeds, and leaftets stalked, only 7 per leaf, unlike native F. excelsior with sessile leaflets and (7-) 9-11 leaflets per leaf). Not sure about img-001.jpg → img-010.jpg, these leaves are very young so not easy to tell.
Category:Herbarium of the city Elektrostal
- img 001.jpg is another Acer ginnala
- img 012.jpg, img 013.jpg, img 015.jpg are Corylus avellana
- img 016.jpg → img 025.jpg are Betula pendula

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of my photos lately have not been visible in the category I put them in. Must be a glitch in the system. Sardaka (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardaka: - any files in particular you're thinking of? Files are constantly being re-sorted to the most appropriate categories as the total number of files on Commons grows (currently 78 million!), there is no permanent set of categories that any one file always stays in. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds[edit]

Hi MPF, when you got a moment, could you have a look at below two images and let me know whether I identified the birds correctly. If not, I will rename accordingly and recategorise:

File:Little corella (Cacatua sanguinea) at Lake Walyungup, October 2021 02.jpg (four images of the same bird)
File:Little black cormorants (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris) at Lake Walyungup, October 2021 03.jpg (seven images of the same group of birds)

Regards, Calistemon (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calistemon: - correct on the Little Black Cormorants. I'm struggling with the Corella, between Western and Little; I'll look more later. As an aside, it's best to use caps for formal standard species names, as per IOC; a 'little black cormorant' can mean any cormorant that is small and black, while Little Black Cormorant is defined as Phalacrocorax sulcirostris :-) - MPF (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the Little black cormorant versus Little Black Cormorant and I'm happy to move the file names but, just to point out, the English Wikipedia article sits at en:Little black cormorant. In regards to Little Corella versus Western Corella, the Western one seems to be far rarer than the Little one. Atlas of living Australia has no registered sittings of the bird around Lake Walyungup and very few in the region while the Little one has three sittings around the lake and quite a lot in the wider area. Saying that, it was a solitary bird, which seems to be uncommon for the Little Corella. Calistemon (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful changing titles of Geograph (and other CC < 4.0) images[edit]

I notice you've recently changed the identification of trees in a couple of pictures from Geograph Britain and Ireland, File:Sequoiadendron giganteum near to Brodsworth, Doncaster.jpg and File:Horse-chestnut - geograph.org.uk - 432275.jpg. This is fine, but in the process you changed the titles in their {{Credit line}} templates. As that template mentions, the titles here are required by the licence, so changing them without the authors agreement is a copyright violation. Ideally, you could suggest correcting the titles on Geograph: there's a "Suggest an update to this image" link on each one's page there. I could pass the suggestion on myself, but I think it would be better coming from someone who knows what they're talking about. Once the title is updated on Geograph, then we can update the credit line on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: Ooops! Didn't know about that quirk, if I find more ID errors I'll leave that line unchanged. But if that's the case, doesn't it mean they are actually cc-by-nd (no derivatives) and thus ineligible for Commons? I don't have a user page on geograph, so can't add notes there - if you do, could you add them for the above two, please? - MPF (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Second attempt at a reply after I apparently didn't save it last time) The requirement not to change the title is part of the "BY" component of CC BY-SA 2.0. The title appears alongside the author's name in section 4(c) of the licence which lists the things you're required to convey in order to give credit to the original author. I'm quite happy to suggest updates on Geograph myself, but I may struggle to find better reasoning than "MPF on Wikimedia Commons says this is misidentified". Let's see how it goes. --bjh21 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: - thanks! I find that very odd; what happens if the title is manifestly and obviously wrong (say, a photo of a wooded hillside titled "Tower Bridge, London"), or offensive, or maliciously insulting (say, for a photo with a black person in, "A n***** in the street")? Is there really no way that titles like that can be changed without the originator's permission? For the above two, you could say 'crown shape and structure matches Sequoiadendron giganteum (Giant Sequoia), not Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood)', and 'erect white flowers in spring is Horse-chestnut, not Sweet Chestnut, which has yellow catkins in summer'. - MPF (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand[edit]

เรียน สมาชิกวิกิมีเดีย

เนื่องจากเราเห็นว่าท่านเคยเข้าร่วมการประกวดรูปถ่ายที่จัดขึ้นโดยวิกิมีเดียประเทศไทย เราจึงอยากเชิญชวนท่านเข้าร่วมการประกวดรูปถ่าย Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand ซึ่งจะจัดขึ้นระหว่างวันที่ 15 พฤศจิกายน – 15 ธันวาคม 2564 นี้

มีรูปแบบในการประกวด 7 หัวข้อ คือ บุคคลในวิทยาศาสตร์ รูปจากกล้องจุลทรรศน์ สื่อที่ไม่ใช่รูปถ่าย รูปชุด สัตว์ป่ากับธรรมชาติ ดาราศาสตร์ และหมวดหมู่ทั่วไป

หากท่านมีความสนใจในการเข้าร่วมการประกวด ท่านสามารถไปยังหน้าเว็บเพจ Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand เพื่ออ่านข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและอัปโหลดไฟล์ของท่านภายในช่วงของการประกวดที่ได้กล่าวไว้

ขอแสดงความนับถือ
ทีมผู้จัด Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand
วิกิมีเดียประเทศไทย

Dear Fellow Wikimedians,

Seeing that you have participated in one or more photo contests organized by Wikimedia Thailand, we would like to invite you to participate in Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand which will be held between 15 November – 15 December 2021.

There are 7 categories in which you can submit: People in Science, Microscopy images, Non-photographic media, Image sets, Wildlife & nature, Astronomy, and General category.

If you are interested in participating, you can visit the web page Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand/en for more information and to upload your files within the period of the contest.

Kind Regards,
The organizing team of Wiki Science Competition 2021 in Thailand
Wikimedia Thailand

--Karto1 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of/in[edit]

Hello, MPF! Technically, I agree with you that animals kept in zoos are not really "animals of" that particular country where the zoo is located. That is, if we use the sense of endemic animals of that country... However, part of those animals in zoos were born / hatched / etc. in that zoo... In some cases there could be a whole lineage of animals that were born in a zoo, but are not a part of endemic fauna. Should they be excluded from "Animals of ..."? And if the species was extirpated in the wild, and is only bred in zoos in non-native countries? Should such species be totally excluded from "Animals by country" category tree? On the other hand, other animals in zoos could have been caught in the same country where the zoo is located, so they have full right to be labelled as an "animal of" that country, even thought presently they are in "captive" status.

In any case, as far as I understand, the present situation is that animals in zoos are quite commonly added to "Animals of" category for that country, even when they are not native in that country. (I've seen quite a lot of such examples, and created many more of them.) Isn't it a bit inconsistent to exclude those two pics of birds from that practise, however disputable it may be?

In any case, great thanks for all the great work on sorting out animals!

-- 176.59.54.155 13:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I also considered using Category:Endemic fauna by country to tackle the same issue, but from a different angle. My idea was to add all categories for native animals of Russia into Categroy:Endemic fauna of Russia, so that they don't clutter the parent Category:Animals of Russia and it subcats, especially when they contain pictures of the same species from different countries... 176.59.54.155 13:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @176.59.54.155: - thanks for the note! Yes, it can be difficult, and far too many photos of animals in zoos, and plants in gardens, are wrongly added to 'Animals of...' and 'Flora of...' categories. Ideally, these should be excluded from the 'Animals/plants by country' category tree. If you think of a textbook about the fauna, or flora, of a country, it will only include species that are native, or have become naturalised; it will not include zoo animals or cultivated plants. The aim for the category system here should be the same, but with so many people contributing, it is difficult to police! Another good way to think about it is to consider people, too: take File:Vladimir Putin and David Cameron (2012-08-02) 01.jpg - clearly Vladimir Putin is in the United Kingdom in that photo, but it would be wrong to add him on the basis of this photo to Category:People of the United Kingdom (or any subcategory of it). Endemic is different again; when a plant or animal is endemic to a place, it means it occurs only in that place, and nowhere else. So it is correct to say that Pusa sibirica is endemic to Russia (and endemic to Lake Baikal), but by contrast, Pusa hispida is not endemic to Russia, as it also occurs in Canada, etc., as well as Russia. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Hi, I see you are active, could you please block on this one: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Нікк_лузер,_шавка,_шваль? Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started[edit]

Dear uploader of European Science Photo Competition 2015 and Wiki Science Competition 2017 and Wiki Science Competition 2019, we would like to remind you that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in the whole world. It is now completed in Russia (active in May), but it's still open in almost all the other countries.

If you want to take part in WSC2021, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

If you are an expert user, we remind you that images uploaded within the deadline can be included in any case in their national category even if not uploaded with the main interface.

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, that is "astronomy".

If you already took part in a country that has completed its upload phase, please consider improving the description in English of your files (click on the edit button), since such description is what the international jury will use to evaluate them. World finalists will be finalized after March 2020.

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

Message discussed here. If you do not want to receive these messages in the future, please unsubscribe from this list

Social media: Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Science&Wiki Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2021 #WikiScience #WikiScience2021

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--15:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egretta garzetta vs. Ardea alba in Astrakhan[edit]

Hi! There seems to be some disagreement between the uploader of there files and you, who have categorised them:


title	Airone bianco	Airone bianco	Garzetta	Garzetta	Garzetta	Garzetta	Garzetta	(none)
category	Ardea alba	Ardea alba	Ardea alba	Ardea alba	Ardea alba	Egretta garzetta	Egretta garzetta	Egretta garzetta

Could you please check them? If the categories are correct, could you proceed with renaming those files that have incorrect titles?

And also, could you please identify these:

-- 194.186.207.116 16:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and categorised all of the above as I best as I could. If you could stop by and check, that would be great. 176.59.42.45 20:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Pine cones overcat?[edit]

Hello, MPF. I’m not sure why you keep adding Category:Pinus jeffreyi to images in Category:Pinus jeffreyi cones? That appears to be COM:OVERCAT. — hike395 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: It is; best to delete the cones subcategory (I'd planned to do so in a day or two) as it is a bad mix-up of natural and cultivated material mixed without distinction, and also excessive subdivision of a small parent category. The cones from cultivated trees should be put in Cat:Pinus jeffreyi (cultivated), and the wild ones in the main species category. That way the {Geogroup} mapping maps all the wild specimens, without contamination from the cultivated stuff (often of dubious identification). - MPF (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep the cones highlighted, somehow, perhaps in a category. We have 27 images of the quite distinctive cones: I think having a separate category could be helpful to our readers. Admittedly, there were only 20 visits to that category for all of last year vs. 139 for the species category and 392 for the species gallery. I could possibly expand the cones section of the gallery. — hike395 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: But it defeats the value of the {Geogroup} mapping facility. And it is important to keep natural and cultivated separate (just as a botanical institution herbarium would). While there's still well below 200 photos of Pinus jeffreyi in its native environment, I don't see any value in splitting it up into multiple subcategories; it just makes images harder to find, as you need to look through numerous subcategories instead of just one - MPF (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should use {{Geogroup}} to strongly influence our categorization decisions. Of the three alternatives, the Bing maps don't seem to work at all, and the KML export barely works when loaded into Google Earth (the Linux web version, at least). The OpenStreetMap version works very nicely (see, e.g., the OSM GeoGroup for the Pinus jeffreyi category). The OSM version only shows images at the top layer of the category by default, so subcategories images are excluded. Therefore, any subcategory image will be excluded.

I think the cones would be a legitimate subcategory, and are distinct from what people expect from images in the main category. Of the 27 images currently in the cone category, 17 don't actually show the habitus or foilage of the pine tree. Simply lumping those 17 images into the main category to make {{Geogroup}} work differently does not seem like a good tradeoff to me. — hike395 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: that the bing and kml don't work is irrelevant; the open one does (and is what I use), and is useful. Yes, subcategory images are excluded; that is exactly why I think the cones should not be moved out to a subcategory, as they are thereby excluded from the map (unless you tick the Subcategories box - but then that also adds in the cultivated junk, which one doesn't want). Of "the cones would be a legitimate subcategory": that would be a reasonable point if there were over 200 photos of the species in the wild. But there aren't; there's well under 100. So it makes far better sense to keep them all together for easy searching. It also doesn't answer the problem that your Category:Pinus jeffreyi cones doesn't discriminate between real cones and cultivated crap (or even illustrations of cones), they are all mixed together indiscriminately, which is very poor for image sorting and selecting. - MPF (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Betula pendula error[edit]

Betula pendula - thanks for reporting the error. RSLlGriffith (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garryaceae[edit]

Hi! In template Taxonavigation Category:Garryaceae (and subcategories) is in Boraginales instead of Garryales. Do you know how to change it? Regards, Salicyna (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salicyna: - thanks! I'll take a look in a mo - MPF (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salicyna: - done! Thanks for spotting the error :-) MPF (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Salicyna (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is on![edit]

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you![edit]

hello MPF,

I would like to offer MANY SINCERE THANKS for your efforts. You have recategorized many of my botanical photographs, which has made me VERY HAPPY. I know very little about botany (I just take photos) but understand that many things are in flux right now; and I am so glad that you are working hard to keep botany up to date.

with all best wishes for 2022, Daderot (talk)

@Daderot: thanks, glad to help! :-) MPF (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree against sky.jpg[edit]

File:Tree against sky.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!

Afrikaans ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ eesti ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ français ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ English ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Paul Harrison (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast penguin[edit]

Long overdue on my part. This is the holoyype of the emperor penguin Aptenodytes forsteri (added wth some other details to the page description' Thankyou for the reminder Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notafly: - excellent, thanks! Makes it a really important specimen! I'll check the categories now - MPF (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filename move request[edit]

Dear MPF,

may I ask for your suppport? I loaded up a new file with a mistake in its name: File:Kiva (ancient building for community council meetings) Cliff Palace , Mesa Verde, Coloradoat Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, Colorado.jpg (Datei). The name is supposed to end behind the first "Colorado". Would you please change the name adaequatly? I got the idea to ask you as I learned you are able to change file names some time ago (file.Common gull..). I want to add the file to the challenge "parliaments". Best regards and thank you. Hartmut SchmidtFoeniz (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Foeniz: - done; I also improved the grammar slightly, so it is now: File:Kiva (ancient building for community council meetings) at Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, Colorado.jpg :-) MPF (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MPF, this really is high speed friendliness. Thank you very much!

Best regards Foeniz (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

	Hello, MPF. You have new messages at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#Update request. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu \| беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ \| български \| বাংলা \| català \| čeština \| Deutsch \| Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ \| English \| español \| suomi \| français \| galego \| हिन्दी \| hrvatski \| magyar \| italiano \| 日本語 \| ქართული \| македонски \| മലയാളം \| Plattdüütsch \| Nederlands \| português \| română \| русский \| sicilianu \| slovenščina \| svenska \| Tagalog \| Türkçe \| 中文（简体）‎ \| 中文（繁體）‎ \| +/−

Stang^★ 16:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of categories[edit]

Why you have deleted some categories that I created about protected natural areas of Macedonia. I created and precisely reorganized them for an upcoming photo contest and you just showed up to make obstacles. Undelete them! Dandarmkd (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandarmkd: they were empty (and had been for some time), which is a valid reason for deletion. Many were also badly titled (not using the scientific name) and categorised (placed in a genus category, not the relevant species or species by country category). In general, it also isn't a good idea to have separate categories for individual trees, unless the tree concerned is of exceptional significance. Better to put them all into one category, e.g. Category:Platanus orientalis in Macedonia, rather than multiple categories of one tree each like [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Kruševo Republic Square], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Voska], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Retirement Association building], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Red Cross building], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Košišta], [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Gorna Vlaška Maala] [Category:Ohrid plane tree, Church of the Theotokos Peribleptos], etc. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: On many points you are wrong and you are just nitpicking. Firstly, ofcourse they were empty, it was a preparation for the upcoming photo contest Wiki Loves Earth that will be held the entire May. The categories need to exist when the contest is occurring. It had to be ready. If they were badly titled you could have rename/move them, but you chose the easiest option - deletion (bravo!). Also naming them after the genus is not that big of a deal, neither that they had an English name instead of a scientific one. There will be many images of the individual trees, so it is better to have their own categories (like I did when creating them). Every individual protected natural area had its own category, but now you messed it up.Dandarmkd (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandarmkd: - I've restored abut half of them so far, and will do the rest soon when I have time (probably tomorrow). I've renamed a couple and recategorised where needed. Apologies for misunderstanding their future use! - MPF (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Thank you for understanding. Please let me know which ones are renamed. Have a good day!Dandarmkd (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dandarmkd: - thanks! All restored now, sorry it took longer than expected (other things intervened!). I've made some educated guesswork as to the species involved (Platanus orientalis for the planes, Cupressus sempervirens for the cypresses), which will need to be checked when the photos related to these categories get uploaded. For renamed categories, I've moved Category:Jegunovce aspen to Category:Populus tremula in Jegunovce, North Macedonia (other categories with named trees would benefit from similar moves, once their species identities are confirmed); and also (special case) Category:Morodvis plane trees to Category:Nature in Morodvis (in this case, the category already contained some photos, which did not show plane trees other than just one photo, where the tree was not the main subject of the photo). Any more queries, let me know - MPF (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:European Robin silhouette.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:European Robin silhouette.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:European Robin silhouette.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

shizhao (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: - agree, delete (not sure why I bothered to add the brightened version!). Lifted from instagram, no valid license - MPF (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viola × wittrockiana or Viola tricolor?[edit]

I noticed you changed the names and descriptions of three pictures I uploaded years ago from Viola tricolor to Viola × wittrockiana:

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 01.jpg

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 02.jpg

File:Viola × wittrockiana, Schenley Park, 2015-10-01, 03.jpg

I was wondering how you identified the plants as Viola × wittrockiana rather than Viola tricolor. Though the flowers look big in the pictures, they were not much bigger than a common blue violet; I was using a camera that focuses down to less than half an inch. I found them in an overgrown meadow. It’s possible you were mistaken—but I always assume it’s more likely that I was mistaken, and if you can tell me what to look for to distinguish the hybrid from the species, I’ll have learned something valuable.

Thanks for the work you’ve been doing here.

Cbaile19 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cbaile19: - I was mainly going on the intensity of the red tones in the purple of the top petals, and the extent and intensity of yellow in the bottom petal; this combination is not normal in wild V. tricolor, and suggests a past history of cultivation (inevitable too, given the location far outside the species' native range!) and hybridisation. For more natural colours, see e.g. File:Viola tricolor whole.jpg. They could perhaps be placed equally well in Category:Viola tricolor (cultivars) though; with extensive breeding for ornamental plants, the border between this and Category:Viola × wittrockiana is pretty undefinable. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This note is longer than I want it to be, and if you don’t bother reading it I won’t blame you at all.

The intensity of the red tones might be partly a photographic artifact. My ancient Konica-Minolta camera was known for a slightly orangish cast in its pictures. No digital camera renders colors perfectly, and reviewers noted that particular quirk in that model. I got it used for 99¢, and it’s been worth every penny.

I agree that the plant has to have some cultivated ancestry, since Viola tricolor came here as a garden plant. I wouldn’t really call it a cultivar any more than I’d call the other European weeds that have escaped and made themselves at home “cultivars.” But I agree that it’s not easy to sort out what one of these Violas is; Britton & Brown describe V. tricolor as “Usually more or less impure, the garden pansy being the product of frequent crosses of V. tricolor with allied species of the Old World.” Nevertheless, Britton & Brown and (to be more up to date) the Flora of North America and the USDA PLANTS database all list V. tricolor (and not V. x wittrockiana) in the wild here, the PLANTS database with an image credited to “William S. Justice, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Botany” that shows flowers very similar in color pattern to the ones I photographed.

My opinion isn’t worth much, but you can have it anyway. Changing a file name is sometimes necessary, but it causes a cascade of problems. It breaks any links in Web sites that use the file—this is a weakness of the Internet, not just Commons. Changing the name can also cause the original uploader to lose the file completely. If I hadn’t named the files by the date of the photograph, I would have had a hard time finding them in eight years’ worth of upload log. (There’s probably a good way to search the log, but it wasn’t obvious to me, and therefore isn’t obvious to an average user who’s been around for eight years.) Changing the caption, description, and category cause none of those problems.

So I have two suggestions. First, I think we should be very conservative about changing file names unless they’re obviously misleading. Second, assuming the name is misleading, it might be good to leave a quick note on the original uploader’s talk page. That doesn’t solve the problem of broken Web pages, but it does at least let one interested party know where the file went.

I’ve taken too much of your time already (and way too much of mine, but I get easily distracted). If my observations were useful to you, I’m happy; if not, ignore them, and thanks for your work in trying to manage the chaos here. Cbaile19 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cbaile19: - interesting comments, thanks! Of the colour balance, I played around with one of the pics in gimp, and if I pushed the flower to the 'right' colour for natural V. tricolor, the leaves turned out an impossible colour. So I reckon the flower is genuinely different in colour, not just a photo artefact. Filename changes aren't that bad, as the redirect remains to take you to the new name, so I don't think that's a significant problem (if it was, the rules governing name changes would be considerably tighter than they are). Asking original uploaders before making a filename change might be a good idea in principle, but it just isn't workable: a substantial proportion of files are posted by users who are no longer active on Commons and wouldn't reply at all, while for many more, waiting for a response so holds up an editor's progress that it stifles any work too much. In my experience, only a tiny minority of users comment about filename changes to their uploads (and usually positively, rather than negatively). Of Britton & Brown, and USDA, I don't think they're right to maintain the species for naturalised garden hybrids; if a hybrid name is available, it should be used for 'impure' populations with an ancestry of hybridisation. Neither of the two photos at the USDA page fit with what I'd call V. tricolor - MPF (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks[edit]

	Award for range map exactitude
	A belated thanks for fixing the minor error in the Ponderosa pine range map back in 2014. A lot of Commons maps have errors, and I appreciate it when people find them and fix them. — hike395 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MPF (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tbilisi campaign poster, 2008.jpg[edit]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Tbilisi campaign poster, 2008.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aythyinae[edit]

I note that you deleted Category:Aythyinae in 2009 and again in 2019, and Aythyinae in 2019.

While the taxonomic taxon may indeed we ill-defined, and the category arguably of doubtful value, I think a gallery may indeed be useful, to point to the related categories and to show examples of genera that belong to the subfamily according to different definitions. The related Wikidata entry has Wikipedia articles in loads of languages, and we might want to help Wikipedias to find media to illustrate those articles.

Could the deleted gallery be used for this purpose? If it wasn't good, could it perhaps be edited to be more useful?

I don't see any link to a discussion on Categories for discussion or a deletion request. I think a discussion is warranted if the entities aren't to be restored.

–LPfi (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LPfi: the problem is, (a) Aythyini and the other Anatidae tribes as traditionally circumscribed (e.g. Johnsgard 1978, Livesey 1986), are not all monophyletic, and (b) IOC (the avian taxonomy we follow on Commons) and the other major avain authorities do not use any ranks between family and genus. Circumsriptions of tribes used in various research papers vary between the different individual studies. So finding out what would be included in each tribe is a bit of a lottery, as well as contrary to our policy of following IOC. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can do, is to follow IOC in not including tribal subdivisions in Anatidae or other bird families. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. I understand that the taxonomic categories should follow a scheme, and excluding a category like this then follows. That's one thing. But deleting galleries is a different thing. The gallery can be categorised in Anatinae or Anatidae (whatever comprises everything in Aythyinae), and all the issues can be explained on the category page (or a page where they are explained can be linked). For somebody reading one of the numerous Wikipedia articles on this taxon or on its vernacular equivalents, it helps to have a page on Commons, from where to navigate to the canonical categories. –LPfi (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Logo[edit]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]