User talk:MPF/archive13

Branta bernicla map - suggestions

hello MPF

I have some comments about your map File:Branta bernicla map.png and [[1]] which appears on the French page [[2]] and perhaps on others.

1. The subspecies names don't appear to correspond to those in page [[3]] and I think this needs to be discussed and then clarified in the page.
2. Ssp. hrota should be shown wintering in Normandy - the vast majority of the French wintering birds are centered around le havre de la Sienne [[4]].
3. The colours for breeding areas seem (to my eyes; I am partially colour-blind especially when there are fine coloured lines) too close to each other.
   This difficulty could be alleviated if you
   - vary or contrast the tones/darkness as well as the colours
   - place key areas above the map in such a way that species names are aligned with breeding areas.

In addition I feel the 'migration routes' should be sparsely dotted ( . . . . ) or dashed ( - - - - ) and potentially grey, to avoid giving an interpretation that the migrations are direct. For instance I know that the French wintering birds stop off in Devon, Somerset, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland (but I'm not sure if they go through each of these places on each trip - I can try to find out)

• what do you think ? Jwikip (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Jwikip: - thanks for the note! Dealing with the points below;

• 1. The subspecies names are from the Reed, A., Ward, D. H., Derksen, D. V., & Sedinger, J. S. (2013) reference. This is now behind a paywall, which is why you found it misleading; it was accessible when I linked it. I have changed the link to an archive which remains outside the paywall (here). I have no say over what is written in the English and French wikipedia articles; that is up to editors there.
• 2. Thanks for the info on B. b. hrota in France; I didn't know about this. Yes, it should be added.
• 3. Colour selection is difficult; with the need for 8 colours (4 for the breeding populations, 4 for the wintering populations), it is inevitably going to be difficult to find distinct tones that will be visible for all forms of colourblindness. I will be happy to hear any suggestions you can make for changes, though would if possible like to keep "summery" colours (red-orange-yellow) for the breeding ranges, and "cold" colours (blues) for the winter ranges.
• 4. Yes, changing to dotted or dashed lines would be a good idea, if you can do it; thanks for suggesting it. I only used solid straight lines as they are so much easier to draw. They are indeed very arbitary, as drawing exact routes is difficult (e.g. the nigricans population does not cut across overland, but follows the coastline round via western Alaska!), and in some cases are not yet known. And yes, birds will follow slightly different routes in different years depending on weather, etc., though they do remain broadly similar.

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: we need to decide who will update the image file. You have the original media!? I submit that it should probably be yourself :) but I may be able to try something -for example dotting the lines- in ten days' time (not at home at present).

I have slightly updated my suggestion above (place key areas above the map in such a way that species names are aligned with breeding areas) and hope it is clearer now.

In addition I shall happily modify the content of the Fr and En brent goose pages (you too could do this!!) but this too will be in a while, once I get my head fully around the recent debates and decisions (grey-bellied/nigricans/orientalis type specimen and renaming(s)) in order to describe the situation properly.
I don't want to simply change from one statement (three subspecies and an intermediate form) to another (four subspecies) because it may perhaps seem that there is not yet full agreement. Jwikip (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jwikip: - thanks for your confidence! Sadly I can't really edit it at the moment - the computer I have now doesn't have good .png editing software (unlike my older one!). The original media is no different to the uploaded version; you are welcome to edit it yourself. I've also just discovered a more recent version of the reference (2016 archive here) has withdrawn their evidence in order to follow the 'traditional' 3 subspecies + un-named population interpretation (I think this is unfortunate as their evidence for 4 subspecies is compelling). So it may be best to re-do the map completely. Perhaps it could all be taken up with IOC to see what they think, but that's not for us to deal with here. - MPF (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: I'll do what I can next week or later ... not sure my (old) software will do PNGs properly but in the worst case I can hack the PNG into a JPG. The issue still remains as to which subspecies ranges to include in the new image! Out of curiosity, where is the map data you used originally for the ranges? - I don't think I saw it on the archived article(s) ... Jwikip (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: my previous statement next week has become next decade ... a very Happy New year to you !!

I have not forgotten this action, and have found a nice 2004 flyway map [[5]] for the East-Atlantic hrota population, which might serve as a model for the global map which I wanted to redraw ...

Next I'll have to find better maps for the other flyways; do you have any ideas ? Jwikip (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jwikip: - thanks and happy new year to you too! I'll take a look at the article and see what it says :-) MPF (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: This evening I'm preparing the modified image, as originally suggested/agreed in September! but being laborious this task will take a while.

• I am still preparing the data for a similar map to show currently-known flyways with better detail as opposed to dotted arrows.
• Please let me know whether you still agree with showing B.b.nigricans orientalis, which doesn't particularly worry me as orientalis is dealt with in the article ... but ... was orientalis originally considered to breed in Alaska and NW Canada as you show? -- Jwikip (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jwikip: - excellent, thanks! I guess for now, exclude orientalis as IOC and AOU don't accept it as distinct. It might be worth mentioning in the text though; I'll look up more on it tomorrow (it's complex!!) - MPF (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: -1- Please note the the orientalis form it is mentioned in the text.
I agree it probably ought not to be shown ... but it is complex; one simple temporary solution is to continue to identify orientalis in NE Asia, and re-colour the US/Canada orientalis zones as nigricans.

-2- P.S I am creating a .jpg from your original .png. That shouldn't be a problem, should it?. -- Jwikip (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jwikip: No; there's just the one 'Black' population, in both NE Asia and NW NAmerica; the dispute is as to whether the name nigricans belongs to that, or to the Grey-bellied. Current orthodoxy is that nigricans belongs to the Black population, and therefore nigricans and orientalis are the same thing. If nigricans belongs instead to the Grey-bellied population, then, and only then, is orientalis to be regarded as different. - MPF (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

-2- please, no; don't convert it into a .jpg, that format is messy and does not work well for maps. It is good for photos, but not for things like maps or diagrams that need hard boundaries with no colour leakage. The other option apart from .png is .svg, this is liked by many but requires specialist software that many people don't have (it isn't included with most computer startup software). - MPF (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: here I am again ... -- Jwikip (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A. this is becoming a complex and time-consuming (but interesting) research project. I am slowed down by not having access to a proper research library.
B. it is going to be difficult but not impossible for me to do - in particular my softw isn't very powerful.
C. I will probably end up doing two maps = your original, modified + my Northern-hemisphere flyway map. Both are in the pipeline but waiting for some details while I read up and do other tasks such as gardening!. We might have to make do with (relatively) poor image quality but which gives clearer info than the current map (cf. revious comments jpg/png/etc).
-1- What softw did you originally use ?
-2- you don't show Korean-wintering birds
-3- in your opinion do the Japanese- and Chinese- wintering birds cross land or go around the coast - or both ? -- Jwikip (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jwikip: thanks! To try to answer your queries:

1. Microsoft Paint - rather old, simple software; sometimes the simpler is better, as it doesn't try to do anything you don't want it to do!!
2. They were't shown by the literature I had access to; please add them!
3. I fear I don't know; it may not even be known, if no tracking research has been done on that population yet.

MPF (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: I have a draft of my modified file - before loading it, can I send it to you offline for your review ? Please indicate whether this would be acceptable ? Otherwise i'll just put it up and make modifications from there on. [it won't matter much anyway because I propose it will be "superseded" on the wikipedia pages by my N.hemisphere map which is much prettier - also available in draft form]

1. I'm still using Photostudio 2000 which is rather old too ! allows layers in working file, can save as svg, png, jpg.
2. the distribution in Korea is not well-documented or I haven't found it
3. ... and the Japanese researchers are continuing their tracking research (per mail received from one of them) although there is already info out there.

-- Jwikip (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinus contorta on Lulu Island

Hi MPF/archive13, thanks again for your opinion and your actions regarding my photograph File:Pinus contorta subsp latifolia, Richmond Nature Park, Richmond, BC, Canada.jpg. However, when I told an admin of the E-Flora BC site about this, I got the response that the origin of my photograph from Richmond Nature Park means that my photograph shows Pinus contorta var. (or subsp.) contorta, shore pine, which is supposed to be the only taxon of pine that is able to grow on the peat soil of Richmond Nature Park according to local botanists. See the result here: [6]. Actually there is a 2008 publication about Richmond Nature Park and its flora co-authored by this administrator, which clearly states that there is only var. contorta in Richmond Nature Park. So if you know any publications about the Lulu island population of Pinus contorta and its assignment to subsp. latifolia, then both me and the people from E-Flora BC would be glad to know about this. You can write a mail to the admins of E-Flora BC via the "Send a Comment" button on http://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/ShowDBImage/ShowStandard.aspx?index=85583. For the time being I have the intention to add a taxonomy dispute template to my photograph and explain the identification problem on the file talk page until this issue can be resolved. With best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust: - thanks for the note! The ID as subsp. latifolia (and explicitly its suggested source from seed floated down the Fraser River) is something I read about several years ago; I have been trying to trace where I came across it, unsuccessfully so far. But it is worth adding that Christensen (2003), Nordic Journal of Botany 23: 563-575 [available from https:// www.sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2003.tb00436.x (remove the space!)] found that the Lulu Island provenance (#74 in Fig. 5) was nested in Group B with other ssp. latifolia sources (and also with a semi-interior source from Skagway, #3), not in group A with other ssp. contorta provenances (see also second paragraph on p.574). I'll keep searching for the main claim, and let you know if I relocate it. All the best for Christmas! - MPF (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, @MPF: . I guess this (and the initial response by the E-Flora BC people who were not sure about the subspecies without knowing its Richmond Nature Park origin) means that there is probably some ssp. latifolia on Lulu Island. However, the E-Flora BC admin told me that Richmond Nature Park is nowhere near the Fraser river banks, where such downwashed interior taxa might be encountered, and that this bog has not been near the Fraser river for a very long time. They will ask another expert, whether ssp. latifolia was ever found in Richmond Nature Park, but I suggest that the local botanists are very unlikely to be wrong claiming that the typical bog pines are from the usual local ssp. contorta. So I guess we should wait for a while and then put my photograph back to ssp. contorta. I also wish a merry Christmas to you. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I changed the ID back to subsp. contorta and made a rename request. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Location?

Hi, I have added some more detailed information about location of specimen. I am not sure whether it was cultivated specimen or not - there was a mixture of some ornamental shrubs (different species) close to the path and wild on slopes of hill. It is native species there. Kenraiz (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Location of Bird Noises

This was recorded quite a while ago so I don't know if I can remember really well. It was somewhere around where I live (in walking distance) and probably a place with a lot of nature like a bush or trees. Inside of the eastern half of the Barony of Clonderlaw in Clare to be as specific as possible without giving you my address. I hope this helps you. Blight55 (talk) 13:50 25 Jan 2020 (GMT)

Goura sclaterii

Hi MPF,
asking you as a bird expert: It seems that the Goura scheepmakeri sclaterii was split from Goura scheepmakeri into an own species Goura sclaterii (see here) and many of the pictures featured in Category:Goura scheepmakeri are actually G. sclaterii. I already created Category:Goura sclaterii, but as a new Commons user I am unsure how to proceed. Should I just rename and recategorize the images or should I move whole subcategories? To distinguish the two species one needs to see the whole bird, so what to do with the pictures I am not sure about? This source (sorry, it is German) actually says that no zoo in the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria keeps G. scheepmakeri, so is it safe to assume that all pigeons in captivity in Europe are G. sclaterii? --Lynxbiru (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lynxbiru: thanks for the note! I had a look at the Zootierliste, and though there are none now, they did list several places with 'Ehemalige Haltungen' (former holdings), which may include some in some of the older photos at Commons. My suggestion then (unless there are clear identification criteria for the two; I haven't checked yet) is to put them all in Category:Unidentified Goura (or perhaps create a new category Category:Unidentified Goura (captive), and to add a note at the top similar to that at Category:Unidentified Ptilopsis). A further complication of course is that many zoo specimens may be misidentified by their keepers (particularly for private collectors), or be hybrids - in general, all captive specimens need to be treated as very low value, and poor quality due to uncertainties like these. For any captive birds that are definite Goura sclaterii, we will also of course need a Category:Goura sclaterii (captive). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. I will start with moving the obvious cases. I found a paper with illustrations of the different species, but I don't know how much the coloring of single individuals can vary. Maybe I will go to the library this week. --Lynxbiru (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi MPF
I am more or less done with recategorizing the images. Mind having a quick look, if everything was done correctly? Kind regards --Lynxbiru (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lynxbiru: thanks, will do! - MPF (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Identify unknown plants W

Hi, based on your recent activities it seems like that u have more knowledges of the plant than I am, would you kindly helpout to identify this plant ? Thanks !

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_W-plant_PSF-W1040009_(cropped).png Encik Tekateki (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Encik Tekateki: - unfortunately, no idea! Those PSF pics are useless :-) MPF (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Note on Bulgarian fir

Hi MPF
I found the caption of Bulgarian fir distribution map changed with a note of inaccuracy. I kindly suggest in case of comments and/or inaccuracies to not point them in the caption. There is a space for discussions, or at least any authors can be contacted directly.
In particular on your note on fir, you mentioned that near Plovdiv there is an area where the species occurs. Could you provide the precisce location and the source to cite in order to update the map? My source about fir forests in Bulgaria was this one: http://e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/en/vol3/33G3.html
Thanks a lot. Giovanni Caudullo (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Giovanni Caudullo: - it is not just "an area" where the species occurs near Plovdiv; this site is the type locality from where the species was described: the location that defines the very identity of the species. The site is "Bulgarien: Zentralrhodopen, Tal des Tasna südlich von Selca (ca. 40 km Luftlinie suidlich der Station Kricim an der Bahn Sofia-Plovdiv), ca. 1000 m u. M. (Mattfeld no. 833, 17. VII. 1924, steril)": the site where Mattfeld collected his type specimen Mattfeld 833 from which he described the species (Mattfeld 1925, Zur Kenntnis der Formenkreise der europäischen und kleinasiatischen Tannen, Notizblatt des Königl. botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin 9 (84): 235). This type locality was confirmed by Liu (A Monograph of the Genus Abies, 1971, pp. 311-312), but Farjon later in error wrongly cited a second specimen from Greece (collected by Sintenis) as the type. This is very important: it means that the entire EUFORGEN map is based on an incorrect concept of the species as a whole. I presume you know Liepelt et al's 2009 paper: Postglacial range expansion and its genetic imprints in Abies alba (Mill.) — A synthesis from palaeobotanic and genetic data, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 153: 139–149; if you see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4a there, the area marked in yellow is the area that includes the type locality of Abies borisii-regis and other firs with related genetic composition; this area marked yellow provides the best currently available mapping for Abies borisii-regis, and with Abies alba restricted to the area in red. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @MPF: for your answer. The distribution map of Bulgarian fir I prepared is outdated and for sure it needs to be updated on the basis of most recent studies. In the paper you suggested (Liepelt et al. 2009) Abies borisii-regis is never mentioned, except on the fig. 1 where all fir ranges are shown. As far as I understood from this study, in figure 3 and 4a the yellow range is related to an A. alba cluster, which is separated by the western red cluster because they developed from different glacial refugia. From the same author (Liepelt et al. 2010) a similar map is proposed showing also the Abies borisii-regis position. In the paper is also explained that Bulgarian fir is probably an hybrid developed from a secondary contact between A. alba and A. cephalonica. Recent genetic studies (Krajmerova et al. 2015 and Bella et al. 2015), proved that Abies borisii-regis cannot be considered a species but a hybrid with intermediate characters. This status is also accepted by international nomenclature [7]. So its range, if we can still talk about species range, can be designed in the area of contact of the two parental firs: North Greece, South Albania, South N. Macedonia and South Bulgaria. As hybrid, probably its genetic and morphological traits can be found also outside the suggested area (Liepelt et al. 2015, fig. 2, haplotype 5 in pink). For this reason it's difficult to delineate a precise distribution area due to a gradient of traits which fades out from core zone.

@Giovanni Caudullo: - thanks! The problem there, is that those recent genetic studies continue to be based on material which was collected distant from the location Abies borisii-regis was described from: they are not true Abies borisii-regis specimens, but something else, misidentified as Abies borisii-regis. The location from where Abies borisii-regis was described is solidly within the area of the "eastern A. alba cluster" and is thus the same as it. There are two options that can then be taken; either (a) the entire "eastern Abies alba cluster" can be split from typical A. alba as a separate species A. borisii-regis, or else (if one does not wish to split Abies alba into two species) A. borisii-regis can be treated as a synonym, variety, or subspecies of A. alba. The hybrid from further south in Greece discussed by the studies you cite, does not have a valid scientific name. So when Bella et al. (2015) say "We sampled 251 individuals from nine Abies populations [in Greece] representative of A. alba, A. cephalonica and A. × borisii-regis", what it should really read is "We sampled 251 individuals from nine Greek Abies populations representative of A. borisii-regis, A. cephalonica and the un-named hybrid between them". This whole problem can be traced back to the serious error by Farjon (1993; in Regnum Vegetabile 128: 111) in thinking the wrong specimen to be the type, contrary to Mattfeld's original 1925 description and the confirmation of Mattfeld's specimen by Liu (1971). - MPF (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: I see your point. Unfortunately I'm not a botanist nor a geneticist and I based my maps on scientific and most accepted papers to design ranges. What you are claiming is a complete change in Abies classification in Balkan peninsula due to a past error of a specimen description. You should collect all the evidences and publish a scientific paper in order to have your theory accepted. Or contact the authors of the papers (Farjon?) and discuss about it. Are you thinking to move in this direction?

@Giovanni Caudullo: - yes, that's correct; unfortunately I don't have the funding to publish, though I would like to - MPF (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Green peafowl distribution map - data source?

Hi there, what is your source for the 2016 update to the green peafowl distribution map? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_peafowl#/media/File:Pavo_muticus_range_map.png

Your updates have unfortunately driven to extinction some of the world's largest remaining populations (e.g. Eastern Plains of Cambodia) and a large part of it's current distribution! See e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international/article/abundance-estimates-for-the-endangered-green-peafowl-pavo-muticus-in-cambodia-identification-of-a-globally-important-site-for-conservation/3108716062735DB1B291B173E8D20CF8

Thanks for the note; I'll correct the map later today to add the locations from that paper. My edit was based on Handbook of the Birds of the World; the previous map (with presence over much of India and Borneo!) was of course grossly incorrect. - MPF (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Done - MPF (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pelican

Hallo, MPF! Are you really sure this is not a Pelicanus crispus? File:Pelican NalSarovar.jpg --Veliensis (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Veliensis: - thanks! Yes, it does appear to be that - well spotted, and thanks for the correction! I'll start replacing the image on pages where it is used wrongly, but if you can assist, that would be a help as there's a lot ;-) MPF (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Addenum: I am using File:Spot-billed pelican-02.jpg as I think the best image for replacement, but there are others of course! - MPF (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

All usage on P. philippinus pages removed now - MPF (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Veliensis (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

:Category:Terpsiphone paradisi (male)

Hello. Out of curiosity, why did you empty this category? Rehman 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rehman: two reasons; first (and by far most importantly), to get all the photos tagged Terpsiphone paradisi into one place, to make it easier to check for misidentified individuals of the recent splits T. incei and T. affinis (many contributors using old field guides won't be familiar with this yet), and secondly, because sexing isn't so reliable as this categorisation would suggest; immature males can be very similar to females, so the distinction is rather artificial. Also there isn't a huge total number in the species category anyway, well short of the 200 where subdivision becomes more important. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I disagree removing such categories in general, but in this case it makes sense. Happy editing! Rehman 03:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2020

Hallo MPF,

bald ist es soweit: Vom 1. Mai bis zum 30. Juni 2020 findet zum achten Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth statt. Deutschland ist zum siebten Mal dabei. Dabei können unter anderem Nationalparks, Naturschutzgebiete, Geotope und Naturdenkmäler fotografiert und die Fotos hochgeladen werden. Du hast an einem der vergangenen Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen. Deshalb laden wir dich ein, dieses Jahr wieder mitzumachen. Wir freuen uns auf deine Fotos!

gallery mode="packed-overlay" class="center" caption="Sieger WLE 2019" Hessigheim - Felsengärten - die Kluft mit der Eiche.jpg|Hessigheimer Felsengärten Silberteich.jpg|Silberteich im Harz 2019 - Nationalpark Jasmund - 03.jpg|Nationalpark Jasmund /gallery

Dieses Jahr ist es aufgrund der Ausgangsbeschränkungen schwieriger aktuelle Fotos zu machen, deshalb läuft der Wettbwerb dieses Mal zwei Monate. Es sind wie immer viele spannende Motive überall in Deutschland zu finden. Neben Naturdenkmälern wie alten Bäumen oder Naturparks im Gebirge und am Meer können Geotope wie Quellen und Aufschlüsse oder FFH-Gebiete fotografiert werden, um sie unter anderem in der Wikipedia zu dokumentieren. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche neue Listen und Artikel in diesen Bereichen entstanden, für die wir uns über Fotos freuen. Als Einstieg für die Suche nach Motiven hilft diese Übersichtsseite. Weitere Informationen erhältst du hier und vor allem unter dieser Anleitung. Falls du im Moment nicht wie sonst in die Natur fahren kannst, findest du vielleicht in den Tiefen deiner Festplatte oder auf dem Smartphone noch interessante Fotos.

Du möchtest am Wettbewerb teilnehmen, dir fehlt aber die richtige Technik? Dann wirf doch mal einen Blick in den Technikpool und das Technikleihportal von Wikimedia Deutschland! Dort findest du Kameras, Objektive und Zubehör verschiedenster Art. Sollte noch Technik fehlen, die deiner Meinung nach angeschafft werden sollte, freut sich Wikimedia Deutschland über dein Feedback zum Technikpool.

Außerdem laden wir Dich ein, vom 1. Mai bis 31. Juli 2020 an der Vorjury teilzunehmen. Diese bewertet die hochgeladenen Bilder und ermittelt so gemeinsam mit der Jury, die im August tagen wird, die Sieger von Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Deutschland. Das Vorjurytool ist hier bald freigeschaltet. Du benötigst dafür nur deinen Benutzernamen und das Passwort.

Für Fragen steht das Organisationsteam gerne auf der Support-Seite zur Verfügung.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg beim Fotowettbewerb wünscht dir im Namen des Organisationsteams --Z ^thomas 08:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Larus delawarensis

Hi MPF, thanks for reaching out to me. I'm not a fan of "(low quality)" categories in general. Other than for things like being low resolution I find they can be fairly subjective (for example I feel showing the bird in it's environment is a useful feature of my picture even if the bird itself is so small), I don't imagine anyone ever looks in "(low quality)" categories for images to use, and it's extremely discouraging to new users who have their images categorized as low quality. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain your edit though, and thanks for the category suggestions! I always have trouble coming up with categories for anything geological. - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ryan Hodnett: thanks for the reply! Yes, the 'low quality' one can be very difficult, but it is a useful one for sorting out poor photos that are unlikely to be used, where a category has a very large number (>200) files. Mostly I use it for very low resolution photos (any jpg file below about 150 KB always seems to be poor quality) or blurry. I take your point though, and will be cautious about using it where new contributors may be involved (I'm less worried when they are imports from panoramio / flickr / etc.). - MPF (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Muscovy

Hi,

Regarding this, how do you distinguish "domesticated" from [feral]? I would assume domesticated would mean they are currently living on a farm or are otherwise owned by someone. These are not -- these are the woods around a pond in Golden Gate Park. Or is domesticated about ... lineage? For lack of the right word. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rhododendrites: - yes, it's about lineage; they are not wild birds within their native range. We don't currently have a category for feral Muscovy Ducks as we do for other escaped ex-captive populations (e.g. Category:Feral pigeons, Category:Branta canadensis (feral), etc.) as I at least wasn't aware of any files fitting that context; as far as I'm aware, yours are the first such. So yes, it would probably worth creating a separate category for them; not sure what format of name for it (whether English or scientific) would be best, I'm not sure. Do you have any thoughts? - MPF (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any strong opinion. It was in fact the first time I'd come across dinosaurs ducks like that, and completely by surprise, on a path away from the lake. I'm content to defer to you on the matter, and if you decide not to create the category, I'd probably go with Category:Muscovy ducks (feral). Looking at the enwiki article, File:Muscovy duck at Lake Union.JPG also looks to fit the, ahem, bill. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - thanks! That's fine with me, I'll create it shortly, and add your pics, the Lake Union pic, and any others that look suited. The enwiki article could really do with a wild bird being put in the taxobox (it looks awful with that plastic cr@p there!), if you want to do it. I liked the "dinosaurs" remark!! :-) - MPF (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hybrid Hulthemia persica

'Hybrid Hulthemia persica' is name of group of cultivars (like e.g. 'Rosa Hybrid Wichuraiana‎', 'Rosa Hybrid Alba‎'). Because it was separate genus (Hulthemia) the name of group is conserved, despite they are now placed among roses (in Rosa genus). There are used names of groups of cultivars in Category:Rosa cultivar groups not descriptions (like e.g. 'Hybrids of Rosa wichuraiana‎' or 'Hybrids of Rosa alba'). Kenraiz (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC) [edit: cultivars are not treated like taxa and should keep their own nomenclature and classification].

@Kenraiz: - will undo later tomorrow when I've a bit of time, but undo first yourself if you wish - MPF (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for informing about the bird species

Hello MPF. Thanks for your correct identification of my set of photos of an Oenanthe hispanica as Oenanthe xanthoprymna. But I am against to change its English vernacular name in the titles of my photos as 'Kurdish wheatear' because it is a political naming. Moreover the EN vernacular of this species is " Rufous-tailed Wheatear" in Avibase and "Red-tailed Wheatear" in iNaturalist and Trakus, our national birding database. In my opinion these vernacular define the this bird more accurately because they describe the bird itself but not a place is does not exist. So I am correcting the relevant information on Wikimedia accordingly my description. Many thanks to identify the species and inform me about the change. All the best! Zeynel --Zcebeci (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

@Zcebeci: - sorry, but I would like to decline the rename request; the official standard English name for the species is Kurdish Wheatear (scroll to near end of page), and we should stick to that, whatever the rights and wrongs of it - MPF (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zcebeci: - additionally, from Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds (1: 334, 2018), "Kurdish Wheatear. Also known as Red-tailed Wheatear, a rather inaccurate name if you consider that in most plumages the species has a black-and-white tail". IOC additionally retain the name Red-tailed Wheatear for Oenanthe chrysopygia, a related species formerly lumped together with O. xanthoprymna as one species. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Common starling distribution map update

Hi MPF. Can you update this map according to the map in here? It has some little differences. Thanks in advance :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: - I'll compare them and check to see if there's any important changes. I'd be a little cautious though, some of those birdlife maps are not as accurate as one might like, e.g. I've found cases where a bird restricted to a particular mountain range is given a mapped range which doesn't match the correct location of that range well ;-) MPF (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, sure. The thing is, I was translating the English Wikipedia article -which is a feautured article- to Turkish, anc I have noticed that it had some misinformation for the distribution parts. For example, as you can see in this change, the leading section was saying that it is introduced to Peru, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil and the Falkland Islands and I couldn't find any source to confirm that information. On the other hand, there are sources that it is introduced to Fiji and Tonga, but neither your map not the map in the source shows it.--Nanahuatl (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: - done; apologies for the delay! I left out Fiji and Tonga given the uncertainty over the long term viability of the birds there and with the cited reference being from nearly 40 years ago. - MPF (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a rush, do we? :D Thanks for the update. I didn't know about Fiji and Tonga, better I make more research for them, so I can add that info to the Wikipedia article. If you are interested and find a source, you can just ping me :) Cheers.--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Juniperus thurifera in Spain

Why to redirect the category:"Juniperus thurifera in Spain" to the generic "Juniperus thurifera"? There are this kind of junipers in other countries. There is no equivalence; I think. Thanks --LBM1948 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@LBM1948: - because it is pointless, as it leaves the main parent category so close to empty. This makes it difficult for people to find pictures as they have to look through multiple small subcategories instead of looking through just one category. When there are over 200 images of the species in total, then first split out non-photographic files (illustrations). When there are over 200 photos of the species, then split out photos of non-natural (cultivated) plants and museum (herbarium) specimens. When there are over 200 photos of the species in its native habitat, only then start looking to subdivide further. And since natural entities like wild plants do not follow human political and national boundaries, ask yourself: are these the best criteria to use? Far better to use any natural botanical subdivision. So here, I would recommend division into Category:Juniperus thurifera subsp. thurifera, and Category:Juniperus thurifera subsp. africana, when the main category becomes full. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Cupressus arizonica and Lavandula pedunculata

Hellow MPF. Consider these two cases, please:

1) Why did you delete the category Cupressus arizonica (cultivated)? Just because it was empty? How many photos must there be to create this category? Isn't it a matter of concept and not quantity?

2) There are the categories Lavandula stoechas subsp. pedunculata and Lavandula pedunculata. Aren't they synonymous? You want to do something about it?

Thanks. --LBM1948 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@LBM1948: thanks!

1) Because it was empty; the only files that had been in it were Cupressus glabra misidentified, which I moved to Category:Cupressus glabra (cultivated). I'll re-create it as soon as Commons gets any photos of C. arizonica in cultivation (it is rarely planted in gardens, so that could be a while!).

2) Yes, they should be merged, I'll check it out to find which name is currently accepted.

MPF (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

विकी लभ्स अर्थ २०२० नेपाल खुल्ला छ!

File:WLE NEPAL logo.png thumb|right|150px|link=Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Nepal नमस्कार! हामी घोषणा गर्न पाउँदा खुसी छौं कि विकी लभ्स अर्थ २०२० नेपाल अहिलेसम्म पनि खुल्ला छ। तपाईंको सहभागिताले हामीलाई नेपालको प्रकृतिलाई अभिलेखिकरण गर्न र यसलाई विकिपिडिया तथा यसका अन्य परियोजनाहरू मार्फत विश्वलाई देखाउन मद्दत गर्दछ। नियमहरू पढ्नको लागि कृपया प्रतियोगिताको पृष्ठमा जानुहोस्: Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Nepal । त्यहाँ तपाइँले प्रतियोगितामा कसरी भाग लिने भनेर पनि थाहा पाउनु हुनेछ। यदि तपाईंसँग केहि प्रश्नहरू छन् भने कृपया हामीलाई सम्पर्क गर्नुहोस्: https://www.facebook.com/WLENepal

धन्यवाद,
विकी लभ्स अर्थ २०२० नेपाल आयोजक समिती 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosy-faced lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis)

Hi. Could you explain why you changed the category on my image? I have removed your edit. Have you made changes to any more of my images? Thanks, Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: which image are you referring to? I can't know why I recategorised it until I know which image your query refers to! As to others - possibly; I recategorise thousands of pics, and don't stop to see who uploded the images I edit; reasons for recategorisation vary widely depending on the situation. - MPF (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@MPF: File:Rosy-faced lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis) composite.jpg Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I'll take a look - MPF (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I fear, in this case, an erroneous click with Cat-a-lot; it does happen very occasionally as one is only viewing the thumbnails rather than the full size. I must have (wrongly!) thought the background looked too like a plain zoo background rather than natural vegetation. My apologies for this; I have restored it to the main species category. Thanks for spotting it! - MPF (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you recategorize and rename hundreds of files, sometimes making assunptions on subspecies. I assume you are a specialist in animals. Subspecies identification is difficult/impossible in some locations. Which database(s) do you use? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: IOC, with checks against HBW where it helps (the ranges are often more clearly specified in HBW). Yes, there are times when it isn't possible, e.g. in UK where (many) Erithacus rubecula melophilus and (a few) Erithacus rubecula rubecula can occur together in winter. No doubt some get miscategorised, and I'll always be happy to review cases where you think I've got it wrong. But I'd hope the number wrong is small compared to the total. - MPF (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Trouble is, I've got no way of knowing when somebody recategorizes my images (I've got so many). I spend hours making sure I have the right ones. Of course, I make mistakes, but at least they are my mistakes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Same here; I just hope my pics are useful, and don't worry too much over what others do with them. I guess that's the whole thing about Commons - one bounces ideas off each other and hope the right result comes out eventually. But if categories weren't changed and with over 60 million files on Commons, a lot of categories would get hopelessly overloaded (I wonder just how many photos of Mute Swan there are here!!!). - MPF (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Pinus sylvestris Łazy 2013-07 02.jpg‎

Hi, why do you move the three photos 1, 2, 3 of the Pinus sylvestris specimen taken in the area of Jamno lake to the "cultivated" subcategory? The tree is a volunteer, like many others in the area between the lake and the Baltic See. Someone panted on it a bike path mark. There has been some conservation work going on that time at the shore of the lake, but this is not a plantation or any other commercial site. Cheers, Nova (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nova: - sorry for the delay in replying! I decided it on the basis that it is in a heavily cultivated agricultural landscape: if it was a wild tree, it would not have had a chance to survive. If you can confirm 'someone planted it', then yes, it is cultivated (lone trees can be planted, just as much as plantations!). If it is genuinely self-sown from windblown seed from native wild trees, then yes, it should go back in the main species category. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MPF, thank you for your answer. As I'm occasionally visiting the site I can only presume but not guarantee it is self-sown, so let's leave it in the cultivated category. Cheers, Nova (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Category

Hello MPF, why do you change this category ? Aster amellus is the species written on the information board of the plant, as you can see in picture. Pạtạfisik 12:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Patafisik: - because the foliage and flowers do not resemble those of the species in its native habitat, such as File:Aster amellus 3.jpg. Regrettably, incorrectly labelled plants are very common in gardens. See also the note I added near the top of Category:Aster amellus. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

South Sudan border

Hello.

Can you add the border of South Sudan which became independent in 2011 in File:Tragelaphus angasii distribution.svg?

Yours sincerely, Maphobbyist (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Maphobbyist: - regrettably, I can't; I don't have svg-editing software on my computer. I know there are several people who have been adding this border to maps, the simplest option would be to look in the file histories of maps that have it added, to see who is doing so. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your reply and advice. Maphobbyist (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Image upload discussion

Hello @MPF: sir, do have a look at one of my controversial upload, [8] if it shouldn't be on Commons please inform me, I will take it for speedy. My intention was never toward making mistakes. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @C1K98V: - thanks for the note! I suspect that since it is on Narendra Modi's official Linkedin page, it would have been taken by an official Government photographer accompanying him. So the licence is very probably valid. But I don't know the fine details of Indian law so I can't give an accurate assessment. I will copy this to the deletion request page. I hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @MPF: sir, does the discussion seem necessary, or you can close it. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @C1K98V: - I think it is best if it is left open a little while, so someone more familiar with Indian laws on the topic can reply too. It is always possible I might be wrong! - MPF (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @MPF: I would agree with you. That why I tagged for discussion to reach a consensus. Could you grant me the autopatrolled rights temporary to upload ogg files. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been working tirelessly, and would continue the good work like this only. Since the last month I have followed all the policy and tried to correct my mistake too. My best contribution till now is [9], [10]. I assure I won't misuse the tools if you consider my request. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Several recent questionable overwrites

Thanks for your efforts to improve images on Commons, but I'm concerned that you're overwriting files that you didn't initially upload with files that aren't obvious improvements (and are unclear at best as to whether they meet COM:OVERWRITE. I first saw this one turned into this. I appreciate that there's some personal preference involved, but I reverted it because the highlights are sufficiently blown that I don't think it would've passed QIC. It looks like you have an awful lot of similar replacements, some of which are improvements but many of which are not IMO. Most seem to fall into a matter of preference -- the sort of thing that's perfectly fine to upload, but should be a separate file (especially if the file has gone through a process like QIC/VIC/FPC). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rhododendrites: - thanks for the note! Yes, agreed it is a bit of a grey area, but I felt that my changes were within the permitted guidelines. I will admit that I somehow failed to notice the QI tag on your pic File:Cormorants in La Jolla (70596).jpg until after I uploaded the edit (the tag is down near the bottom of the page!); had I seen it before, I probably wouldn't have uploaded my edit. I did the edit in order to brighten the image to aid with identification (previously just 'Unidentified Phalacrocoracidae'; it was so dark I couldn't be sure whether they were Phalacrocorax penicillatus or some other species) and also to remove the red/pink cast evident from the should-be-white guano. The light levels I gave it were a best approximation to what I'd expect for the context (guano "should" look blinding white in bright sunlight, though I don't see any blown-out pure white in my version) and to make the birds' plumage detail more obvious. It is very rare that anyone has been critical of my pic edits (maybe 3 or 4 times in the last decade or more?); I have had far more 'thank' notices for what I've done. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinus uncinata vs. Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata

Hi, MPF:

About yor deletion of the Category:Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata in three of my pictures:

1) I'm sure about the identification of the species, in the field and in the bibliography. Look here [[11]]and here: [[12]]. (Sorry, there's no article in en.Wikipedia)

2) The problem lies in the different cataloguing in Wikipedia and Commons. I would have preferred to use Pinus uncinata, but if the category is not renamed in Commons I can not do it.

Will you change it? I do not consider myself "authority" in this regard

Thank you --LBM1948 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @LBM1948: - I don't think I deleted it in 3 pictures? I did delete it in one, briefly, because I (mistakenly, at first) thought it wasn't present in that picture, but then restored it when I realised it was present after all. Which are the files you are thinking of? I also deleted the category 'Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata in Spain', as it is a political, rather than natural distinction, and it makes better sense to keep all of the photos of Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata in one category while there are still relatively few in total (only 75): this makes it much easier for users to find the photo most useful to their needs.

Of the taxonomic status of uncinata, both the morphology and genetics (only minimal difference) support it being conspecific with P. mugo; see Christensen, Nordic Journal of Botany 7: 383–408, Celiński, Comptes Rendus Biologies 340: 339-348. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Added Location

I have added the locations.

Dynamite16 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Tree ID

Hi there, I see we've discussed tree species on my talk page before. I'm revisiting some of my older pictures, so if it's of any interest, do you think I got these ones right?

• File:Noble fir, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Oregon.jpg - I had a hard copy of this tree guide which led me to switch this recently from red fir to noble fir.
• File:Western White Pine, Douglas-fir, Siskiyou Wilderness.jpg - the pine is in question, not the Douglas-fir.
• File:Whitebark pine, Siskiyou Wilderness.JPG

--Jsayre64 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jsayre64: - thanks for the note! I've taken a look:

1. remains Noble Fir, it is out of range for Red Fir (see map here, with Diamond Peak well north of the intergrade zone)
2. is certainly a white pine, and WWP is the best fit (the only other options in the Siskiyou being Sugar Pine, generally lower down, and Whitebark Pine, generally higher up, and it just doesn't look right for either of those)
3. again, definitely one of the white pines, and I reckon another WWP; needles too long for Whitebark.

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you! Jsayre64 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: Glad to help! I've done the move now - MPF (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WLM Invitation

		Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Nepal
		Hi MPF, We would like to invite you to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Nepal competition during 1 September to 30 September, 2020 and share your great and valuable images with the whole world. Kind regards, The Wiki Loves Monuments Team, Nepal

Euonymus from Toronto

Hi MPF, I see you changed the attribution of the image Euonymus with fruit, Scarlett Mills, Toronto.jpg. Do you think it is rather E. atropurpureus? As I know, its fruits are much smaller. Actually, it grows very close from my home, so I can look more carefully. Can you suggest what I have to look for? The bark and the pods are looking like the E.europaeus, but I can be wrong. Thanks for your consideration. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mykola Swarnyk: thanks for the note - I'm not saying it definitely isn't E. europaeus, just that in a genus with ~150+ species many of which are widely cultivated, a cultivated specimen in an urban area away from the species' native range has to be treated with extreme caution. As well as other species, there is also a high risk of cultivated origin hybrids between different species imported from widely separated areas. How would one for example distinguish a hybrid between E. europaeus and E. atropurpureus, or a back-cross of that with E. europaeus, or a 3rd-generation cross involving multiple species? Plants like this frequently arise, either deliberately bred or unrealised, at nurseries, and may be selected for sale by the nurseryman for some aspect that they particularly liked - many named cultivars are just given as Genus 'Cultivar Name' without attribution to a species due to such uncertainties in their origins. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

File

Immediately undo your deletion and file redirect at File:Hooded Mergansers (5040112650) (Original).jpg, You have abused your admin tools by deleteting this file and redirecting it, If you don't I'll be taking you to ANU,
You NEVER, ever use your tools to "win" like you did here never!.
You're more than welcome to renominate the "original/large" file but under no circumstance should you ever delete it and redirect it especially when they're at DR and especially when you're an admin. Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 08:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: - There's no point in having a duplicate of the file; it should never have been uploaded as a separate file. Established policy is that higher resolution versions should be uploaded on top of the smaller version, not separately. Even if I hadn't done so, sooner or later someone would have deleted the duplicate anyway, as deleting / merging duplicates is a simple matter for a speedy deletion, they don't need a deletion request discussion. The way you had been trying to set things up, it was the older lower resolution duplicate that would have ended up being deleted, which is less appropriate than deleting the new duplicate upload. As an aside, the new duplicate was not independently at DR; it was never nominated - it just had the DR link copied in from the older file. - MPF (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to reppace the image so again undo your action or I'll take you to anu. –Davey2010^Talk 11:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Calm down! There is every valid reason to replace the image. Replacement of a low resolution image with a higher resolution version of the same image is standard, long-accepted valid proceedure. - MPF (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a hill worth dying on, No point complaining further, Have a good day. –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks! Same for you, have a nice day! MPF (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File(s) appeared in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter

Hello MPF, it seems that your latest changes or uploads of the file(s) 308 Stechginster.JPG broke a template. This assumption has been made because the file(s) appeared in the maintenance Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. To fix this issue please check this category for further information. If the file(s) is/are not contained in the maintenance category anymore someone else already did the work and you can ignore this message. Thank you for your cooperation. --ArndBot (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@ArndBot: - thanks for the heads-up! It seems I forgot to put in an opening "{{"; I have added it now - MPF (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Acer with marcescent leaves vs. Acer (marcescent leaves)

There is a difference, they are not redundant. The cats "with marcescent leaves" show entire trees while the cats (marcescent leaves) are close-ups of the leaves themselves. Famartin (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wood by country

Hi, why did you remove this category? All the other similar categories of "Wood by country" are catogorized with the proper "Trees by country" category. --Phyrexian ɸ 17:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: Because it doesn't belong there - I checked a random selection of Trees by country subcategories, and only found a Wood subcategory in one of them. The vast majority don't have it. Woods [i.e., groups of living trees] yes, but not wood. Just as you don't have e.g. Meat by country categories as subcategories of Animals by country categories. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your point and I may agree with you. But checking a random selection of these categories I'm failing to find a single one that is not categorized under the proper "tree by country" category. Take those random examples: Category:Wood in Argentina; Category:Wood in the United States; Category:Wood in Italy; Category:Wood in Japan; Category:Wood in the United Kingdom; Category:Wood in Georgia; Category:Wood in Ethiopia. Either the category for the Dominican Republic should be restored or the "tree by country" ones should be removed from all those categories too. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 17:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: Thanks! I'll check through and remove them some time (won't be right away, but fairly soon) - MPF (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ID of bird in File:Porphyrio indicus viridis - Bueng Boraphet, Thailand.jpg

Hi. Could you re-check your IDing of the bird in the picture as Porphyrio indicus viridis? The plumage and range don't seem to match. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: - thanks for the note; I've checked, I had based it on an earlier version of the IOC treatment which has been revised subsequently, moving viridis from P. indicus to P. poliocephalus. IOC now carry the comment "SE Asian populations [treated as subspecies viridis] complex variable, poorly understood, intermediate between poliocephalus and indicus (Sangster 1998; Taylor 1998), and variable in mantle color and greyness of head sides (Wells 1999). Long placed in the “indicus” group (i.e. Ripley 1977; Roselaar in Cramp et al. 1980; Sangster 1998, Garcia-R. & Trewick 2015), but very like or inseparable from poliocephalus. Thus, assignment to indicus seems arbitrary. Not included in Garcia-R. & Trewick (2015). Tentatively treated here as a subspecies of poliocephalus". I'll update it shortly. - MPF (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I know pretty much nothing about birds, but this page on norththailandbirding.com appears to assign Bueng Boraphet specimens to P. poliocephalus, distinguishing them from P. p. viridis in locations further south and east. The appearances also more closely match the image in question. The IOC description includes northern Thailand in the range of P. p. poliocephalus, and Bueng Boraphet is sometimes regarded as being around the southern edge of the region (though I'm not sure about this specific usage). Considering this, wouldn't the original file name and description, referring to P. p. poliocephalus, be a closer match? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: - tricky! I was reckoning on 'northern Thailand' as only the hilly, more wooded habitats (looking on google maps, from about Uttaradit & Phitsanulok northwards), with Bueng Boraphet as lowland central Thailand and thus within the range of ssp. viridis. I guess it is a borderline case, given IOC's comment on their near-inseparability. A transfer to ssp. poliocephalus is perhaps optional, but would certainly require more extensive editing of the file including renaming, which I'm not too keen on given the number of pages the pic is used on (and that it has already been renamed once, before it was in widespread use). I guess the first thing to do is go through the page uses and remove it from any P. indicus pages. - MPF (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Ryan - do you have exact locations for File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph, Ontario 2020-04-11 (01).jpg, File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph, Ontario 2020-04-11 (02).jpg, and File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph.jpg, please? In particular, whether growing naturally among native vegetation, or in-near cultivated areas where they could have been planted? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've added locations to the photos you mentioned. File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph, Ontario 2020-04-11 (01).jpg and File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph, Ontario 2020-04-11 (02).jpg are both growing naturally among native vegetation, File:Juniper (Juniperus sp.) - Guelph.jpg had been planted in a cultivated/landscaped area. Ryan Hodnett (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ryan Hodnett: Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Dong bei mu ben zhi wu tu zhi (1955-324) (20371660273).jpg

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

DR's and a category that might interest you...

Thanks for responding in a robust manner.

As you are active on Wikispecies, you might want to look through the 60,000 works, in Category:Books_from_the_Biodiversity_Heritage_Library to see if you can find illustrations for various species.

The process of harmonizing images against scans of the books/ journals they come from is ongoing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: - thanks! Whoof, that looks a huge task . . . I might do the odd bit, but I've got enough on my plate at the mo! - MPF (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Another thing to consider if it possible to set up some kind of Wikidata based taxo tag for identified species in media on Commons. The thought here was that you could then search by a Q identifer on Wikidata, and get a list of images of that species on Commons and other sites. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: - that sounds an interesting idea, though I've no idea how to set about it. How would it differ from the current categories here? It would also need some sort of quality control; I'd guess over half my time on Commons is spent correcting misidentified pics and identifying ones tagged in 'Unidentified Xxxxx' categories ;-) MPF (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Slightly different in that it would be creating link between an image and a Wikispecies entry via Wikidata. I'm suprised Wikispecies isn't more integrated with Wikidata to be fair, given that Wikispecies format is fairly standard. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I will not edit this file again at least until 2022

File:Нелла Агренич.jpg. As an administrator, you win. DMBFFF (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@DMBFFF: What's your problem? It's a picture of a woman; any bird also in the picture is sufficiently inconsequential that I don't see it warranting its inclusion in bird-related categories. It belongs in people-related categories. - MPF (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's almost an argument to take it out of Category:Women.   :D

What kind of got—to use an avian metaphor—stuck in my craw, was that my edits were undone without an explanation, particularly from someone of your eminence. (If it was some jerk BoN, it wouldn't have bothered me to even the mild annoyance of a day ago).

I'm not sure who's more notable: the woman or the bird. I suppose if it was a condor, quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno), or hummingbird, the bird might be more notable than the woman. If if was, say, a pigeon (let's say that landed on her in a city park) she'd be more important. But what is that bird? Is it a goose? I don't know. Hence the super-cat, and now my somewhat lame-ass attempt at specificity.

As it is, if you wish to edit it out, I leave it to you.

and aside from this minor dispute, thanks again for subcatting my other stuff. You are probably enabling me to better subcat media. Happy Solstice.  :)   DMBFFF (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@DMBFFF: - I guess I owe you an apology; the problem is, for personal reasons I found the pic distasteful to look at, so didn't study it in any detail, just wanted it 'out of sight as quickly as possible', and that was easiest done by removing it from the categories I look at a lot. But my view of the pic was so fleeting I did't get any impression of what bird it might be. Would Category:Domesticated geese or one of its subcategories like Category:Domesticated goose heads fit it well, perhaps? - MPF (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, no problem; and thanks for the explanation. I suppose we all come across distasteful Commons pics once in a while. Thanks for bearing with this one. I guess Category:Domesticated geese would be okay for now. I'll do it to spare you. Best wishes.   :)   DMBFFF (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

[:File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1978) (20332115100).jpg]

{Autotranslate|1=File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1978) (20332115100).jpg|2=|3=|base=Copyvionote}

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: - thanks! The pic of itself is no loss if deleted, as it isn't very good quality. But this is again, a case where we need to find out what permissions the copyright owner granted to Archive.org to host the material, and whether this permission extends to other users like Commons. It isn't just a straightforward breach of copyright. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)