User talk:MPF/archive9

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

Cyanocorax yncas map[edit]

Hi, could you tell me why you changed this distribution map? In English article for green jay (Cyanocorax yncas) we have cited information that inca jay is just subspecies of green jay. Also IUCN map (from where I took the data) both birds treat as one species. And even we want to separate this species, your edition is wrong: you left distribution of inca jay (Cyanocorax yncas yncas), not of green jay (Cyanocorax yncas, which is titled on the map).

Sorry for my English, I'm not a native English speaker, but I hope so that you understand me ;)

Best regards, Netzach (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netzach - the English article is out of date and/or using a non-standard parochial authority; the two are split as separate species by the international standard authority IOC (scroll down about 1/5 of the page for Cyanocorax). Several other wikipedias such as Dutch, Swedish, and others are up to date with the split. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need some eastside Sierra flowers identified[edit]

Can you help? Are these photographs of Carex or Schoenoplectus? The descriptions and categories disagree:

File:Large sedge Rock Creek Canyon close.jpg
File:Large sedge Carex sp Rock Creek Canyon.jpg

Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Why do you delete my uploaded photos? They are within terms of WP:Licensing because I made them and are not as same as the original ones... --Obsuser (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsuser: They are so similar as to be derivations of the originals, and - sorry to say - that counts as breach of copyright. Take a look at Commons:Copyright for more details. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maude White shares works for free, and they are not copyrighted as I can make same thing, take photo of it with my hands below, and upload it... If it differentiates in one pixel, it is not as same as original. Can I upload it again? --Obsuser (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no! I looked at Maude White's website, and there is nothing there to say they are free of copyright. Every work of art is copyright unless there is a clear statement that it is free of copyright (which you would need to show proof of!), until it is 70 years old (or older in some situations) - only then does copyright expire. Please read the Commons:Copyright and licensing information very carefully, it is complex! - MPF (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete F1 steering wheel? How it could be "copyright protected"? --Obsuser (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one is supposedly "own work" and is not deleted... My is also own work. How do you know it isn’t or the one mentioned is? --Obsuser (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? Can I use Creative Commons 2.0 GL? --Obsuser (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Obsuser: - someone had to go and take that photo of the F1 steering wheel: it is their work with their camera, so their copyright! If you take your own camera and go to an F1 car showroom, and take your own photo, then yes you can add it to Commons. But not someone else's photo, unless they have specifically stated with a creative commons license that other people can use it. That is the case with the last one you mention, you can see the photographer (Nic Redhead) is cited, and the link given to the original photo, where the creative commons license "Some rights reserved" is clearly shown. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can you know someone went there and took a photo? Maybe he found it elsewhere too. How can someone prove it is his/her own work? It is not revealing a state secret publishing a steering wheel... What’s the matter if ca. 10 web-sites published steering wheel and it is available on internet right now (google images show it too) for anyone that has access to web? --Obsuser (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you answer these thoroughly? --Obsuser (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, illegal "license laundering" as you suggest does happen, unfortunately; users (and particularly administrators) have to be on the look out for it constantly, and delete cases where it occurs. With time and experience, it is often possible to spot cases with ease; image searches on google can help too. On the steering wheel example: just because others elsewhere on the internet have broken copyright, does not mean that we can do so too. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caloenas maculata Brian Small.jpg[edit]

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

FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased Naturalis birds done[edit]

Dear MPF,

My overcategorised tsunami of old birds is done - thanks for your patience. The deceased birds reside in Category:Songbird_specimens_at_Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center and number now 136.232. A few thousand of multiple views of 1 specimen have been uploaded erroneously as "new versions" - old ones can be downloaded but cannot be used in articles - with their first view (1 specimen, more photo's). The List of species and genera in Category:Songbird specimens at Naturalis Biodiversity Center gives an overview of (missing) categories.

Thanks! As you like on the new versions :-) - MPF (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

1. Could you please verify this photo is properly licensed? I’ve just cropped it, and it does have now license (CC Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) on Flickr) so I hope it can stay forever on Commons! [Autoreview says size not found – that’s because I cropped the image...]

Yes, that one is OK! MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Could you tell me whether these files: File:Bone tumor skull.jpg, File:Zuzi Jelinek Opatija 0510 1.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek 1936 godine.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek sa braćom 1939 godine.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek sa Jovankom Broz.jpg comply rules so they can stay here on Wikimedia Commons? I’ve been blocked by an admin for one week on .sr because I’ve uploaded these on Serbian Wikipedia but I’m pretty sure they don’t break any rules as they are very old photos (> 70 years) whose author deceased and have [photos, not authors] small resolution (< 300 px) and comply both the Croatian license {{PD-Croatia}} and the {{PD-old-70}}. Note that first image of the skull is not related to the other from-same-group images.

The skull is unfortunately not OK, even though it is widely used on the internet - no guarantee it is validly licensed! The Žuži Jelinek photos, it is very unlikely they are valid; she only died very recently, and the photographers are likely to be of broadly similar age, so won't have died more than 70 years ago ;-) You would need to have accurate details of who the photographers are and when they died. - MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I crop the skull? --Obsuser (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No; any part of an image is as much protected by the copyright as the whole image ;-) MPF (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about two photos of 1936 and 1939 which comply {{PD-Croatia}} or {{PD-old-70}} for being older than 70 years? --Obsuser (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just that the photo has to be over 70 years old; it has to be 70 years after the photographer died. This is very unlikely for photos taken in the 1930s: you would need to find out who took the photos, and if they died before 1945. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are admins permitted to block an user if he/she sends about ten files that maybe not comply or have proper license on some language project, if that is not because an user wanted intentionally to provocate anything but didn’t know license was maybe not applicable (or even worse if it was actually applicable)? Thank you in advance. --Obsuser (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though they should warn you first about copyright breaches: always best to negotiate first before blocking (I don't know if they did or not!). - MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A, let's say, "nice quote" of yours...[edit]

Hello MPF!

I totaly agree with you on the point that there are "there's many far, far worse pics on Commons", but wouldn't it be a bit too cheeky filling up the DR listings with, let's say, 150 to 200 deletion requests all based upon a low image quality? ^^ Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! It's very rare that I put out a DR based on low image quality - I won't say never, just maybe one or two a year perhaps :-) MPF (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have an opinion how useful this deletion ratioanle of "bad quality" is? Actually, I'd plead for a more extended use of it, as the n-th noisy, blurry image of e.g. a seagull (cf. your example of those unidentified Laridae) does really add nothing to Commons as a media source... Hardly browsable (in a reasonable time), hardly findable media could be deleted, I think. BTW, is it worth to port this exchange to the Village pump for a broader collection of opinions? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is useful, but haven't devoted much time to detailed thought about it. Every now and then I happen upon a really awful photo, and either ignore it, or nominate it for deletion, depending on how I'm feeling at that moment :-) I usually err on the side of keeping. Sometimes awful photos are actually in use, typically if they're old ones from the early days of wiki when there wasn't much choice available. But yes, I agree, it would be useful to have some clearer community guidelines that those currently in place. - MPF (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were fully right, it was really not difficult in finding gull photographs that could reasonably proposed for deletion on quality grounds, there are currently nearly ten listed on DR by me... Grand-Duc (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
@Grand-Duc: Aye! As an aside, the series with the young gull on the roof window, with no location information, I'm not sure at all they are Larus argentatus - the contributor has photos from both France (Alps region?) and (I think) Georgia; of these, Larus argentatus only occurs in the north of France and not at all in Georgia. In southern France, L. michahellis is the commonest gull, while in Georgia, L. armenicus is most likely. But unless we can find out where the photos were taken, it is not possible to identify them. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouh, OK... Well, that shows well that most, if not all, well-established Wikimedia projects are now in a state where it is hard to contribute without being specially educated in a subject - I'm not an ornithologist and simply was not aware (or did not think about it) that the hatchlings and juveniles of gulls often look similar... This teaches me well to shoot ahead. (And the more, I fell victim of a "false friend", when you wrote "Georgia", I automatically thought about the US state, and not the country. I took a look at old versions of the FR-WP userpage of said contributor, and he is indeed an Georgian by his own saying, even if he seemingly masters at first glance the French language as if it's his mothertongue.) Thank you for reminding me to be a bit more cautious! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 2.jpg[edit]

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 2.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Josve05a (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 1.jpg[edit]

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 1.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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Josve05a (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Location?[edit]

Hello! Yes! The photo was taken very close to Ávila, Spain: {{Location dec|40.65423877|-4.64892268|}} I've added this information in the photo description. Thanks a lot! --DPC (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the serie "Fringilla coelebs 01 by dpc.jpg" to "Fringilla coelebs 06 by dpc.jpg" is taken in the same place. --DPC (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias! - MPF (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftlet ID[edit]

I appreciate that swiftlets are not the easiest group to id, and if I'd found these birds away from this site and on my own, there might be some room for error. However, unusually for me, I was with an organised group with two professional guides,one of whom was Kamol Komolphalin, illustrator of Birds of Thailand, Lekagul and Round. The site is also, apparently, a known and regular breeding site for this species, so it wasn't a random find. In the circumstances, I think the id is hard to dispute, and German's is widespread along the coast of Thailand. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I suspect google pointed me in the wrong direction for the temple, it suggested two locations well inland in northern Thailand, not along the coast ;-) MPF (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, I can't remember exactly where the temple was, since we were not travelling under our own steam, but my wife and I both remember it as being in a decent-sized twon at or near the coast Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudhirundo griseopyga Sharpe.jpg[edit]

I note that you have changed the colours of this picture, which I agree with. It would appear as if these swallow illustrations, see Category:A monograph of the Hirundinidae, were printed on yellow paper, which somewhat obscures what the artist had in mind, white plumage would become yellow for instance. I have also given three illustrations a white background, over the original, which seems to restore the illustration. Should I do the same with the rest? JMK (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yep, seems a good idea to me; up to you how many you want to do. I might get round to doing some more myself too, if I can find the time. I'm doubtful they were deliberately printed on yellow paper, it's normal for old paper to go that colour after a century or so. If it had originally been yellow paper, I'd think Sharpe would have used white paint to make vivid white parts white in the pictures - and I don't see much evidence of that (possibly in File:Tachycineta thalassina 1894.jpg as the breast looks marginally lighter than the outer page). - MPF (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location?[edit]

Hi MPF, I just added location info for File:FraserFirFoliage.jpg! I took this picture on my trip to Mount Rogers last summer! Broly0 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag these for rotation?[edit]

File:Nine picea rubens cones from Pisgah National Forest.jpg and the rest of the contents of Category:Picea rubens cones. I do not see that they fit either of the situations presented in Commons:Rotation. The only thing I can think of is that because the cones hang a certain way while on the tree, that means a photo of one must reflect that orientation? Or is there something else I'm missing? I'm all for having multiple versions in case someone wants to use them, but I do prefer them the other way (which is also the way the US Fish and Wildlife Service presents them). — Rhododendrites talk |  14:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to reflect their natural orientation; i.e. USFWS posted the pics up-side-down. They definitely look better / more realistic in their natural position. - MPF (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2016[edit]

Hallo MPF,

Du erhältst diese Nachricht als Teilnehmer von Wiki Loves Earth 2014 oder 2015. Dieses Jahr wird sich Deutschland wieder am Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth beteiligen. Wir würden uns über weitere Bilder von Dir freuen. Der Zeitraum für das Hochladen der Naturbilder ist vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2016.

Für die Weitergabe an den internationalen Wettbewerb ist ab diesem Jahr eine Mindestauflösung von 2 Megapixeln erforderlich. Bitte gib an, in welchem Schutzgebiet oder an welchem Schutzobjekt (z.B. Naturdenkmal, Geotop) die Fotos gemacht wurden. Wenn Bilder gar nicht zugeordnet werden können, gelangen sie nicht in die Wertung. In die Bilder eingefügte Zusätze wie der Name des Fotografen, Datum, Beschreibung oder ein Rahmen sind unerwünscht.

Seit der letzten Runde sind unter anderem Listen aller FFH-Gebiete und EU-Vogelschutzgebiete in Deutschland erstellt worden, die nun ebenfalls auf Bilder warten.

Dieses Jahr wird eine Vorjury die Vorauswahl der Bilder nach den Wettbewerbsregeln übernehmen. Als Teilnehmer aus den Vorjahren kannst Du Dich daran beteiligen. Bei Interesse bitte unter WLE-Vorjury eintragen, ein Zugangscode kommt per E-Mail.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams,

--Blech (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of useful categories[edit]

hi, I noticed that you are removing files, like File:Joshua Tree National Park - 49 Palms Oasis - 01.jpg from subcategories of Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. Please do not remove useful categories. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring it to Category:Washingtonia filifera, so that the file could be easily found there: Commons has very few photos of the species in its native environment (as opposed to cultivated), and it doesn't make good sense for most of the few we have to be hidden away in obscure subcategories ;-) MPF (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your concern is with the quality of Category:Washingtonia filifera and my concern is with quality of Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park, as I am trying to make sure all images of plants from Category:Joshua Tree National Park are also present in Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. So whatever you do to Category:Washingtonia filifera, do not remove them from Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. --Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added Category:49 Palm Oasis in Joshua Tree National Park‎ and Category:Oasis of Mara in Joshua Tree National Park to Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park, were they all in that? If not, I can add them directly to Flora of Joshua Tree National Park (or do that anyway, if that's preferrable) - MPF (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phalacrocorax capillatus[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear MPF,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cygnus atratus[edit]

Hi MPF, in biologischem Englisch bin ich nicht so firm, aber unter "captive" hätte ich tatsächlich (nur) ein Tier in Gefangenschaft eingeordnet. Mein Bild vom Max-Eyth-See in Stuttgart mit den Betonsteinen sieht auch nicht gerade nach freier Wildbahn aus ... Grüße, --Pjt56 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes[edit]

Thanks for commenting on some existing themes. I see you opposed "three of a kind" and "black and green" as a "gimmick". Themes do not need to be subject categories in order to be very successful. We have had great abstract themes, some similar to those, that result in wonderful educational images. Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals is just one of well over a dozen examples. Why don't you look at see what worked and what inspired people to take great photos. On the voting result page you can see how many people submitted entries, how many voted and how many photos were entered. Ideally we want all three of these to be high. Themes that are very specific on specialist subjects, for example, will not be popular, and themes that are not popular will not attract voters. At the end of the day, the popularity of a theme will determine how many high-quality educational images we get, not how worthy the theme topic it is. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thanks! Looked through the Diagonals set, and agree there are many decent pics there, but they are very random in subject; this makes it trickier to get them all correctly categorised, as no-one has any expertise covering all of them. This contrasts with more subject-defined topics, where a person with expertise in that topic can go through the whole lot to verify identities, categories, etc., in one easy go. Also it isn't a good way to attract really high value photos (photos of items with no representation on Commons). I guess the latter is a real niche, but also a serious challenge (one I'd like to see is conifers in the mountains of Mexico - numerous endemic species, most of which don't have any photos on Commons at all yet). Having a photo challenge like that might make a Mexican contributor or two realise we have a major gap there that they can fill; Diagonals doesn't do that. - MPF (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that photos where Commons lacks good representation are that way for a reason -- nobody is interested in taking the pictures or we have so few contributors from that region. We simply can't run a challenge on Mexican conifers. Even a challenge on conifers would likely not attract the kind of photos you want (i.e. it would get lots of images of unidentified conifer forests and none/few of individual specimens with correct name/category). While a PC might move some photographers outside their comfort zone to try new things, that isn't going to work for many. Someone who likes taking photos of bugs, or of buildings, isn't necessarily going to be inspired to photograph a Pride march just because someone campaigns for more of those photos on Commons. The thing is that if you run a challenge on birds, then that's all you get. And if someone isn't interested in photographing birds, they don't contribute at all. If you run a challenge on "three of a kind" then who knows what you get -- three birds, three bugs, three buildings, three people, three fruit.... Serendipity is wonderful, and the challenge is open to far more people. So I think that PC should have a mix of concrete subject themes and a mix of abstract concept themes -- that way everybody is happy.
The problem with categorising challenge images is no different to the problem of categorising any photographer's work, if they are unfamiliar with Commons and don't do it themselves. Really the best categorisers are the photographers once they get familiar with Commons.
What we are seeing with PC is an increasing number of entries from developing nations. That makes it hard to manage as so many seem to have problems getting their submissions right -- probably because there is no translation in their language. Whenever I look at newbies contributions to the challenges, I often see they have uploaded other photos too. It inspires people to join and contribute, and we want them to contribute outside of PC too.
So I think the best way to look at it is as a bit of fun for regulars and a hook to lure newbies. The actual photographs entered, a few hundred at most, are a drop in the ocean for Commons -- so we really aren't going to right-any-wrongs wrt representation on individual challenge themes. But if PC can start attracting contributors from developing nations, for example, then it is solving a systemic bias issue, and perhaps a few of those are interested in conifers... -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with names, please?[edit]

I screwed up when I named two images I just uploaded but I'm not sure if they need to be changed. The 2 images are File:Texas thistle bud.jpg and File:Texas thistle.jpg. My concern is that they may be confused with the Texas thistle (Cirsium texanum). I'm thinking it might be better to rename them to File:Texas Milk Thistle bud.jpg and File:Texas Milk Thistle.jpg, both of which are Silybum marianum. Can you advise, please? Thank you in advance...Atsme 📞 13:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll do it! - MPF (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: ... Done! - MPF (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh THANK YOU, MPF!! You're amazing! Atsme 📞 14:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's easy! - MPF (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so happy to read that it's easy because I screwed-up. 8-[ Remember what we were taught in school about changing our answers on a test - that in some cases the first answer was the correct one? Well, my first titles may have been the correct ones, but before I ask for your help again, I've queried some botanists in Texas hoping they can positively ID the images. Atsme 📞 22:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for you to simply revert the name change? The images are definitely not a milk thistle. The original names were actually "safely" accurate. Once a botanist confirms the actual species of Texas thistle, I will simply add it to the infobox. My apologies. Atsme 📞 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to change the file names, no problem there. But I've been checking up; it isn't Cirsium texanum, the bracts below the flowerhead are the wrong shape, and it isn't Silybum marianum, either. It is extremely like the UK/European native Musk Thistle Carduus nutans, and I've found that this is listed as an invasive weed in North America, so I'm sure now that's what your pics are. Compare e.g. File:Chardon dans la vallée de l'Avérole.jpg or File:Carduus nutans 3.jpg, showing identical bracts. So I'll rename & re-cat them to Musk Thistle shortly - MPF (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. The center of the flower is different. I shot the photos the other day here at my ranch in North Texas. I'm getting close to an ID and will advise as soon as I know something. Thank you for your help. Atsme 📞 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a full shot of the plant File:Texas thistle FS.jpg, and also found the following images which are almost exact University of Texas, and a photog's site and a variety of Texas thistles. Atsme 📞 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I'll have to disagree, File:Texas thistle FS.jpg is Musk Thistle again ;-) I checked some more serious botanical sites, University of Austin, TX (& photo gallery), Flora of North America, USDA, and Applied Medical Botany; Texas Thistle is quite constant (note the short, slender bracts below the flowerheads) and does not resemble your plants at all. Musk Thistle by contrast is quite variable (Flora of North America) and does resemble yours. The photo on Albert Vick's site is also Musk Thistle, misidentified, and none of the photos on the asergeev.com site labelled Cirsium texanum resembles yours. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be absolutely correct. My hesitation at this point rests on the fact that none of the thistles in my pastures are "nodding". All are upright. Also, none have that circular daisy-like center as the photos depict of a musk thistle. I'm waiting for a botanist friend to get back to me with a positive ID. Just want to make sure of a proper ID before we make further changes. Atsme 📞 18:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The 'nodding' isn't a hard-and-fast character, particularly with buds / young flowers, happens more with the mature seed heads though. I can put them in Category:Unidentified Carduoideae for the time being until your friend reports back - MPF (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed, MPF - you nailed it. Musk thistle it is; Carduus nutans. Will you do the honors? :-D Atsme 📞 23:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do; it'll be tomorrow now (just gone midnight here!) - MPF (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the list of images for your convenience:

Done! I gave them all the same name, just 1-4 at the end, File:Texas invasive Musk Thistle 1.jpg et seq., as I find it useful to keep related images together in their category, hope that's OK! - MPF (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpg[edit]

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MILEPRI[edit]

Hello MPF,
MILEPRI creates hundred of categories for tribes and subtribes from BioLib. He moves 1 or 2 genera in these category to ensure that they are kept, but leaves most of the genera in the subfamilies, leaving me the work of finishing the work. This is not nice but authorized.
Could you look at [1], please?
He must at least respect an unanimous rule: not to create tribe categories when the subfamily has only one tribe.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in identifying birds![edit]

Thank you for identifying the bird in File:Corvid in tree calling.gk.webm! If you get some time to, I hope you get a chance to identify File:Sparrows bathing in fountain.gk.webm as well. It is an astonishing level and quantity of work you're doing here. Thank you very much. grendel|khan 01:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done :-) MPF (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour-correction[edit]

Look at this, I hope you like my choice of green. :) (updated, see below) -- Fulvio 314 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fulvio314: Thanks! Somewhat similar to what I'd got to and not ideal (too blue-green); I fear it probably won't be possible to get anything decently accurate unfortunately. But thanks for trying! - MPF (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We say: "since we did 30, let's do 31!". I just chose a green of my taste and there are many other tones to do the color turn, now I know how to do it without affecting the grays. Pls, show me a picture where there is a good green you like and I'll try again with a reference :) -- Fulvio 314 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fulvio314: Thanks! Here's a selection of photos of the same species showing typical vegetation colour in its habitat: File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicata)- cambaiensis race at Hodal I IMG 5835.jpg, File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicatus) Male Thane Maharashtra IMG 1341 (3).JPG, File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicatus)Kalyan IMG 1341 (4).JPG, File:Saxicoloides fulicatus Bhindawas.jpg. I suspect the real problem though is that the original we've been working from only contains a very limited range of colour, and it is impossible to split a single blue into a mix of different varieties of greenish-yellows. But give it a go if you like! - MPF (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here there is the green version most similar to the samples (use CTRL-F5 to clear the cache and update the displayed picture), 150px is it ok? You are right, there are few tones available in the original, but with the help of the color weel (The Gimp) you can expand the range a little. -- Fulvio 314 19:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fulvio314: Nice, thanks! Definitely better than anything I'd managed; I'm happy with that as the best that it'll be possible to make - MPF (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'll probably rename both this and the original into something more meaningful soon :-) MPF (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :-) I worked some more on @Fulvio314: s image. Hope its better, otherwise revert. cheers Amada44  talk to me 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yep, I think that's a bit of an improvement :-) MPF (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalos in Berlin[edit]

Hey MPF, regarding File:Tiefwerder Wasserbueffel 01.jpg and File:Tiefwerder Wasserbueffel 02.jpg. You are of course right that those are buffalos are captive ones. But they are most definitely not living in a zoo, but in a large fenced grassland area that is publicly accessible. The buffalos are not "attractions", but basically cheap lawnmowers. They are as much in a zoo as cattle on a meadow or sheep on a dike. --Sebari (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srittau: Thanks! I've checked the category tree, there's a better cat at Category:Water buffaloes of Germany, I'll move them there - MPF (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that category fits well! --Sebari (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixed flowers[edit]

Hello. I noticed you also did some work on unidentified plants. Maybe you can give some input regarding this category. There is an old thread on the talk page where its categorization is questioned. --Averater (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juniperus communis[edit]

Juniperus communis in Parc naturel régional de la Narbonnaise en Méditerranée I ask to be sure: the plant on the picture is certainly Juniperus communis? Is it possible that it has red berries? Tournasol7 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Tournasol7: - c'est Juniperus oxycedrus. I can rename it if you like - MPF (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you, because I can't do it :) Have a nice day! Tournasol7 (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Doing it now :-) MPF (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And done! MPF (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Species confirmation[edit]

Hi MPF,

Can you confirm the species in this photo? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slaunger - yes, confirmed! - MPF (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are providing fast and high quality service! What more could one ask for? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi MPF I have uploaded this image from Picasa. Could you please review the image. Because if the image has been pass I have to use it on article.IronScientist (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cavia porcellus, Iguazú National Park 1.jpg[edit]

Hi. I am afraid that animal at the pictures you upload to wikicommons (Cavia porcellus, Iguazú National Park 1.jpg) is not Cavia porcellus (domesticated C. tschudii) but the sister taxon - Cavia aparea or Cavia aperea subsp. pamparum. C. porcellus lives in Andas, not in the Southern Brazil. Look here, and (if you have an access to Jstor) here (at the page 219). The name of that file should be chanded into "Cavia, Iguazú National Park 1.jpg". Greetings, Jacek555 (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacek555: Thanks! I always was a little uncertain of the identity given the location, but took the Flickr photographer's identification at his word. I have renamed the file to File:Cavia aperea, Iguazú National Park 1.jpg, and also the related second file to File:Cavia aperea, Iguazú National Park 2.jpg. Rather sadly, this leaves Wiki Commons without a single picture of wild Cavia porcellus in its native environment - any idea where we can get some?? - MPF (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: , I am afraid it is unclear where, and how many guiena pigs (understood as Cavia porcellus) lives in the wild. FAO reports here about "family production" at household cultures only. Mammal Species of the World reports that: „This species may be a domesticated animal with no established wild populations”, and I am afraid you can not find a reliable information on wild populations at any scientific publication. Even cavias taken for scientific research tend to be purchased just at any village markets in different parts of the Andes. I am just trying to collect reliable data for a new, completed article at pl:wiki, but I did not find any info about the range of occurrence in the wild. We have to remember, that the domestication of that species happened 2500BC or even 5000BC. Greetings, Jacek555 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacek555: Thanks! Yes, 5-7,000 years of undocumented domestication makes things difficult! Maybe some genetic studies will get done some day. - MPF (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Cavia[edit]

Hi. I think the File:Esterros de Farrapos 01.JPG could show C. aperea too, because Esteros de Farrapos is in Uruguay, east from Argentina. But in Uruguay lives also another species of Cavia – C. magna. That species should live in costasal part of Uruguay only, but who knows? File:CobayoColorado1.JPG shows a cavy with colour pelage, so I think it is a pet photographed somewhere in the garden by its owner. Cavies living in the wild have agouti pelage. Maybe the name of that file expalins the palce (Colorado, US), or the name of that pet. Cabayo is one of versions on vernacular name of cavy in South America. Jacek555 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacek555: Thanks! I looked at the map for C. magna, and it is well away from Esteros de Farrapos; I think it is safe to say C. aperea, then. I'll put the other one in domesticated C. porcellus. - MPF (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File name change affects embed code used elsewhere[edit]

Hi, Thank you for improving the caption of this image. I notice, however, that the filename was also changed by you: "MPF moved page File:CombDuck DSC0259.jpg to File:Knob-billed Ducks and Rock Doves, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.jpg without leaving a redirect: identity)" This is a problem because the previous file name in the embed code used elsewhere will now return an error. Could you please revert to the original file name? Thanks, Shankar Raman (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shankar Raman: - unfortunately, that wouldn't help, as it would mean the image could appear erroneously on pages about Comb Duck (a different species, Sarkidiornis sylvicolor from South America). - MPF (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a pity, as the caption and category chosen clearly indicates this is a different species. There can be many such cases with the filename (which is often chosen based on convenience and common names; for instance, 'blue jay' would refer to different species in old and new world.) I do wish the filename can be reverted/retained because it will be impossible to keep track of such edits which end up losing the images from other sites where the pics are embedded. Shankar Raman (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shankar Raman: Is there really a problem? The file was not listed as having been in use anywhere; if it had been, it would not have been possible to rename it without leaving a redirect. The rename was done in accord with the Commons:File renaming guidelines (#3, "To correct obvious errors in file names, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms"). - MPF (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for taking so much of your time. This file (and many other similar ones I have on Wikimedia Commons) is used on other sites such as my blog, eBird etc using the embed code. I doubt whether their usage in sites outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia will show up here against filename. When the filename is changed here, the embed code on the blog or eBird will still show the link to original file but fail to display/load image. For an example of what happened to this particular file see this page http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S31324624 -- one image displayed (filename not changed), the other image not displayed (only link to CombDuck DSC0259.jpg shows). Shankar Raman (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPF/archive9&oldid=319408555"