User talk:MPF/archive11

Category:Anthracothorax dominicus

Hello! Few years ago you helped me with identifying some Carribean birds and properly categorizing them. Some of the pictures I categorized myself and made a mistake (new trip and more photos from here show it very clear). Could you please help me to restore correct names and links properly. File:DRbirds_Antillean_Mango_1c.jpg, and File:DRbirds Antillean Mango 3c.jpg are actually show Category:Mellisuga minima, File:DRbirds Antillean Mango 2c.jpg is a female Antillean mango, and now I have male photos as well. Thank you in advance! Offtop to avoid confusion: I use this account for photos uploaded to commons from Internet, and ZankaM to upload personal photos. --Zanka (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zanka: - will do, though it'll be in a day or two - MPF (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zanka: - done; the new file names are File:DRbirds Mellisuga minima 1.jpg and File:DRbirds Mellisuga minima 2.jpg - MPF (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Teucridium parvifolium.jpg

File:Teucridium parvifolium.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!

—LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving files

When moving a file that has existed for years (or, really, even weeks), you generally should not delete the old name, however inaccurate, and should let it become a redirect instead. It's significantly likely that something off-wiki links there, and we don't want to mess up the referential integrity. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: - I can see where you're coming from, but I'd disagree there. If an image of A on Commons was misidentified & mislabelled as being B, the likelihood is that it will be being used wrongly to illustrate an example of B. Without access to the off-wiki site(s), delinking the misidentified photo is the only way of removing the misidentification. One can then hope that the author of the off-wiki site will notice its having been delinked, and find a new image to replace the removed misidentified one. But even if they don't, it is better to have no linked image, than a misleading one. - MPF (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Look through the move log, you are practically the only person doing it this way. There's a pretty strong consensus on this. If you want to change it, bring it up and try to get it changed, but don't just undercut it by editing against consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And in the case of what brought me here, the old name wasn't actively wrong, it just described something as "unidentified" which was later identified. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

tax correct?

200px|right Hi MPF, a quick question: Is Calidris bairdii correct for this birdy? Thanks, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 09:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amada44: I fear not - it is Calidris alba; note the lack of a hind toe (diagnostic for C. alba), also the dark carpal joint, the weak 'half-collar', and the primaries not extending so very far beyond the tertials. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I have many more pictures and I wanted to check befor I upload them but I'm not sure if I shoud. We already have 250 pictures of them... Amada44  ^{talk to me} 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amada44: - no problems! - MPF (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal — Invitation

		Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal
		Hi MPF, We would like to invite you to participate in Wiki Loves Earth 2018 in Nepal competition during 1 May to 31 May, 2018 and share your great and valuable images with the whole world. We would like to ask a few minutes of your time before you start upload your valuable images from 1 May, 2018. Please use this new survey to submit your mailing address. Kind regards, The Wiki Loves Earth Team

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:Swan 2-wallpaper-2560x1600 Fotor (8934764890).jpg

Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@BevinKacon: - thanks! Yes, agree, delete it. - MPF (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "Orange fruits" is grammar error

• Point 1: The term Fruits is generally a grammar error?
• Point 2: I think Orange fruit means edible fruit. If this right, so I don't know wich category I should give to inedible orange fruits. Orange plant parts? Please help me.

Sorry for my bad english. --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Arnaud Palastowicz: - sorry for the delay in replying! Yes, "Orange fruits" is a grammar error; 'fruit' is an uncountable noun and does not normally take an -s in the plural: one fruit, several fruit, a bowl of fruit, a heavy crop of fruit. Not a serious literary error, just a bit quaint and faintly amusing, like seeing "sheeps" or "deers". The problem though is that this is not too well known among people who are not native speakers of English, and the result here on Commons is that there are several duplicate categories for the same colour fruit, one without an -s and the other with. It'll need quite a lot of sorting out! - MPF (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Even in the dictionary! --Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with wiki article

Hi MPF. I uploaded the call of the Cory's shearwater and named it after the tax on the wikipedia site: en:Cory's shearwater Calonectris borealis. The image in the article is in the cat Category:Calonectris diomedea. So its either the wrong image in the article or the image has the wrong tax. Could you look into that? Also, do you know if my audio is Calonectris borealis or Calonectris diomedea? Thanks! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Amada44: - thanks for the note! Your audio file from Tenerife is C. borealis, as that is the only species of Calonectris breeding there. After a bit of detective work (finding out where the pic was taken, from another file by the same contributor), I concluded that File:CorysShearwaterBottom.jpg is also C. borealis, so it can stay on en:Cory's shearwater; I have also moved it to Category:Calonectris borealis. Some of the other images at en:Cory's shearwater are however Scopoli's, and should be removed. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Amada44: . I've got all the files sorted to the right category now. The en:Cory's shearwater page could do with a couple of small tweaks if you want to do them (line 1: English name is after [not 'for'] Cory; Ecology para 3: dive deep 15 m (50 feet) (metric first to match rest of article); Taxonomy line 1 'the Atlantic species [not 'form'] is larger') - MPF (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

seagull location

added latlong to the file description for File:Seagull chicks.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kborer (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Bluebells

Regarding this change, I don't think it is correct. The bluebells show all the characteristics of non-scripta with the exception that these are an albeno white mutant. This is not uncommon. I see no characteristics of hispanica that suggest a cross. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: - OK, I've changed it back; I thought the bells looked a bit too broad, but guess I was wrong on this one. Thanks for letting me know! - MPF (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, some guides on the difference include this, this, this and this. The second link also shows a white native. The woods I shot in are full of native bluebells. Cheers, -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour in Phalacrocorax carbo

Hi MPF. Sorry to bother you again. Do you know if this behaviour has a specific name? cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 09:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amada44: Yep, it's just panting in the current very hot weather ;-) MPF (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Red capped parrot(female).JPG

File:Red capped parrot(female).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!

Casliber (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

gull

Hi there,

Regarding this, I cannot now remember the process of identifying that one, but what about it indicates it's a herring gull? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rhododendrites: - American Herring Gull is the 'default' common medium-large gull in this area; your bird fits it on plumage for an immature (second-winter, or possibly an advanced first-winter), including the rather dusky underparts, paler head, and bill with a pinkish base and dark tip. The only other likely species at this locality are Ring-billed Gull, which differs in much whiter underparts, and Lesser Black-backed Gull (rare), which differs most obviously in an all-dark bill in immatures. Black-tailed Gull is an east Asian species, which does not occur in RI except as an extreme vagrant; there are only 3 accepted records ever (likely a single individual returning over 3 autumns), none of them during the period of your photo. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. An East Asian species! I wish I remember how I came to that one. Might've been by looking through pictures of Larus and then failed to check distribution. :) From the looks of your filemoves the other day, I got a couple others wrong, too. Do you have a resource you use to make identification, or is it based on first-hand knowledge? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - thanks! A mixture of first-hand knowledge (keen birder :-)) plus an assortment of field guides. For gulls, the best one is en:Gulls of Europe, Asia and North America; for others, books like en:Collins Bird Guide and en:The Sibley Guide to Birds are very useful. - MPF (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I have the iBird app on my phone, which seems pretty good, and wind up using allaboutbirds.org mixed with Google Image Searches for everything else. It does seem like I get some false positives, though -- I imagine that's where having some baseline knowledge comes in handy. Next time I upload something and I'm not sure, do you mind if I ping you? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - no problem, glad to help! - MPF (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Birds

Thank you so much for identifying the birds! Since we are here, can I ask you one more thing? Do you know the subspecies of this chaffinch? I've read that F. c. gengleri is found in the British isles, but I don't know if it's the only one. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Syrio: thanks! As your Chaffinch is from the summer, yes, it will be F. c. gengleri (I've added the subspecies category now). In winter, we also get F. c. coelebs in Britain arriving from Scandinavia, that subspecies is migratory, while ours is mostly non-migratory. - MPF (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you again ^^ -- Syrio posso aiutare? 11:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

---

Hi! I see that this talk page is becoming quite long. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot, and to quickly use a standard setup for MiszaBot, simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page. Thank you.

--Pitke (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, will do! - MPF (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And done! Hadn't noticed I was 3 years behind in doing this :-) MPF (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Taxidermy =/= museum specimen =/= taxidermy

I see you've moved the contents of "Taxidermied Tetrao urogallus" wholesale into "Tetrao urogallus (museum specimens)". This seems to be mostly fine, but with a quick look there's at least one hunting trophy there. Furthermore, all museum specimens are not taxidermies. Please be mindful of category contents when doing such category renames in the future. --Pitke (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pitke: - I guess that also depends a bit on the definition of a 'museum'; I'm presuming you're referring to File:3.Trubky.Brdy.Prizemi.Tetrev.jpg? This is in Category:Tři Trubky - a former hunting lodge, but now a 'cultural monument' - which (in the UK at least) would also be called a museum. But the main aim of the move was to ensure that the relevant species subcategories are treated in a standard manner, all "Category:Genus species (museum specimens)", to make the categorisation more regular - MPF (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

useless edits

Stuff like this is completely useless and (since you give edit summaries in English, the colonizers' imperialist language) even somewhat distuptive. As an administrator, you should know that we have CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs), let it do its work. Thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Seb az86556: - it is true I had a bit of an unfortunate moment there. But the image concerned, of the species recently split as Aramides albiventris, was included on numerous different wikipedia pages of its former species Aramides cajaneus. Removing this image from Aramides cajaneus pages and replacing it with a true Aramides cajaneus image can't be done by CommonsDelinker. Unfortunately, the Navaho page (of Aramides albiventris) was one of the very few where it was being used correctly, but I didn't spot that until too late, hence my mess-up, which I hope I sorted out successfully as soon as I noticed my error. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't write in English (over there). This wasn't the first time. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Seb az86556: if I knew any Navaho language, I'd be happy to use Navaho summaries; regrettably, I don't. And while I do appreciate English is a language that might give many Navaho people some distaste, I would rather leave an English summary than no summary, to explain what I have done. My other edits were also ones that could not be done by the delinker. - MPF (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are wrong. You moved the file today, so Delinker would have replaced it. Please refrain from such edits in the future. And if you do, leave the summary blank. This is a warning. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Swan category change

Hi, I am curious why you made this change as the location is not a zoo but is open water. Keith D (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Keith D: - because it is a captive bird (likely pinioned and unable to fly) or escaped from captivity, not wild. Its presence there in August is proof of that: the only wild Whoopers in Britain in summer are in northern Scotland. So in effect, in a zoo, even if it is an 'open zoo' like an open prison. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. May be the category is badly named or needs splitting as zoo I would expect to just apply to establishments set up for animals in captivity. Keith D (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Keith D: - thanks! When setting up categories for captives myself I always use 'Category:Genus species (captive)' so as to include all types of captivity, not just "official" zoos, but this one was done before I got there and I didn't think it worth renaming or setting up a near-duplicate category. I do regard it as scientifically very important to keep natural, and non-natural, individuals apart in separate categories, though. - MPF (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Araucaria heterophylla 21 by Line1.JPG

Hello MPF,
What is the issue with this picture.
I did not identify it, there was a green tag on it made by the gardener of the garden.
For File:Araucaria heterophylla leaves 01 by Line1.JPG the tag is originated from the botanist of the botanical garden. I really feel no much doubt on the quality of the identifier.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Liné1: - unfortunately, there is an extremely high misidentification rate for these two species, with a very high proportion of cultivated specimens labelled "A. heterophylla" actually being A. columnaris. This is particularly so in the Americas (over 90%) and southern Asia (~100%!), but also true in Europe too, particularly for commercially sourced plants (with most seed being harvested from A. columnaris plantations in Hawaii). Juvenile plants are almost impossible to distinguish without DNA testing; mature plants outdoors are easier to identify by their branching structure, but still not by foliage or cones. So unless the plant in your photo was grown from verified wild origin seed (from Norfolk Island) or obtained from Australia or New Zealand (where most labelled A. heterophylla are correctly identified), I would take the view that its identity should remain unproven. Can you ask the BG for the origin of their tree, please? - MPF (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They are both botanical garden. The second one is a reference. If those are misidentified, then you can suppose that all are. Liné1 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Liné1: - Merci! Yes, I fear there is a good chance they could be misidentified - this happens alarmingly often, even in the best botanical gardens*. It will be worth asking them if they have a record of the seed source, though. *I've found several wrongly labelled trees at both Kew and Edinburgh BGs (and had my corrections confirmed, when they checked them :-) - MPF (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Туя західна (біогрупа) IMG 8232.jpg

Dear MPF! Pardon my french!
Really thuja. Green flat twigs, like all cypress trees. Another photo of the same tree
--Сарапулов (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Cupressus

Oh, I had no idea that there is also C. glabra. In Flora Maroccana are listed only C. atlantica (6-8 scales, cone with diameter less than 2,5 cm) and C. sempervirens (8–14 scales and larger cones). It is pity, I was so close of stands of true C. atlantica! Kenraiz (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Potentilla neumanniana

Hi MPF, you redirected Potentilla neumanniana to Potentilla pusilla. I can't find a source for this synonymy, do you have one? Note that some sources give P. neumanniana as synonym for P. verna, but not P. verna = P. pusilla. Thanks, --Aroche (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aroche: - two years ago; unfortunately I don't remember where I found it! Likely a textbook, rather than online. Do change it, if it doesn't conform with current taxonomy. - MPF (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will revert it. --Aroche (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Location insertion

Hello MPF, was taken from Eravathour, a village in Thrissur District of Kerala, India and was captured from Bannargatta National Park, Banlaore. Please do help me to add the locations to the picture. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mydreamsparrow: Excellent, thanks! I'll add them later today (just off out now!) - MPF (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:MPF. Unproper deletion request-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Redirects for batch upload projects

Could you please keep a redirect in the case of File:Pyrocephalus rubinus - Vermilion Flycatcher XC249692.mp3 and similar batch projects? The metadata at the Xenocanto source has not changed, so if the project is refreshed it is much easier and faster if the title redirects exist rather than relying on cumbersome SHA1 checks for duplicates. --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fæ: - OK, done - MPF (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Hirundo rustica.png

File:Hirundo rustica.png 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!

Jcb (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Altingia gracilipes

Observo la reversion de Altingia gracilipes y debe conocer que dicho cambio ha sido aceptado por Kew y por Cataloque of Life en Mayo de 2018. Le agradecería que una vez comprobados los datos rectifique el cambio. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: Disputed, apparently; e.g. GRIN, the Flora of China, and the Plant List all retain them as separate, as do most of the wikipedias. I think until there is greater agreement for merging them, they are best retained with their traditional circumscriptions here. - MPF (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Taxa authorities in Wikidata

• Hello, I made a proposal in Wikidata → d:Wikidata:Property proposal/taxon author citation, as you are a very regular editor of all things taxon, your opinion would be welcome. The advantage for Wikimedia Commons will be the possibility to retrieve the proper author citations with the {{Wikidata Infobox}}, that we seek to improve so that things are done in the rules of art, example in Category:Aporocidaris incerta, there is a field "taxon author", it is useful but we need that the proper author citation be displayed in the right way. The advantage, for Wikidata is that the taxon items contains the proper author citations, what is important in the scientific world, but as the nomenclatures are different and complicated, this can not currently be done automatically, nor in the near future. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)