Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Spizaetus!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Minor barnstar
Thanks for categorizing so many photos showing birds :) Rillke(q?) 22:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

identity edit

Hi Spizaetus - nice work on sorting out lots of unident birds! Any thoughts on these two, please? File:Sanderling - Calidris alba, Slaughter Beach, Delaware.jpg, File:Sanderlings (5269146399).jpg. Obviously not Calidris alba as labelled; I'm thinking C. pusilla, but wanted to check before going ahead with renaming. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MPF: Thanks! I'd agree with C. pusilla for both of those photos. Spizaetus (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I've renamed them now - MPF (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Another one - File:CPSP Spring bird and berries Chippokes Plantation State Park Virginia (16633063101).jpg - I was thinking Protonotaria citrea, and saw in the history you added that, then removed it again: any reasons why not? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'd say Protonotaria citrea too. (I'm not quite sure why I added then removed that a few months ago - I've gone ahead and added it back.) Best, Spizaetus (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
And another, please :-) File:Myrtle Warbler - Kennebago Lake, ME (6378095197).jpg obviously isn't a Myrtle! My first thought was Cape May, but the yellow undertail doesn't fit that. Bright yellow soles of the feet odd, too. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
First off, my apologies for the long-delayed response. My first thought was Cape May too, but, as you noted, some details don't fit that species. (The fact that it appears to be in juvenile plumage doesn't exactly help with identification - parulids hold their juvenile plumage for a surprisingly short time before beginning their preformative molt, and as a consequence, the distinctive-looking juvenile plumages of many species aren't photographed often or illustrated in field guides.) After a bit more searching and comparing, though, I'm pretty sure it's Setophaga palmarum, of all things; the undertail pattern (outer rectrices with a dark base and white on the inner webs seemingly extending all the way to the tip of the tail + yellow undertail coverts) should be diagnostic for that species. (The yellowish flight feather edging and buffy wingbars fit S. palmarum too, and body and head coloration and pattern also seem consistent with the photos of juveniles [of the yellower eastern subspecies S. p. hypochrysea in particular] I've been able to find.) Best, Spizaetus (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Melanerpes edit

Hi Spizaetus - if you want to break up Category:Picidae in Costa Rica, it is better to do it by making Category:Genus in Costa Rica, not Category:Species in Costa Rica; the latter breaks up the species categories too much (except for the small handful of conspicuous species where Commons has many hundreds of images) and also means that {{geogroup}} mapping for the species category doesn't accurately reflect the species' range. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi MPF - thanks for the clarification! In that case, I can think of several other examples of Category:Species in Costa Rica that should be synonymized. (At least based on geographic range, Pteroglossus frantzii, Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularis, Lampornis calolaemus, Chamaepetes unicolor, Procnias tricarunculatus, Quiscalus nicaraguensis, Phainoptila melanoxantha, Psittacara finschi, and Pyrrhula hoffmanni are probably the least deserving of separate CR categories, and there are a few others that could potentially be synonymized as well.) I'll work on taking care of those now. Best, Spizaetus (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Psophodidae or Cinclosomatidae edit

Hello Spizaetus, Question: Do you know if this is correct [1]?. According to IOC 9.2 checklist it is, but here Category:Cinclosomatidae is marked as old invalid taxon according to IOC 3.1. So I'm a bit puzzled about this. Rudolphous (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you can review this edit as well: [2]. If correct probably a few other categories here can be updated too. Rudolphous (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello Rudolphous, my apologies for the delayed response - those edits (resurrecting Cinclosomatidae and Chloropseidae on Wikimedia Commons) look good, and (as you said) make the Commons's bird taxonomy more up-to-date. Thanks! Spizaetus (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Welcome! Rudolphous (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lanius cristatus edit

Thanks for the correction. Shame I didn't notice it myself! Best greetings from Austria Ulrich prokop (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Birds in zoos edit

Hi Spizaetus - when recategorising photos from Category:Unidentified birds in zoos, please remember they must go in a subcategory [Category:Genus species (captive)] or [Category:Genus species in zoos], and not in the head categories [Category:Genus species]. If need be, create the new subcategory needed. Captive birds are frequently hybrids, mislabelled, or aberrant, so they cannot be regarded as good examples of their species, and need to be categorised separately. And better to spend time identifying real birds, rather than wasting time on these junk pics ;-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi MPF - the reason I didn't put most of the "Bird 001200 __.jpg" photos I just recategorized into the categories [Category:Genus species (captive)] or [Category:Genus species in zoos] is because they shouldn't have been in Category:Unidentified birds in zoos in the first place. I assume they were originally placed in that category because they had the description "Denver Zoo, May 2014", but that description appears to have been copied in error to several unrelated photos from different photographers, different locations (on multiple continents), and different dates (spanning a range of several years). All the ones I put in the head categories [Category:Genus species]) show zero indication of having been taken in captivity, and certainly weren't taken at the Denver Zoo in 2014. I realize I should've gone through and edited or removed that 2014 Denver Zoo description where it didn't apply - I'll go ahead and do that now. Spizaetus (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I've just discovered exactly the same!! I've dealt with the crow ;-) MPF (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've renamed some more now. That gull File:Bird 001200 10.jpg is strange - looks a bit like L. glaucescens, but from somewhere in Europe so that's implausible; several of the adjacent Flickr pics are from Latvia, so it might be from there? I can't find any with the same date that offer any firm clues though. Any thoughts on its ID? MPF (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
L. glaucescens was the first thing that popped into my head too, but that was before I looked at the photographer's other Flickr photos and realized it was probably in Europe. I don't really have any thoughts on its ID beyond that, unfortunately (young large white-headed gulls aren't exactly my strong suit). Spizaetus (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I find them tricky, too! I'm leaning towards nominate L. argentatus argentatus, perhaps the "omissus" type (in which case, Latvia is the more likely; also Lauris Rubenis is a Latvian name), but I'll do some more digging. The White-eyed Vireo I'm happy is from near Atlanta GA, the flickr photostream has a set of Red-shouldered Hawk nest pics just a few days later at a Paideia School in Atlanta so he's based somewhere around there. - MPF (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

identity edit

Hi Spizaetus - curious, with the wingtips not visible, how did you rule out Larus argentatus for File:Bear Island Svalbard Arctic (20288248401).jpg? - MPF (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MPF! I have to admit I was mostly going by likelihood, as Larus hyperboreus is the most common large gull in Svalbard by far, whereas L. argentatus only occurs there in small numbers. (This resource on the birds of Svalbard gives an estimate of over 5,000 breeding pairs for hyperboreus vs. over 5 breeding pairs for argentatus.) Given the orders-of-magnitude difference in abundance between the two species, and given that I don't see anything to rule out hyperboreus (the just-visible edge of the mantle seems strikingly pale grey; the yellow orbital ring is, at the very least, consistent with hyperboreus; and, more subjectively, the bill/head bulkiness seems like an ok match as well), it seemed like a fairly safe assumption to make. In addition, File:Glaucous_Gull_chicks_on_Bear_Island,_Svalbard,_Arctic_(20256060456).jpg, which you identified as hyperboreus, was taken just two minutes before the photo in question, on what might be the same rock (judging by the slope), suggesting that those could potentially even be the offspring of the bird in question (although of course we can't be 100% certain of that from these two photos alone).
However, since I can't say I made the ID with definitive fieldmarks, if you'd rather move the photo back to unidentified Larus for now just to be safe, I wouldn't oppose that decision. (If so, though, you might consider giving the same treatment to File:Glaucous_Gull_chicks_on_Bear_Island,_Svalbard,_Arctic_(20256060456).jpg, since, while their two-tone bill pattern does suggest hyperboreus over argentatus, the hybrid argentatus × hyperboreus is also a [very very slim] possibility that probably can't be ruled out for certain without seeing the parents.) I could also paraphrase my above reasoning for the ID in the image description for File:Bear Island Svalbard Arctic (20288248401).jpg if you think that would be worthwhile. Spizaetus (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'd not spotted the 2-minute gap in the time with that other photo (which, from bill pattern, I'm happy is Glauc), so I'll be happy to stick with Glauc from that; it is a pic I've been thinking for a while ought to be 'doable' but couldn't quite make up my mind on. The population difference from the figures I've seen isn't quite so stark though; the European Breeding Bird Atlas 2 gives 100-999 pairs for Herring, and 1000-9999 pairs for Glaucous, for Bear Island specifically (so it could in theory be nearly equal, if it was 990 HG and 1010 GG, though a tenfold difference is more likely!). - MPF (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply


Goats edit

Hi Spizaetus, do you know what type of goats these are? Not tame. Living in the dunes, on the coast of The Netherlands, see: here. If you have a specific name, I will rename it, there is also a typo in it. Thanks in advance, and thanks for the requests, I mostly rename them :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see you know more about birds, I will ask Boylarva99, maybe he/she knows it. Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Finch ID edit

Hi Spizaetus - on File:A captive finch with orange plumage.jpg I'd been thinking more about the propensity of captive finch breeders to hybridise things extensively, meaning a hybrid can't be ruled out, but I'll not argue with House Finch - MPF (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply