Useful tags
  • {{rename|Bettername.jpg|filename mis-identifies species}}
  • {{low quality}}
  • {{Category redirect|Correct cat}}
  • Category renaming and pic moving at: User:CommonsDelinker/commands


Thanks for informing about the bird speciesEdit

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)


Hi MPF. I wanted to sincerely thank you for sorting out my images from the Lake Windermere. With the merganser, I got too distracted by this, where they talk only about "Red-breasted merganser". And the gull tricked me with its winter plumage. Is there a place on Wikimedia where I could ask for assistance in species identification before I make an upload? I'm only starting with wildlife photography and I'd say my knowledge of photography is better than my knowledge of zoology. Thank you again for renaming the files and sorting them into the right categories. I'll try to do a better job next time. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Podzemnik: - thanks! Glad to help :-) There is an Identification Help page on German wikipedia, or alternatively, drop me a note here when you have uploaded your photos and I'll take a look. Good luck with getting pics! - MPF (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arenaria interpres map.svgEdit

Hi MPF, Done. I changed the color. I hope it is better. If there is anything else, just tell me. --Cephas (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I can do it easy, it's just that I like to respect what I see on the source map as much as possible. That is how it is on the source map. --Cephas (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ping --Flominator (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth France 2019 a commencé !Edit

Bonjour  ,

J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que la cinquième édition du concours Wiki Loves Earth en France est ouverte !

Le concours concernera 368 zones de toute la France, des parcs nationaux jusqu’aux réserves naturelles régionales englobant ainsi des paysages et biotopes variés.

Pendant le mois de mai, n'hésitez pas à mettre en ligne des photos de ces zones que vous auriez sur vos disques durs ou à vous rendre dans une zone concernée près de chez vous (à l'aide de la carte). Le règlement est disponible sur la page du concours.

Les plus belles photos seront sélectionnées par un jury national composé de commonistes, d'acteurs de l'environnement et de photographes professionnels. Un jury international constituera ensuite une sélection des meilleures photographies mondiales. Vous pourrez retrouver toutes les informations détaillées sur le site du concours

P.S. : si vous ne pouvez pas participer au concours cette année, faites passer le message autour de vous pour que de nouveaux et nouvelles photographes rejoignent l'aventure !

Bonne journée, Sarah Krichen WMFr (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Merci pour votre aide (Thanks for your Help)--Daniel Villafruela (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

Вікі любить Землю 2019 в Україні триває до 31 травня!Edit


З 1 по 31 травня триває сьомий конкурс «Вікі любить Землю» (Wiki Loves Earth), метою якого є фотографування пам'яток природи. Протягом травня ви можете завантажувати власні фото природно-заповідного фонду України та змагатися за призи. Зі списками пам'яток природи України можна ознайомитися тут. Приєднуйтеся!

Цього року є деякі зміни в правилах, зокрема:

  • фотографії пам'яток, які на момент початку конкурсу не мали жодної ілюстрації на Вікісховищі або у Вікіпедії, отримують коефіцієнт 10 в кількісній номінації. Якщо ви маєте фото ще не проілюстрованих пам'яток — це збільшить ваші шанси на перемогу;
  • окрема спецномінація для аерофотозйомки (фото з дронів тощо).

Більше інформації про конкурс читайте на сайті конкурсу. Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wle – Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю» (in English). 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


This photo is taken in nature, and is not processed. The background comes from some yellow poster that occasionally stood behind the crow. Успіхів. Materialscientist (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Bird speciesEdit

Hi MPF! Syrio told me you are a good bird expert. Could you please identify the species of the bird in this file? File:0X4A4043s.jpg. Thank you! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 13:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Grazie @Yiyi, Syrio:! It is Ardeola ralloides; I have renamed the file to File:Ardeola ralloides, Bacini di Torrile, Fascia golenale del Po.jpg - MPF (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 16:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Uh! There are other three photos, if you want to identify other birds :-) Here: [1] --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 16:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yiyi: - done! The new names are showing now in the linked file list :-) MPF (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks :-) --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 22:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Falco tinnunculusEdit

Hi, thank you for categoryzing my picture. I write you because in the Italian description I wrote that probably the bird was a Falco tinnunculus, but I'm not able to identify it for sure, and I asked on Italian Wikipedia where someone told be it was probably that specie. I just wanted to be sure you did not just misunderstood my Italian description and you're sure about the identification. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 07:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: Grazie! Yes, I am certain this is Falco tinnunculus - I identified it from the photo, it is safe to exclude other Falco species (including F. naumanni) :-) MPF (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 18:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File movesEdit

Hi there. I noticed you moved a few files to better filenames (thanks!), and wanted to request that you please leave a redirect when you make such moves. Names such as File:Black-Capped Chickadee (6814160625).jpg are automatically chosen by tools like Flickr2Commons in a standard way (in this case, the description title and Flickr photo ID), so by leaving a redirect the software will detect and prevent the upload of a duplicate should someone try to upload the same photo from Flickr using such tools. Mindmatrix 14:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Difficult problem - it doesn't matter so much perhaps in a case like this (where the idenification was correct, just the name badly typed and not very informative), but when there is a misidentification, it is very helpful to expunge the wrong identification from view, or the misidentification tends to go on getting picked up, with the redirect being added to wrong pages in various wikipedias. It was seeing this happen on several occasions that made me chose to detick redirects whenever possible. There shouldn't be a problem over duplicates, though; when I use the Flinfo tool for adding Flickr pics to Commons, if the file already exists on Commons it detects it and warns you, even when the filename is not the same as the original Flickr name. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Identified birdsEdit

Hi MPF, thanks for identifying the birds of sri lanka on my pictures. Greetings from Germany --Z thomas 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if there's more :-) MPF (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi MPF, can you identify this bird  ? It's from the eastern part of Madagascar. Greetings --Z thomas 21:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Z thomas: - it is a white-eye Zosterops species; checking the Madagascar list, there is only one white-eye there, Malagasy White-eye Zosterops maderaspatanus, so there's your answer :-) MPF (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That's the answer :-) I didn't know the list. But I suppose that I need your help next time again :-) Greetings from Dresden --Z thomas 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpgEdit

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 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!

Joschi71 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The right name of the birdsEdit

Thank you very much for identifying the right name of the birds. I have no knowledge about birds and used this to find a name. Regards Wouter (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Little Bustard photoEdit

--Alf.islander (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)== Little Bustard photo ==

I am an academic researcher working developing an educational document for a trade group, and we would love to use one of your Little Bustard photos. Unfortunately, the organization is not going to be willing to release the document under a share-alike license (although they will be making it available for free), so I'm wondering if it might be possible to make an arrangement to use the photo under another license. We have some funds available for photo licensing.

@Alf.islander: which photo do you refer to, please? You are welcome to use any or all of the photos at Category:Tetrax tetrax (and its subcategories), in accord with their Creative Commons licenses. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The one I was hoping to use is this one:,_Castuera,_Extremadura,_Spain.jpg. My understanding was that to use something with a CC-SA license, I would normally have to be releasing my document under a SA-compatible license as well, which unfortunately I can't do. So I wanted to make sure that it's okay with you before I use it.

@Alf.islander: thanks! Unfortunately I'm not well versed enough in the details of licensing; you should be able to get a better answer by posting your query at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - MPF (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Museum specimens"Edit

File:UIATF Pow Wow 2009 - Eagle Staff 01.jpg, File:UIATF Pow Wow 2009 - passing the Eagle Staff.jpg: how can objects in present-day ritual use by Native Americans be "museum specimens"? - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: pretty safe to say the items will be stored in museum conditions (to preserve them intact from damage or decay) when not in actual use. But if you think it is worth creating a separate subcategory like Category:Haliaeetus leucocephalus in Native American rituals for them, go ahead - MPF (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it is. While I'm sure tribes store these carefully, given the shaky relationship between tribes and anthropologists the only circumstances in which they might be stored in a museum would be if the tribe is wealthy enough to have its own museum (e.g. the Tulalip in Washington state). Otherwise, not a chance. Also, although I used it myself, I'm not sure the word "ritual" is the best; I'll try to consult someone closer to that culture for their thoughts. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks! I guess my feeling is that any tribe's place (however small) for preserving items like this could be called their museum, but as you wish. Yep, good idea on consulting over the most suitable term. I'd guess File:Bald eagle feather bustle (23947361528).jpg might be best in the new category too? - MPF (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
If that one was confiscated as illegal, then it wasn't in legitimate use by a tribe.
In any case, I've contacted the Executive Director of United Indians of All Tribes, who were the host of the pow wow where I took this. Here's what I sent him:

I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question about appropriate wording to describe two photos, or tell me who could help me.

I took these two photos a decade ago and posted them on Wikimedia Commons, the media repository of Wikipedia:

As you may know, Commons is a highly collaborative project, and people can edit each other's textual content and categorization of images. I already have these in "Category:Eagle staffs", but someone recently placed these images also in "Category:Haliaeetus leucocephalus (museum specimens)" which is clearly wrong. I contacted him and he has agreed that we can create a new and more appropriate category name. By Commons' standards, we are stuck with the Latin-language species name "Haliaeetus leucocephalus". I was thinking of something like "Category:Haliaeetus leucocephalus in Native American ritual use" but I'm not sure whether that would be a welcome wording, especially whether the term "ritual" is appropriate or not. The issue is to have an appropriate category name for Eagle staffs that are in current use. Can you, or someone, suggest a wording?


I'm hoping to get an appropriate response and will follow up once I have that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks again! I did notice that the headdress was confiscated, but presumed that (since they are only lawfully made by Native Americans), it was stolen from a Native American group and confiscated for the purpose of returning it to their care - MPF (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, Michael Tulee (executive director of Daybreak Star) felt he was himself out of his depth on this, and passed me on to someone he considered expert, who hasn't responded. I pinged again by email a couple of days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I begin to presume we will never get a decent response. I'm inclined to go with "Native American ritual use" for now, with the potential of a different word eventually replacing "ritual". & probably at least a summary of the present discussion belongs on the talk page of that category. OK with you? - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I finally went with Category:Haliaeetus leucocephalus as Native American ceremonial objects. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for the update! Sounds fine to me. Do you want to put File:Bald eagle feather bustle (23947361528).jpg in there too? I still suspect this is most likely a genuine Native American ceremonial item that was confiscated because it was in the wrong hands. - MPF (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Feel free. Of course, it should also stay in the "museum" category if it is indeed in a museum. I hesitated because of that statement about confiscation: no way to know if it was a legitimate ceremonial object in the wrong hands or something made by a "no-blood" wannabe. But I have no problem with it being added to this new category. - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for identifiying treesEdit

Hello! Thank you for the job of identifying trees in some of my images (i.e. File:Cleopatra Terraces 2017 03.jpg). I tried to use the label "Unidentified xxx" two times during the last months on images where trees are an important part of the composition. Both times, you made an identification, and I just wanted to say, that I'm very fond of this kind of work. Thank you once again. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dirtsc: Thanks! Let me know if there's any more; glad to help :-) MPF (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll do, if it is important. And especially, if the image was made "an ocean away" from my home area. ;-) --Dirtsc (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Knud Ib ChristensenEdit

  Hello, MPF. You have new messages at Nadiatalent's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

I wanted to ask you how you knew that the person who took the photo that you mentioned to me has died. I haven't seen an obituary for him, even this many years later. Thanks again for those articles. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nadiatalent: - I'd been doing a search online for some of his papers, and his obituary was at the top of the search list. A very sad discovery. - MPF (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I had heard of the manuscript, but had never seen the final publication. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Branta bernicla map - suggestionsEdit

hello MPF

I have some comments about your map File:Branta bernicla map.png and [[2]] which appears on the French page [[3]] and perhaps on others.

  1. The subspecies names don't appear to correspond to those in page [[4]] 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 [[5]].
  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 [[6]] 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)


I have put this back into Pinopsida. That is where both en.WP and Wikispecies have the order placed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I moved it up to Pinophyta as it still seems very uncertain when it diverged from other Gymnosperms; en:wp actually says (though without reference) that it may even be sister to [Pinophyta + Ginkgophyta + Cycadophyta] - if true, then it should even be moved up to a subcategory of Gymnosperms. Also, while not yet (mainly because it would involve a lot of rather tedious editing) I think sooner or later, we should be accepting Christenhusz' deeper splitting of extant Pinophyta into several orders (Pinales, Araucariales, Cupressales) which would leave Cordaitales very misplaced. But I won't press it, if you think it should stay in Pinopsida. - MPF (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a fundamental divide between botanists who split the seed plants into multiple divisions, and those who collect them all into a single division. Until that issue is resolved, any classification of the gymnosperms is going to be problematic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: - that's true; but conifer taxa are so ancient, many conifer genera pre-date many angiosperm orders; if one is to have any degree of consistency, division of the extant conifers into 3 orders is pretty tame. I'm not suggesting following Doweld, or Melikian & A.V.Bobrov :-) MPF (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
That's one of the arguments used, yes, but there are bryophyte groups even older. Then there are green algal fossils. Kenrick and Crane were one of the first groups of paleobotanists to propose a radical rethink along cladistic lines. However, no single consistent system has been proposed that includes both seed plants and seedless plant, includes both extant and extinct taxa, and considers existing systems for each major green plant lineage. In the absence of such a system, I tend to play conservative and wait. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in NepalEdit

  Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Nepal

Dear MPF, It’s our pleasure to invite you to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Nepal winners awarding ceremony on 28 September, 2019 at Siddhartha Cottage, Tinkune, 11:30 am onwards. We would like to ask few minutes of your time to provide your details here. Your contribution as a contributor made the Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Nepal possible. We’d like to have a privilege of having you there.

Kind regards,

WLM 2019 in Nepal Team

Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in NepalEdit

  Invitation for felicitation program of Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in Nepal

Dear MPF, Please disregard our previous message about Felicitation of WLM.
It’s our pleasure to invite you to Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in Nepal winners awarding ceremony on 28 September, 2019 at Siddhartha Cottage, Tinkune, 11:30 am onwards. We would like to ask few minutes of your time to provide your details here. Your contribution as a contributor made the Wiki Loves Earth 2019 in Nepal possible. We’d like to have a privilege of having you there.

Kind regards,

WLE 2019 in Nepal Team



Cycadophyta botanical illustrations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

2001:4898:80E8:B:987E:9AC9:FCA6:6518 10:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Picea asperata"Edit

Hi MPF. Thank you for changing the brightness of the photo "Picea asperata", which seems to be sharper. As the original photo represents more reality, despite the fact that it looks too dark, I think it may be more appropriate to use the original photo. In wishing your understanding, please accept my sincere thanks.

About a pictureEdit


Could you end the misery for this picture File:Docoglossa2.jpg? For several weeks I want it deleted, but no one moves a finger. Please delete it today. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

closeups and nonnative are not mutually exclusiveEdit

live with it.Famartin (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

According to whom?Edit

I see no rules saying you have to separate said categories of native versus non-native. In any case, since you are the one with the problem, YOU create a new category. Famartin (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Famartin: - it's a simple matter of science and ecology, and making sure that the {{Geogroup}} mapping tool distinguishes accurately between natural and non-natural/invasive. Think of it like a herbarium: native plants, and cultivated plants, are always kept apart in different sections. No herbarium would ever knowingly mix them; it's just standard practice. Go to your local herbarium and take a look! - MPF (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a herbarium. Famartin (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a photographic herbarium, and potentially a very useful resource as such. Many organisations (e.g. Encyclopedia of Life use Commons images as such, and they want scientifically organised data. - MPF (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

File moveEdit

It is not taken in Tamil Nadu as per new name.--AntanO 14:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Ashy Prinia (Prinia socialis), Tamil Nadu 2.jpg

@AntanO: where was it taken then, please? I was working on the basis that it was uploaded as part of the TamilWiki Media Contest, and had been added to Category:Birds of Tamil Nadu. Locations are very important as they help with subspecies identification and mapping; the more detailed the better, but even a little data helps. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It was taken in Sri Lanka. I will add some more details. --AntanO 15:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@AntanO: Excellent, thanks! When you've done, I'll rename it more accurately ;-) Does this also apply to the photo I renamed to File:Ashy Prinia (Prinia socialis), Tamil Nadu 1.jpg, please? MPF (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that too. I have updated. Also, added geo tag. --AntanO 02:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntanO: Many thanks, much appreciated! - MPF (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Suppressing redirectsEdit

I noticed you moved a few files I uploaded (and apparently misidentified at the time -- my bird knowledge wasn't so great in 2016). e.g. File:Mallard in Central Park 3.jpg. But you suppressed redirects. Misidentification is not one of the criteria here and the files are more than 3 years old. This would break incoming links if they were used off-wiki (unlikely for these files, but there's a reason there are only a few cases when redirects should be suppressed). — Rhododendrites talk |  04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'd say that's an excellent reason for not leaving redirects - if misidentified files are being used off-wiki and a redirect is in place, the misidentification continues to be promoted. One would clearly not want say, an online field guide, to illustrate an article on Black Duck with photos of Mallards; with no other way of tracing and removing such usage, removing the error at its source by blocking redirection is the best, and only, way of removing the error from its misapplication - MPF (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The license/attribution needs to take priority over correct identification of the subject. If someone follows an attribution link now they will hit nothing. If a redirect were there attribution would be intact and they would be able to see the correct identification. Deleting the filename doesn't do anything to correct identification -- it just creates a broken link if it were used elsewhere. Regardless, if you would like to add it as a reason for suppressing redirect, you should propose it as one, but as of now it's not. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I'm not sure that's the case? The link won't be wholly broken, anyone who notices the image being missing will come to the notice of file being renamed without a redirect, from which (a) they can still proceed to the new name and its license and attribution, and (b) far more obviously realise that the old identity was incorrect. If a redirect were left, the vast majority of readers would never bother to follow the link, so wouldn't realise there was a problem of identity. This effectively makes promotion of false information, which I'd think is far more damaging in undermining trust in Commons as a source. - MPF (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You're assuming that people can easily make sense of a deleted page. That they see the relevant line and interpret "identity" to mean it was misidentified. This also presumes that nobody has uploaded a different image to that filename. I fail to see how that is somehow more clear than someone going to an image of a black duck and seeing that the actual filename/description says "mallard". ("Oh, I must've used the wrong image" or something). But [again] it's not one of the allowed reasons for suppressing a redirect. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and opened a section at the Village Pump here: Commons:Village_pump#Suppressing_redirects_for_filenames_with_incorrect_identification. I'm struck that this seems like a straightforward application of our guideline, so I'm hoping for additional voices that can help clarify one way or the other. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

take a look...Edit

File:Sanhaçu-de-encontro-azul (Tangara cyanoptera).jpg ???

looks like Thraupis cyanoptera to me -- but what do I know...

Seb az86556 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Seb az86556: yes; looks like a copying error "Tanagra" for "Thraupis", rather than a misidentification. I've corrected it and removed the file from Tangara cyanoptera pages. - MPF (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2019Edit

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

If you want to take part where WSC2019 is still open, please consult this page. Only some national categories are associated to competitions with local prizes.

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

Please keep in mind that there is a new category this year, i.e. "nature and wildlife".

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

Sorry for bothering you and have a nice wiki.

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

Social media:   Science&Wiki   Science&Wiki   Wiki Science Competition
Hashtag: #WSC2019 #WikiScience #WikiScience2019

Alexmar983 (promotion team and academic committee) using MediaWiki message delivery--23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Paper birchEdit

While yellow birch is often in great evidence in the Catskills' slope hardwood forest, paper birch and red spruce predominate higher up in the range's lower-elevation montane boreal forests, like where that picture was taken. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: - thanks! I was going on the basis of the bark colour and structure, which doesn't look like typical B. papyrifera. - MPF (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah ... up there it's not always this pure white. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

recategorizing my stuffEdit

In case its not obvious yet, I actually watch my files, so you should actually use real caution and thought before blindly recategorizing things. Sometimes you are right, but you are often not, so pay some real attention. Famartin (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Famartin: Terrace Boulevard shows up clearly as a street in Google Maps; you state in the filename that it is 'on Terrace Boulevard'. So it's a street tree; the street doesn't have to appear in the photo. - MPF (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, generally a street tree is defined as a tree located within the right-of-way of the street. Since you can't see a street and the tree is clearly between two houses, then its not a street tree. Calling something "on" such and such street means its the legal address, not actually within the right of way. In any case, since its MY photo, and I know its NOT on the street, I'm telling you that you are wrong. Can't you understand that? What is wrong with you, seriously? If you just want to clean out the category, fine, but there are other places to put it, like "Acer platanoides in October" or something. Its not a street tree so it shouldn't be placed there. On top of that, again, you like to remove files from legitimate categories. Just because its not the natural species type does not mean its not an Acer platanoides leaf. If you want to clean up categories, try making some new subcats instead of just removing what you don't like being in there. You know, try being a useful member of commons instead of just making it pretty for your own uses. Famartin (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinus contorta on Lulu IslandEdit

Hi MPF, 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: [7]. 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 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:// (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?Edit

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 NoisesEdit

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 sclateriiEdit

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)

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 WEdit

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 ! 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 firEdit

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:
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 [8]. 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?Edit

Hi there, what is your source for the 2016 update to the green peafowl distribution map?

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.

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)


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)Edit

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 2020Edit

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!

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 delawarensisEdit

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)



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 persicaEdit

'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)

Common starling distribution map updateEdit

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 SpainEdit

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 pedunculataEdit

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!Edit

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:

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

Rosy-faced lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis)Edit

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.jpg‎Edit

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)


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 borderEdit


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 discussionEdit

Hello @MPF: sir, do have a look at one of my controversial upload, [9] 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 [10], [11]. I assure I won't misuse the tools if you consider my request. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Several recent questionable overwritesEdit

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. uncinataEdit

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 [[12]]and here: [[13]]. (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 LocationEdit

I have added the locations.

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

Tree IDEdit

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?

--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 InvitationEdit

  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 TorontoEdit

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)


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. –Davey2010Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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 parameterEdit

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)Edit

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 countryEdit

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.jpgEdit

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 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)


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 deletionEdit

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 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!


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

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

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 2022Edit

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).jpgEdit

File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1978) (20332115100).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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

Afrikaans  asturianu  Bahasa Melayu  Bahasa Indonesia  azərbaycanca  British English  dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  euskara  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  norsk bokmål  română  Lëtzebuergesch  español  português  English  hrvatski  Plattdüütsch  français  Nederlands  norsk  Malti  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

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 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)

Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Wikimedia Commons!Edit

Dear MPF

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a policy (available in many languages) that has been ratified by the Board of Trustees. We’re currently in the second phase of the process. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. As a member of the functionary team of Wikimedia Commons, your opinion on enforcement is of great value. We want to hear from you on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so. There are a few enforcement questions so you can easily outline your answers based on them. Please do not hesitate to bring any more questions/challenges you think are not yet discussed.

The discussion is taking place on Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. You can also share your thoughts by replying to this message (Please ping me so I get notified), posting your message on my talk page. I am aware that some thoughts cannot be expressed publicly, so you can always share your opinion by emailing me as well.

As a valued member of the Commons community, please share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC. Let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users.

Wikimedia projects are governed by you. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a short survey regarding UCoCEdit

Hello MPF,

I would like to inform you that we now have a survey in place to take part in the UCoC consultation. It is not a long one and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. You can take the survey even if you have already participated in the on-wiki consultation. It has a different set of questions and allows you to participate anonymously and privately.

As a member of the Commons functionaries, your opinion is especially essential. Please click here to participate in the survey.

You are still welcome to participate in the on-wiki discussions. If you prefer you can have your say by sending me an email. You can also drop me an email if you want to have a one-to-one chat.

Thank you for your participation! Wikitanvir (WMF) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Piapiac, in Lagos, Nigeria 5616609.jpgEdit

File:Piapiac, in Lagos, Nigeria 5616609.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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

Afrikaans  asturianu  Bahasa Melayu  Bahasa Indonesia  azərbaycanca  British English  dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  euskara  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  norsk bokmål  română  Lëtzebuergesch  español  português  English  hrvatski  Plattdüütsch  français  Nederlands  norsk  Malti  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Tiếng Việt  Türkçe  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Your editEdit

[14] In your edit summary you said: (you are not a horse, nor bird, nor a fish...;-)) Oh yeah? What if I'm part of one? Lot's of people call me a horse's ass, or a bitch, and I've even been known to flounder. What about that, huh? Huh?   Seriously, my apologies for the category overkill. I was thinking more along the line that I was categorizing the broad range of images on my user page. Silly me. Be safe - have fun (now there's an oxymoron for ya!) Atsme Talk 📧 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: thanks 😂!! Aye, in general, adding categories to user pages isn't a good idea, unless it's to a category of users; you were the sole user to appear in Category:Birds, etc., and it looks odd! Hope all's well! - MPF (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've been told I was "an odd bird." 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

[:Category:Psittacula krameri in trees]Edit

Hi, MPF. You deleted the category with reason "not a useful category - they are almost invariably in trees". I understand your thought, but please understand mine. We had more than 600 photos in category:Birds in trees, excluding subcategories. It was in my opinion too much and I started to create subcategories by species. I had circa ten rose-ringed parakeets in trees. You deleted the category. What's solution now? Do we have subcategory in "birds in trees" for other species, excluding rose-ringed parakeets? Do we have subcategory only for such species, which are not almost invariably in trees – how to make difference? Please give a solution to problem. Taivo (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Taivo: - go for Birds in trees by family (here: Category:Psittaculidae in trees), or by genus (here: Category:Psittacula in trees) if there's more than a hundred or so per family. Subcategories like this per species make it considerably more difficult for someone who is looking for a good pic of that species regardless of whether it is in a tree or not, it makes these pics less accessible; they also make it considerably more difficult to keep natural and non-natural (feral) individuals of invasive species like P. krameri in separate subcategories (had you considered that in making your subcategory? Or were you going to just mix up wild and non-wild together, and thereby undo all the hard work keeping them separate?) - MPF (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created a selection of subcategories by family, and moved files to them; plenty more to do, but it's a start! - MPF (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  The Hedgehog Prize
In Estonian mythology, hedgehog is considered one of the most clever animals. So this prize is for advice, which I could not think up myself. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! :-) An interesting and very nice piece of mythology, not one I had heard of before!! - MPF (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Baumläufer Certhia sp Nestbau 2163.jpg and 3 more picturesEdit

Hi MPF, you changed the category of my 4 pictures from unknown Certhia to Certhia familiaris, does it mean you are shure about the species? I would like to have the species of this bird specified and will rename and describe them when you ack. Thanks, NobbiP 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@NobbiP: - yes, I am certain they are C. familiaris; the wing pattern with the 'stepped' notch in the wingbar (visible in at least one of the photos) matches this, and not C. brachydactyla. Yes, please do rename them! - MPF (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarify. Regards, NobbiP 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Thank you for letting me know that I should add the location of the photos to my pictures! I shall begin doing that now! :) ChasingFeathers (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

DR closureEdit

Hello @MPF: I hope you're doing well. I came here to you with a humble request regarding DR for closure as keep. Please have a look at the discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Category created by C1K98V. I never intended to do something which is against commons policy. But I always tried to contribute positively. You may find my comments on the discussion page as personal attack, which I regret in the way I presented my views to my fellow Volunteer. It's a collaborative platform and I want to learn and grows just like others. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Olea oleaster vs. Olea eueopaeaEdit


Looks like it was you who redirected Category:Olea oleaster to Category:Olea europaea, against those who appear in the Wikipedia: [oleaster].

I am not a taxonomist, but it is certain that the wild olive tree ("acebuche" in Spanish) it is not the same thing, in ecological, geographical, cultural and historical terms, as the cultivated olive tree.

A solution to this contradiction between Wikimedia sites must be sought. Suggest some one.

Best regards:

--LBM1948 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LBM1948: - Kew currently treat it as a synonym of O. europaea, I guess on the [reasonable] grounds that the cultivated olives derive from multiple origins of wild plants, so are genetically nested within it. The best solution is to keep Category:Olea europaea for wild plants, and to put all cultivated olives in Category:Olea europaea (cultivated) and subcategories thereof, though it does need keeping a regular eye on the species category to subcategorise additions to it. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@MPF:I'm not convinced by that solution. Moving most images (those of cultivated olive trees) doesn't seem very smart. On the other hand, solvents sources accept the name Olea europaea var. sylvestris (Mill.) Lehr < Olea oleaster Hoffmans & Link : [ibérica]. I do believe that we must create the subcategory for thew wild olive tree, despite your objections.
In addition, there remains the problem of internal consistency of Wikimedia: Will you redirect or reedit both Wikipedia articles about Olea oleaster?
--LBM1948 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @LBM1948: - it is what is done on Commons with most other similar cases, where a cultivated plant or domesticated animal is derived from a wild ancestor; I don't see a significant problem with it here. Note also there is no consensus on what names should be used; this article on the genetic origins of cultivated olives uses the name "Olea europaea var. sylvestris", also considered a synonym by the Kew Checklist. There is no internal consistency between different wikipedias over the treatment of debated taxonomic concepts; differences can be dealt with by the different links at wikidata. - MPF (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

About your edit and my rollbackEdit

Dear MPF, I know your intention was good trying to improve the photograph, however, this was not my original intention. However, I uploaded a original version in color (which by the way had great chromatic aberrations). You can compare this with this. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Ring ouzelEdit

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

File:Back to nature.jpgEdit

File:Back to nature.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please 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!

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

Species name capitalization guidanceEdit

Hi MPF- Can you point me to the guidance on Commons for species names? I can't find anything, but I know that in the convoluted Wiki info universe, that does not mean it's not there. All I found, after dodging the many Int'l Olympic Committee hits, was this page on the World Bird List site. Eric talk 11:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Eric: - I guess there isn't any; Commons has been following IOC taxonomy and names since well before the disruptive and divisive change to decapitalise names at en:wiki (which cost en:wiki a lot of good editors), so it has never been an issue here. It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to try to change the status quo here. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

File:AnserFabalisIUCNver2019 1.pngEdit

Hi! You changed this map last year and it covers only three subspecies now and exludes Anser serrirostris as a separate species. The problem is not all authorities accept this taxonomy, for example IUCN still uses the one from original version of this map, the same old one we use on Polish Wikipedia (based on Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World) so this map is misleading in Polish article about Anser fabalis. I suggest to create a new map with this new taxonomical approach, and withdraw the change you made to existing one. Pikador (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pikador: - thanks for the note! As far as I know, the majority of wikipedias follow IOC taxonomy (as do Commons and Wikispecies), so while a return to the original map would fit pl:wiki better, it would be more disruptive to the other wikis that use the map. Also, I think it is best to hold fire for the moment, as further revisions in the status of the Anser fabalis complex are likely in the next year or two (possible split of Anser middendorffii, possible re-lumping of rossicus with fabalis, and maybe other changes). When that has happened, new maps can be made. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK thanks for the explanation, but could you recreate the old map as a new file? I would use it on Polish wiki until the new taxonomy will be widely accepted. Pikador (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Pikador: - here you are: File:Anser fabalis (sensu lato) distribution map.png. I took the liberty to transfer Alaska from the left edge to the right edge so the map is more compact without losing any of the range. - MPF (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)