User talk:MPF/archive6

Australian Lorikeet image

I can provide the location details for the image, however, i do not know how to go about adding it to the file. How would i go about adding the information? NotinREALITY 08:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, i will add the decimal location when i arrive back at work in a few hours. Cheers :) 49.176.99.163 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat and indentification

Thank you very much for your help in categorizing the birds that I have photographed and identified. I live on the island of Margarita, photographing birds is one of the things that I like despite not having too good a lens. --The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome! (and keep them coming!) - MPF (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

cultivated tree?

Regarding this edit: why did you conclude that the tree was cultivated? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's outside the species' native range. So it has to be derived from cultivated material to be growing there, whether first or subsequent generation. - MPF (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picea orientalis MHNT.BOT.2005.0.970.jpg

Hello Cones are of Turkish. Reagards --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Identity?

The photos are my own, I checked my records and it appears I erred. I will correct the description. Thanks Samuell (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Identities

Dear MPF,

The pictures File:Pinus pinaster immature cones 01.jpg and File:Pinus pinaster male cones 01.jpg were indeed taken on two different trees, which were growing near each other in the Bay of the Somme (NW France), so that I thougth there were of the same species.

I do not think that File:Pinus pinaster male cones 01.jpg is from a Pinus pinea, because the location in too far in the North and because of the habitus of the tree. I will revert File:Pinus pinaster immature cones 01.jpg to File:Pinus nigra immature cones 01.jpg.

best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Piea breweriana

Dera MPF,

The pictures of Picea breweriana, which I have taken on a tree in my private garden, were originally correctly oriented.

So, I have rejected the asked rotation for the pictures of end-twigs File:Picea breweriana leaf2.jpg‎ and File:Picea breweriana leaf1.jpg. The end-twigs are indeed horizontal to slightly erected.

I have also asked for restoring the original orientation of the picture File:Picea breweriana (flowers).jpg. The male cones are on lateral, nodding or weeping twigs.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear MPF,

FYI: I have just uploaded an additional picture, on which you can see that the shoots are first erected, than nodding and eventually weeping.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dugong image

My apologies for the quite late reply, but I don't often see messages on this account. If you need my attention in the shorter term, please msg me on En-wiki.

That said, the information that I have from Mr. Scarani on the Dugong photos was that they were taken at Abu Dabab Beach, Marsa Alam, Egypt. Best of luck!

--[[User:Dante Alighieri|]] | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Coniferous trees of Arboretum Žampach

Dear MPF I took some photos of the coniferous trees in Arboretum Žampach in the Czech Republic in November 2012. You wrote that some of these photos are mislabelled. I am the botanist but I am not the specialist of the world coniferous trees. The most of the trees of arboretum Žampach are the young trees, younger than 20 years. The identification of the young Abies etc. may be very complicated. But in Arboretum Žampach they have the singboards, where is the sign of the species of the young trees. I copied the species from these signboards. It is posibble, that men of Arboretum Zampach do not known, which species of trees plant in your arboretum and some singboards are bad. But I mean, that some of these mislabelled trees are good labelled e.g: File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG --Don Pedro28 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Don Pedro - yes, unfortunately, many of the Žampach plants are mis-labelled. The example you give here File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG is not at all like Picea mariana, compare e.g. this photo: File:Picea mariana cones Yukon2.jpg, see how very different (short and thick) the leaves are compared to the Žampach plant. I suspect a lot of the Žampach plants are grown from seed collected from gardens, which often gives hybrid seed: File:Picea mariana zampach1.JPG looks as if it could be a hybrid Picea sitchensis × Picea mariana, though it is not possible to be certain without cones. I hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rock Maple

MPF; Are you sure about this edit?[1] I found a source indicating that "Rock Maple" refers to Acer saccharum.[2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Walter - sorry, no idea! It was 6½ years ago, and I can't remember where I got the detail from! - MPF (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to Acer saccharum. Thank you for commenting. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation "herbarium sheets"

Hello , I saw your modification on the category Abies alba for several files. Is there any recommandation about that, because I don't find it pertinent, in fact it kills the opportunity to find this type of picture by catscan. For an illustration, this modification has made [the explanation] of how to find a taxon inside the Herbarium project obsolete :-( IMHO it would be more efficient to add a category "herbarium sheets" rather than modifying the taxon category. cheers --Chandres (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are sufficiently many of the images to establish their own categories, particularly in taxa like Abies alba where the category already contains a large number of files, and they also form a readily distinguishable subset. So they meet the general Commons categorisation criteria. Surely it should be possible to adjust the search criteria, so that a search by the taxon name automatically directs you to the relevant subcategory? - MPF (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I will upload at the end around 50 000 pictures of herbarium sheet, I cannot say to people to guess what will be the nam of the category :-( I don't understant your argument, will you also subcategorize the other in "abies alba (pictures)"?--Chandres (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can suggest a standard format for the subcategories [whether e.g. "Category:Genus species (herbarium specimens)" or "Category:Herbarium specimens of Genus species"], I'd be happy to use that standard. But to insist that herbarium specimens must for first preference occupy the root category of the species, is not viable, particularly not for species for which there are numerous files. Remember that most users of files will be looking in the root category for photos of live specimens to illustrate wikipedia articles, and will not particularly want pictures of herbarium specimens. - MPF (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cuculidae

Hello MPF,
Be carefull when you reformat a cat to avoid suppressing the <noinclude> arround categories.
This is done by Kersti Nebelsiek as I explained here.
regards Liné1 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for identifying my bird feeder photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pinus sabiniana corrections

Thank you.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Bristlecone Pines, California (2355042221).jpg

Yours sincerely, AFBorchert (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That one should be deleted, as there's nothing to suggest it is PD-US (and it's also rather poor quality too) - MPF (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for the identification of the giant sequoia tree in the Vosges mountains. With regards Rauenstein 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed

I'm rather disappointed that you would move File:Drought and heatwave effected London Plane Trees (Platanus × hispanica).jpg, against the set out guidelines in COM:MOVE. In Australia Platanus × hispanica is commonly known as the "London Plane Tree" and not "London Plane(s)". Bidgee (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with common names of the species. My inclination is to use scientific names. They may be disputed, but rarely with passion. But, "affected", not "effected", is correct unless Australian English is very different from American English. "Effect" is a noun. "Affect" is an adjective. Best wishes to you both. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change of "effect" to "affect" until you just raised that but to change "London Plane Trees" to "London Planes" within that same rename was wrong. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for the move, as Walter pointed out, was the typo in 'affected'. But I'm also not in favour of needlessly long filenames, so if there's a good reason to rename a file to remove an error, I'll often take the opportunity to remove any surplus while doing so. I did consider using just the scientific name (i.e., "File:Drought and heatwave affected Platanus × hispanica.jpg"), but not everyone is familiar with the correct scientific name, some still using the newer synonym P. × acerifolia (e.g. en:wiki, which still bases its usage on an outdated version of GRIN), so decided to leave 'London Plane' in. - MPF (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you've done a further renaming to put 'Trees' back in (superfluous quibbling, which is definitely contrary to guidelines). The 't' in 'trees' should really be lower case, if I'm to be pedantic, but yet another rename would be ridiculous. - MPF (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Effected to affected, I don't have an issue with. The main issue is removing something without checking, "London Plane Tree" is the common name in Australia (with the capital T). Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Check your own facts! It isn't necessary, see e.g. these Australian sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. - MPF (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank

für die Bestimmung der Vögel und hierfür. Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Conifers

Dear MPF

I took some photos of plants in Brno, particularly conifers. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Don_Pedro28 These trees grow in the arboretum of Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology in Brno. I hope that there are no errors.--Don Pedro28 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

bird deidentifications

Hello, please don't deidentificate the birds I photographed, as most of them are zoo birds and they have written their common and latin names there, so their identification is unambiguous. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I had good reason for doing so. The species Pycnonotus barbatus has recently (subsequent to your taking the photos) been split into four species, so the identification posted at the zoo is out-of-date and cannot be relied on as to which of the four species they are. As they have yellow under-tail coverts they could be either P. tricolor or P. dodsoni, but not P. barbatus sensu stricto; in the absence of provenance data, it is not possible to tell which, and therefore they need to be considered unidentifiable. - MPF (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is so, I will ask at the zoo, which bird they have. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK! If they need a reference, point them here - MPF (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

They say, they are using the categorization of the IUCN redlist. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106007187/0

On Avibase it is also. It seems different organisations or whatever categorize birds differently. I am annoyed and have no time for such things, it seems anyone can categorize and rename categories as they please. And I am annoyed by the Commons chaotic category system. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: See also http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=7189 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=7187 --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ask them what the provenance of their birds is, and what subspecies they are according to their classification. Then it should be fairly easy to categorise them to the IOC classification. - MPF (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of your picture for a book

Hi,

We’d like to use one of your pictures for a book that will be publish next fall. On wikimedia, it says that the picture are copyright free.

The title of the book is Secrets de plantes 2 and the name of the author is Fabien Girard. The initial print run will be 1000 copies.

We’d like to have your autorisation by e-mail to use this picture. If you accept, what is the exact name of the source that we must write beside the picture?

Here are the link of the picture.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crataegus,_Martkophi,_Georgia.jpg

Stéphane Aubut Editor assistant for Les Éditions JCL

stephane@jcl.qc.ca

Use of your pictures for a book

Hi,

We’d like to use some of your pictures for a book that will be publish next fall. On wikimedia, it says that the pictures are copyright free.

The title of the book is Secrets de plantes 2 and the name of the author is Fabien Girard. The initial print run will be 1000 copies.

We’d like to have your autorisation by e-mail to use these pictures. If you accept, what is the exact name of the source that we must write beside the pictures?

Here are the link of the pictures.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conium_maculatum_Cresswell_02.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conium_maculatum_Hauxley_5.jpg

Stéphane Aubut Editor assistant for Les Éditions JCL

stephane@jcl.qc.ca

Help regarding contested id of Erigeron compositus

Hi MPF,

You recently helped me with an identification problem regarding some plants in Greenland I had photographed. User:Pitke has informed me on User talk:Slaunger/Greenland/Plants that he believes that also some photos of a plant I have taken in Greenland and previously identified as Erigeron compositus are misidentified and really some kind of Oxeye, probably Common Oxxeye. He may be right, but I would like a second opinion about that, as I do not understand how Pitke has come to that conclusion. Would you care to take a look? Best wishes from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

File talk:El pi blanc de Nicolau M. Rubió i Tudurí.jpg

Please take a look at File talk:El pi blanc de Nicolau M. Rubió i Tudurí.jpg. Thank you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Étourneau unicolore sur un rocher à Sayada, Tunisie mai 2013.jpg

Thanks for all the work! Regards --13:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cytisus oromediterraneus Ardèche.jpg‎

Dear MPF,

My picture of "Cytisus oromediterraneus Ardèche.jpg"‎, as well as some other pictures taken in May 2007, was taken in the Ardèche, France. The pictures I have taken in the summer of 2008 were indeed, as I previously let you know, taken in Tigne, Savoie.

Ghislain's pictures of Cytisus purgans were, so far I know, taken in Spain, but I do not know in which region. I will ask him for it.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I fear I mistook the upload date for the photo date [embarrased smiley] - MPF (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For your info: Next week we will be in the Alsace, were I presumably will take some pictures in the Vosges. In July we will be again in Vaujany and also in Les Deux Alpes, Dauphiné. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of Cytisus purgans

Dear MPF,

Ghislain let me know that his pictures of Cytisus purgans were taken in Central Spain. Logically they thus concern the species Cytisus oromediterraneus. I will rename and reclassify them accordingly. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I have renamed Ghislain's five pictures to "Cytisus oromediterraneus" and reclasified them accordingly. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request that category moves are better documented in edit summary

Hi. I am repeatedly being poked by people not liking category moves, this usually follows my doing a removal or catredirect from the commands page. I am asking all admins who add category moves if they would please look to better document the moves that are being ordered for SieBot. As background, I asked Siebrand if there was a better means to automate the "who ordered" statement, but he is unable to do so, such we are going to need to do this manually. Thanks for your cooperation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Spiders

Hi, I know it is not completely your domain, but could you have look at the many red categories in this list]. Thank you.

Thanks! Took a look, but unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether the red cats are for valid taxa and to be created, or synonyms for redirection to other existing cats. - MPF (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

picture location

Hi MPF, the picture File:Birds on the wire.jpg you asked about was taken in the city of Silao, state of Guanajuato, Mexico. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gracias! - MPF (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dark_chanting_Goshawk_in_Tanzania_1414_cropped_Nevit.jpg

Hi MPF,

I hope everything is going nice. Can you take a look at File_talk:Dark_chanting_Goshawk_in_Tanzania_1414_cropped_Nevit.jpg. Thanks in advance. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nevit - thanks! I've added a note on that talk page - MPF (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Megascops albogularis 000.jpg

Ingles: The identification is that bird is the one I indicate, that bird was raised in my home from chick, was captured in the state Bolivar - Venezuela near the border with Guyana, the kind that does not exist in your appointments Venezuela. Greetings.

Español : La identificación de es esa ave es la que yo indique, esa ave se crío en mi casa desde polluelo, fue capturada en el estado bolívar - Venezuela cerca de la frontera con Guyana, la especie que tu citas no existe en Venezuela. Saludos.--Veronidae (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

English: Sorry'll ask you to delete the image, but you point identification is wrong, this bird some years ago was identified by ornithologists, At first they thought it was also a mistake. Finally after you check all things that wanted to review concluded that it was atypical of Screech albogularis case, I do not I can delete, but you if you delete it, no problem, I was the one who climbed commons, the idea is not to create problems.

Español: Lo lamento pedire que se borre la imagen, pero la identificación que señalas es errada, esta ave ya hace unos años fue identificada por ornitologos, En un comienzo ellos pensaban también que se trataba de un error. Finalmente después de revisas cuanta cosa quisieron revisar concluyeron que era caso atípico de Megascops albogularis, yo no la puedo borrar, pero tu si puedes borrala, no hay problema yo fui quien la subió a commons, la idea es no crear problema.--Veronidae (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I forgot the license information.

Errors in Koppen map

Hi, please see the discussion of this climate classification and see if you can help. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Done - MPF (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File Abies_concolor_needles_closeup.jpg

This file was originally labelled Abies lasiocarpa needles closeup.jpg, and was correct. It is lasiocarpa, not concolor. Range maps clearly show it is within lasiocarpa's range, not concolor's, and a picture of the whole tree which I did not upload, but will direct you to find <a href="http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/personal/Northeastern_Nevada_roadtrips/02-Drive_to_Owyhee_and_the_Idaho_border/03-2013/01-Owyhee_Canyon_just_below_Wild_Horse_Dam/2013-06-16_21-Lone_tree_viewed_from_opposite_direction.jpg"/>here</a>, clearly shows the extremely narrow form of lasiocarpa, not the wider form of concolor. Can you please move it back? Famartin (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced; the foliage looks more like drought-stressed A. concolor to me, and the habitat (~1900 m; hot, dry, fairly low altitude: that was visible from Google Earth when I first checked the pic, and is now confirmed by your other photo) is way out for A. lasiocarpa but OK for the low end of the range for A. concolor. While A. concolor is usually broader-crowned, it can be this narrow. The location appears to be out-of-range for both, though A. lasiocarpa is mapped not too far away on the McAfee Peak (3188 m) / Porter Peak (2824 m) range. - MPF (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. There is an obvious wet spot there which is apparent by the sudden group of larger woody plants surrounding the tree; probably a natural seep of some sort. Its definitely lasiocarpa, and if you don't change it back, I will do it myself. Please don't change someone else's work like that; its disrespectful without checking with them. Famartin (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, though I'm not happy to do so, I still consider this to be A. concolor. - MPF (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Location? File:Bird IMG 4102.JPG

Thanks. Location added --Manojk (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

re:Location?

Hi, I don't remember where exactly I took this image (in some forest?). I knew that, it was near Rybnik - my hometown :), best regards Pleple2000 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Haematopus palliatus

Thanks for identifying the species at File:Oystercatcher2.jpg and similar images! Much obliged, – Quadell (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Salix identity

Hi, MPF

you asked me recently about a Salix alba leaf. Now I have checked the trees in this area. There are some Prunus padus shrubs at the Salix trees, see File:20130712Kirsche Reilingen8.jpg (Prunus padus together with salix alba) and File:20130712Kirsche Reilingen7.jpg. The lower leaves at File:20120904Silberweide Reilingen02.jpg are probably Prunus padus. But there are as well some Salix caprea in this area. Greetz --anro (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Moores_Knob_Pinus_virginiana_1.jpg

I'm quite sure that's not Pinus virginiana. Looks like Pinus rigida. Famartin (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Needles are definitely too long for virginiana, and the growth habit isn't right. Too 'stocky'. Could be pinus pungens too, they grow in somewhat similar environments. It actually looks a lot like several trees shown in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pinus_pungens Famartin (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Picasa review

If you can, please mark some images in picasa review...as an Admin. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Started on some, will do more - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

new Commons brochure draft

Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look! - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mapa pinus pinea.png

Hi, I noticed you reverted the image to your version. Since it is a completely different image from the original upload, I think you should upload it again with a different name, possibly indicating also some sources. Cheers--Carnby (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The original upload was both very low resolution and very inaccurate. Improving accuracy of maps is within the accepted reasons for uploading new versions over old ones. If I'd uploaded a new version under a new name, it would have meant going in to lots of wikipedias to replace the old name with the new name. I'll add the sources for my update. - MPF (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pine idents

Thanks for going through my pictures and checking them! From what I understand, the needles of Pinus taeda are generally at least 13 cm long unless this is a subspecies or variation. I know that it's hard to tell the size of the needles in the picture, and I don't remember the exact measurement of these, but I know that they are shorter than those of other Pinus taeda in this region. If the species can't be determined, I'll just remove the picture- it's better to not have the picture up than to have one incorrectly identified. Additionally, as far as I'm aware, Pinus sylvestris doesn't occur naturally in Tennessee. You marked it as cultivated, but this guy was growing out in the middle of nowhere, so... I don't know what to say about that one. Either way, I was pretty sure those two trees weren't the same species. Maybe it's best I just remove the pine tree pictures- there's probably plenty of them up here anyway.Sesamehoneytart (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Indra-I radar SriLanka.JPG

If you can see a license for this picasa image, feel free to pass it. If not, I guess it will remain picasa review for a long time. I can't see the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I could find no evidence of any Creative Commons license either, so have deleted it as a copyright violation - MPF (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You. That's the problem with these kinds of images on picasa where one cannot see the license. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not really know what you guys did wrong with this image. Here you can clearly see that this image is published under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0).
MPF, this image must get restored. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, the license (visible today, but not visible when I checked it before) is valid, so I have restored the photo. It appears to be a problem (as yet unresolved) with Picasa, that sometimes, unpredictably, the license is not visible. - MPF (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this (randomly occuring) problem but I always use this tool in order to determine the image's copyright status. It is a reliable tool and you only have to paste the link to image page. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually tried Flinfo to see if that would find the license, but it gave me an error message "Cannot determine image ID from input" (despite trying both numbers in the Picasa URL) - MPF (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These 26 Picasa Images

I don't see any license for these 26 picasa images. Since PD-Art cannot apply to them and there is no CC free license evidence for them, do you just delete them or can you file a mass DR on them? I am concerned that they will be in picasa review for many years now since no one will mark them with no verifiable license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv - thanks! I already raised them with the uploader, and am waiting for a response - as he is a license reviewer, he should be familiar with licensing so may possibly know of licensing that isn't visible to e.g. people who aren't paid-up Picasa members? - MPF (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you. Without a vieweable (and verifiable) license the images cannot be kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a little banner on the top of the linked page that reads "Click here to go back to Picasa web album". If you click that the licensing becomes available. Maybe we should institute a special license reviewer for Picasa as this happens just about any time I upload pictures from there? I also responded on my talk page, cheers from a traveling mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this link works? Could we perhaps have the flinfo app reflect the "noredirect" portion so that this is resolved automatically? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Really strange, the CC-BY license is showing on the picasa pages now, which it wasn't yesterday. I'll review them all tomorrow (too late to go through them just now!) - MPF (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania 20120217.jpg

Thanks for reviewing the licence status and also uploading a higher-resolution version of the photo File:Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano in Tanzania 20120217.jpg. I tried to upload the high-resolution version that you were able to upload to Wikimedia Commons, but I did not find a way to do this. I was only able to obtain the lower-resolution version. It's been a long time since I obtained high-resolution versions of Picasa photos, but I recall clicking on the Download tab on the relevant Picasaweb page, but for this photo the Download tab is greyed out (for me). Can you tell me how you were able to obtain the higher-resolution version of the photo, please? GeoWriter (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had much the same problem, in that the 'Download' button to get the full resolution (1600×1068 pixels, 313 KB) was greyed out. But I was able to get this somewhat larger version (1,152 × 769 pixels, 247 KB), by clicking on 'Full screen' at the top left of the photo, and then saving that version. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your tip. I'll try that next time. GeoWriter (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Picasa Review

Dear MPF,

If you have some free time, feel free to mark some images in picasa review. I have been busy this week unfortunately with work and exams. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Started, I'll do more tomorrow (but there's also 150 pics in Category:Unidentified birds to try to identify . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

PS good luck with the exams! - MPF (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll mark a few more flickr images but really most of them are just banners. I marked the real images which aren't used as banners. Also DR'ed the panoramio image as there's no FOP in Italy. I don't have much free time sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Picasa images

I think what you say on the 2 picasa images is reasonable. So, please feel free to file a DR then and see what the uploader says. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my comments, but I saw your note about these two images File:Karol Gregorek.jpg and File:Przemysław Kocot.jpg on Leo's talk page and wondered if you looked at the contributors other Picasa image sets. He appears to have very significant access to that football team with numerous uploads, though admittedly none quite like that set of portraits. Personally, if I was reviewing them I would AGF based on his other images but the choice is obviously yours. Did you check the metadata, if it is there, to see if the camera was the same? Those two images were taken with a Canon 50D and, without checking them all, the images in this set are using the same camera. I'm swayed these are actually his images. Ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, that's exactly the sort of comment I was hoping for (I can't read Polish and am not a footballer, so have e.g. no knowledge as to whether the picasa photostream are all of the same team or not). Could you add your comment above to the two deletion requests please, that will help others decide if the pics can be kept. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Ww2censor (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

a lot. Cheers, --4028mdk09 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Picasa Review

Feel free to mark a few picasa images if you wish. I marked a few but I have been busy sadly. The link Mr choppers gave helps to see some of the skiing image licenses like this. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see everything was resolved, does anyone know how to contact the flinfo programmer so that this will be done automatically? Cheers and thanks, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I don't know who will know how to fix the problem. Some Admin might know. Anyway, I hope MPF can mark a few of the picasa images in his free time. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll get a few done now! - MPF (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You. I'll mark some flickr images now. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified Spatangoida

Hi MPF,

I added some files to Category:Unidentified Spatangoida. I could not identify the species. Could you please take an expert look?--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help here, it's not a group I know anything about :-( - MPF (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Panoramio Review

If you have some time, please feel free to mark some images in this category. I have been busy with other projects (uploaded 20 of my own images to Commons recently) and marked 25-30 flickr images today. If you're busy, that's OK. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

File:QutbIronInscription.jpg

File:QutbIronInscription.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Sreejith K (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Image:Abies concolor seed-dispersal.jpg is in this week on Estonian wikipedia main page, because en:Abies concolor is the article of the week. Thank you for nice picture! Taivo (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Distribution Map of Pinus cembroides

Hello MPF,

please can you tell me the sources you are using? I think, I am using the most reasonable ones, as mentioned also on de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt. Therefore I would stick to the distribution map, as it was before. But unfortunately you deleted the former, in my opinion most correct version of the map. Please undelete it again and may save it under another name e.g. "Pinus cembroides range map Farjon.png" so that we in the German WP can use it. Regards --IKAl (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello IKAI - Farjon totally ignored genetic, phenological, and several aspects of morphological data in his very blinkered approach to the taxonomy of the pinyon pine group; his ideas result in a concept of "Pinus cembroides" which is paraphyletic with respect to Pinus culminicola. This concept is completely rejected by botanists with field experience of the taxa concerned (which Farjon does not have). Pinus johannis and P. cembroides are highly distinct in nature, and cannot hybridise (they pollinate at different times of the year); P. johannis much more closely resembles P. culminicola, to which it has also proven genetically closer to. As an aside, Eckenwalder's interpretation (treating P. johannis as a variety of P. culminicola, var. bicolor), while excessively conservative, is at least phylogenetically valid in having monophyletic taxa. Here are some of the references you require:

• Flores-Rentería, L. (2013). Genetic, morphological, geographical and ecological approaches reveal phylogenetic relationships in complex groups, an example of recently diverged pinyon pine species (Subsection Cembroides). Molec. Phyl. Evol. in press, abstract.
• Gernandt, D. et al. (2001). Variation in the nrDNA ITS of Pinus subsection Cembroides: implications for molecular systematic studies of pine species complexes. Molec. Phyl. Evol. 21: 449-467.
• Gernandt, D. et al. (2003). Phylogenetics of Pinus Subsections Cembroides and Nelsoniae Inferred from cpDNA Sequences. Systematic Botany 28 (4): 657-673.
• Gernandt, D. et al. (2005). Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon 54 (1): 29-42.
• Liston, A., et al. (2003). Molecular phylogeny of Pinaceae and Pinus. Pp. 107-114 in Mill, R. R. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conifer Conference. Acta Hort. No. 615, International Society for Horticultural Science, Brugge.
• Malusa, J. (1992). Phylogeny and Biogeography of the Pinyon Pines (Pinus Subsect. Cembroides). Systematic Botany 17 (1) 42-66.
• Manzanares, A. R., et al. (1996). Pinus cembroides s. l. y Pinus johannis del Altiplano Mexicano: una síntesis. Acta Botanica Gallica 143 (7) 681-693.
• Price, R. A., et al. (1998). Phylogeny and systematics of Pinus. Pp. 49-68 in: Richardson, D. M. (ed.), Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

I will reupload a version of the old map with a new name tomorrow, but I would very strongly advise against using it on its own, other than as an appendix to show how the species has been misunderstood by some authors with limited experience of the taxa. Do you want it exactly as E L Little's 1966 USDA original, or part-updated to exclude Pinus remota (as Farjon did do)? - MPF (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the upload.

There is lots of literature but no consense about the taxonomy of the pinyon pines. And you have to stick to one taxonomy. You mention Eckenwalder above, who distinguishes Pinus lagunae as an own species, which is now also on the distribution map for Pinus cembroides. Farjon sure does not ignore genetic, phenolological, etc. aspects. Quite contrary, he has the best overview on all these topics related to conifers, and does not stick to only one of the results. Some 3 weeks ago we discussed the topic in the redaction biology and decided to use the taxonomy of Farjon. It is also used by the IUCN as far as I know. You have to stick to one taxonomy, and it must be consistent, you cannot change it with each new publication. --IKAl (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but de:wiki made a very poor decision there. Farjon has set himself up as the "top expert" on conifers, but his work is often deeply flawed and superficial, and not a good overview - the pinyons are far from the only case where he has made very poor taxonomic judgements. I would strongly encourage your group to reconsider this decision. Actually, I don't see why you "have to stick to one taxonomy, and it must be consistent"; there is no reason why a different taxonomy should not be used in individual cases where there is clear evidence that one taxonomy or another is in error. But if you want a single better authority to follow, go for Debreczy & Racz, Conifers around the World (Dendropress). The authors of this text have studied every (or almost every) taxon in the wild, and made far better taxonomic judgements than Farjon. PS you did not say whether you want the alternative P. cembroides map to follow E L Little (1966 original), or Farjon. I can't upload until you say which! - MPF (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to get both? I assume that one of E. Little is the one, which was there before. For me it matched totally to the description of Farjon. Therefore I don't have a speciel map of Farjon in mind. Regards and thank you --IKAl (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, they're not matching - E.L.Little's 1966 map (the original) comprises (by current taxonomy) P. cembroides + P. johannis + P. remota, whereas Farjon's circumscription comprises P. cembroides + P. johannis but not P. remota (thus, without the central Texas locations on Little's map). I can make both if you like (and even, if you really want it, the old Voss [1907] concept [E.L.Little's, + P. edulis + P. monophylla + P. quadrifolia, all as one species]). - MPF (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right with "Pinus remota". The map corresponding to Farjon would be sufficient for my needs. Thank you. Regards --IKAl (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did both in the end: sensu Little and sensu Farjon. Hope they're OK! - MPF (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, great job. Regards --IKAl (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I read now Flores-Rentería, L. (2013). Genetic, morphological, geographical and ecological approaches reveal phylogenetic relationships in complex groups, an example of recently diverged pinyon pine species (Subsection Cembroides). Molec. Phyl. Evol. in press, abstract. Following this paper neither Pinus johannis nor Pinus discolor are growing in the US but in Mexico. Then it is unclear for me, why you removed the distribution of Pinus cembroides in Arizona and New Mexico? --IKAl (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

They occur in Mexico, but with P. discolor also in USA (SW New Mexico and SE Arizona, with the holotype specimen from Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mts., Arizona). What I removed from the P. cembroides map is the area where P. discolor/P. johannis do occur, but P. cembroides does not occur. Are you sure you have read the paper correctly? Their Fig. 1 clearly shows P. discolor in Arizona. Remember the paper is by Mexican authors, it may simply be that the localities they sampled are all in Mexico. Further south in Mexico, both occur together (often intermingled, as I have seen myself, and also e.g. here with P. johannis [left], P. cembroides [right]). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Cones of Abies lasiocarpa and other species

I uploaded recent photographs of Abies lasiocarpa, Pinus albicaulis and Tsuga mertensiana just now that you may find of interest. It was an exceptional year for cones in this region. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

cat-dispute "birds of <country>"

Hi MPF,
a regular and trusted uploader, whom I know personally, User:Atamari, has asked me for a (sort of) "mediation" (due to his low english skills) as he was rather unhappy with your removal[4] of Category:Quelea quelea in Gambia from some of his uploads and the subsequent deletion of this cat. Though animal-categorization is not my field of interest, I explained to him[5] your likely rationale (as assumed by me). He then provided 2 general reasons for retaining cats of the "birds/animals of <country>"-type:

• 1) For anybody who wants to know what birds (or other animals) occur in country X (or wants to write an article about it), such cats make it far easier, if not at all possible to get an overview over the existing images that fulfil these criteria (bird AND country X). If such cats are missing or if the files are only in less specific cats, an overview is hardly possible or requires a fulltext-search through the descriptions of all files. And you know well how bad our search-engine actually is.
• 2) Habitat seems to be a relevant aspect, not to say a key parameter in biology and is best recorded via such "birds of <country>"-categories.

These rationales sound rather reasonable to me. I would therefore ask you to reconsider your opinion about this type of categories in the case at hand and probably also in general. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio - a couple of points I'd make in reply:

First, on a very important general principle, natural organisms do not adhere to human-created political boundaries. If subcategorisation of a species with a very large number of images is required (but see also below), then the subcategoriastion should be by natural differences appropriate to the species, such as subspecies, or by biogeographical regions, or by sex / age group, etc. Yes, habitat is very much a relevant aspect, but this is absolutely not best recorded with 'by country' subcategories, as their boundaries do not coincide.

Second, which also applies in this case in particular, where there are only a small number of images, it does not make good sense to split them apart into numerous subcategories each containing just one or two photos. That makes finding images far more tedious if one has to search through lots of subcategories. In this instance, removal of the Gambian images had left only a very few images in the main species category, most of which were plastic junk of dubious authenticity (captive, non-wild individuals, which may often be captive-bred hybrids or otherwise atypical of the species). It makes far better sense to group all of the photos of wild specimens together in one category, until such time as the category becomes unwieldy (approaching or even exceeding 200 images).

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

More thoughts for a possible solution - an option that could work well is to have the 'by country' categories running alongside the classification categories, by using 'higher taxon by country'. Thus images from Gambia of Quelea quelea (which is in the family Ploceidae) could be both retained in Category:Quelea quelea, and also added separately to a Category:Ploceidae in Gambia. The images would then be easily found from both the taxonomic hierarchy and from the nation hierarchy. Would that be acceptable for Atamari? - MPF (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Natürlich richten sich die meisten Spezies nicht nach Grenzen, es sei denn sie sind endemisch. Aber es soll ja nicht exakt nach enzyklopädischen Aspekten sortiert werden – sondern hier soll ein Bilderarchiv aufgebaut werden. Wir hoffen, dass dieser Bilderpool auch noch nach 25 Jahren bestand hat. Dann werden wir nicht nur 18 Mio. Bilder haben, sondern ein Vielfaches davon.

Selbst bei einem kleinen Land wie Gambia wird die Kategorie „Birds of Gambia“ hoffnungslos überfüllt sein. Wie sie jetzt schon wäre, wenn nicht sinnvoll nach Taxon sortiert ist. Die Kategorien haben primären Zweck, die Kategorie unterhalb des Staats sinnvoll zusammen zu fassen.

Einige Arten sind schon so häufig fotografiert, wie beispielsweise Passer domesticus – da ist ein sammeln in der Hautkategorie nicht mehr sinnvoll. Im Beispiel ist schon category:Passer domesticus by country angefangen. Die Category:Passer domesticus sehe ich auch schon als ideal an, sie ist zukunftsfähig – so was gefällt mir. Was man sich dann noch gut vorstellen kann, ist eine category:Quality images of Passer domesticus.

Also, meine Intension ist es nicht nur nach Spezies zu kategorisieren, sondern auch andere Themengebiete zu erschließen. Geografische Portale gibt es zu jedem Staat, da ist nur naheliegend – die Geografie/die Natur/die Vogelwelt/die Sperlingsvögel/die Sperlinge zu kategorisieren.

Eine Zusammenfassung nach Gattung ist auch eine sinnvolle Unterteilung für category:Birds of Gambia - aber das wäre für den Weg in 25 Jahren auch nur ein Zwischenschritt.

via Google translator:

Of course, most species do not conform to boundaries unless they are endemic. But it is not supposed to be sorted exactly as encyclopedic aspects - but here is a picture archive be established. We hope that these pictures pool has existed even after 25 years. Then we will not only have 18 million pictures, but a multiple thereof.

Even in a small country like The Gambia will be overcrowded the category "Birds of The Gambia ". See how it would be now if does not make sense sorted by taxon . The categories have primary purpose is to summarize the useful category under the State together.

Some species are so often photographed , such as Passer domesticus - there is a gain not more useful in the skin category. In the example already category:Passer domesticus by country started. The Category:Passer domesticus I also have to be ideal , it is the future - something like that. What you can still find good, a category:Quality images of passer domesticus.

So, my intention is not only to categorize the species , but also to tap into other subject areas. Geographic portals , for every state , there is only obvious - the geography / nature / bird life / the Passerines / categorize the sparrows.

A summary of species is also a useful division for category:Birds of Gambia - but that would be the way in 25 years and only an intermediate step.

--Atamari (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"We hope that these pictures pool has existed even after 25 years. Then we will not only have 18 million pictures, but a multiple thereof" - that is true, but not relevant here and now. Cross that bridge when we come to it. The needs for category re-assessment should be made when they are required, not 25 years in advance of when they are required. For the time being, there are a few photos of Quelea quelea from Gambia, and even fewer - or none - from most other nearby African nations. It simply does not make sense to split up Category:Quelea quelea into 25 national subcategories when there are only 20 images in total, and would make finding the single best image of Quelea quelea a thankless task. It might be necessary by 2038, it might not. I suspect probably not. But wait and see - if it is necessary then, it can be done then. Not now. - MPF (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Flickr human review

If you have some time, feel free to mark a few images here. Perhaps 7-10 images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do! This one - File:Batmantheridebanner.png - it's in the USA, can a rollercoaster be a copyrighted design? If yes, with no FOP in the USA (it's in California), the license at Flickr isn't valid. - MPF (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I'll ask Admin Lymantria to decide here on this image. Thanks for marking some. I marked some images last night and the day before and it looked like no one else was marking any. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I strongly suspect it will have to go. Among the others I did, two were not commons-compatible licenses (one all rights reserved, one non-commercial), so I speedy-deleted them - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't, because a roller coaster is a "useful object", see for instance {{Useful-object-US}}. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting one! A useful object for keeping kids amused, I guess. Though whether the amusement park owner would consider their ride 'utilitarian' is another matter ;-) MPF (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's one of his money machines, isn't it? :P Lymantria (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought it might be utilitarian but wasn't sure. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please perform deletions

Hello. I need the deletion of two pages - a file and an obsolete redir, and need them deleted asap in order to possibly step on with derived edits and uploads. Thank you in advance. Orrlingtalk 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You're thanked! Orrlingtalk 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for Identification of Aethopyga siparaja-Krish Dulal (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've done the renaming - MPF (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

PinusFlexilis Image deletion

You removed my image: PinusFlexilis-NeedleDetail.jpg at 12:25, 23 September 2013‎ indicating it was improperly named. Please provide correct identification so that I may correct the professional botanists at the Krohn Conservatory in Cincinnati. I noted that there was a second Pinus Flexilis image that was considered to be incorrectly identified - is there a possibility that you confused the two images or are the botanists in error? Regards Greg5030 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greg - I renamed the photo as File:Pinus-NeedleDetail.jpg. It is clearly not Pinus flexilis, as it has needles in pairs with persistent needle sheaths (vs. needles in fives, and a deciduous needle sheath). Unfortunately, there isn't enough detail visible in the photo for an exact identification; my best guess is Pinus nigra, but there are two or three other possibilities - a close-up of a cone would help clinch the identification. Presumably, the tree is wrongly labelled at Krohn; I would suspect vandalism (kids switching labels as a joke) rather than an error on the part of Krohn's botanists. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Help for image uploads

Hello, how can we upload picture published by an organization with Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) ? One of our community member has got picture files in a pen-drive from the organization and uploaded in commons but those were deleted. Which license should we provide for such pictures? hoping for your quick response. -Krish Dulal (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Krish - unfortunately, NoDerivs (-ND) are not valid for Commons, any images uploaded here need to be licensed for derivatives to be allowed. Ask the license holding organization if they are willing to change their license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanx MPF, but what about pictures provided in pen-drive? They have allowed us to publish but not in paper. -Krish Dulal (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same - if the license is not compatible with what Commons allows, we can't upload them here. - MPF (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Archilochus colubris

Please comment on the identification of Archilochus colubris, if you would.[6] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. - MPF (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sylvia_inornata_MHNT.jpg

Thank you very much for this update. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinus greggii range map.png

I'm confused about your upadate to File:Pinus greggii range map.png about a year ago. I haven't found a copy of Donahue & Lopez-Upton's 1999 article, but I wouldn't think it would have dismissed the populations shown on the Elbert Little map. Were they found to have been another species entirely? Why weren't the newly discovered populations just merged with the old ones on the map? -- Nonenmac (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a mix-up at the USGS web source, the maps for Pinus greggii and Pinus patula there are switched (apart from the dot in Chiapas); obvious if you look at the original primary source of Critchfield & Little 1966 (which I have a paper copy of). Which reminds me, I never got round to correcting the Pinus patula map . . . better do that, too (so thanks for this, as a reminder!) - MPF (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes much more sense. -- Nonenmac (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been uploading "clean" versions of USGS maps (without the striping problems that most of those maps on commons have). That's how I noticed the discrepency with P. greggii. So I went ahead and uploaded some P. patula maps. You might want to check them to see if I missed something. I did finally put the dot in Chiapas. I've been uploading 2 or 3 different zoom levels of each map, including the full uncropped maps of North America, figuring users can crop those if my crop level doesn't suit their purposes. -- Nonenmac (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out. I'd already removed the striping from quite a few of the maps, though far from all. More widely though, there's a bigger problem with a lot of these maps, as USGS hint on their page, that taxonomy has moved on a long way since the data used to compile the maps (in particular for the 1966 data on the Pinus maps). Several are very outdated with respect to species splits, and also new discoveries (particularly in, though not limited to, Mexico). Some (mostly the same ones as I'd de-striped), I'd already updated the maps. But the new uploads don't incorporate the updates - I guess I should update all of them? I don't think it's a good idea to present 50-year old maps as "current" on wikipedia pages. - MPF (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Addenum - I checked the P. patula maps, yep, you got it right (not surprising as I see you found the 1966 original online!) I've converted the old inaccurate one into a redirect to the new upload. Though even the new upload has taxonomic problems, as that Chiapas population is now split as Pinus tecunumanii (split in 1983). But that's a separate matter from the USGS mixup. - MPF (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll go back and double-check the maps that I've uploaded to make sure I didn't miss any changes that have been made. I agree that they should be as up-to-date as possible.--Nonenmac (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! In a quick run through the USGS list, species with significant distribution changes I know of include:

• Cupressus arizonica (split into 5 species)
• Cupressus goveniana (split into 3 species)
• Cupressus guadalupensis (split into 2 species)
• Fagus grandifolia (split into 2 species)
• Picea chihuahuana (split into 2 species)
• Picea engelmannii (new populations [subsp. mexicana] in Mexico)
• Pinus ayacahuite (split into 2 species)
• Pinus caribaea (split into 2 species)
• Pinus cembroides (split into 4 species)
• Pinus edulis / Pinus monophylla (transfer of ssp. fallax from P.e. to P.m.)
• Pinus maximartinezii (new population discovered)
• Pinus oocarpa (split into 3 species)
• Pinus patula (split into 2 species)
• Pinus ponderosa (split into 2 species)
• Pinus pseudostrobus (split into 3 species)
• Pinus strobus (split into 2 species)
• Pinus strobiformis (split into 2 species)
• Pinus washoensis (now a synonym of P. ponderosa)
• Pseudotsuga menziesii (split into 2 species)
• Taxodium distichum (split into 2 species)

Probably also some others among genera I'm less familiar with. Not all of these changes are universally accepted; in particular some sources seem to consider E.L.Little's work as sacred scripture and immutable whatever scientific evidence shows, but I'm not greatly in favour of accomodating flat-earthers and creationists ;-) MPF (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that will speed up my search. I've already fixed several.--Nonenmac (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

{{VN}}

Hello my friend,
Did you see that I am solving our very little disagreement arround {{VN}}:
Look at Caridea:

• all the interwiki comes from wikidata.
  
• all the blue links in the {{VN}} comes from wikidata.
  

We will soon get rid of all syntax about languages.
But the process of suppressing interwiki and lines in {{VN}} must be done carefully by a bot. This because all the info missing in wikidata must be left in commons.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liné - thanks for the note! I can see it solving many problems, but also creating some new ones. First, one in the example you gave, the category has lost its interwiki to Simple English (which it should have, as the page exists, but it does not have a taxobox to trigger wikidata inclusion?), but also Simple English has an entry in the VN list (which should not be there, as it is not a separate language from English). The French interwiki is also lost. More problems I can see also in that there has been a concerted attack in en:wiki against the use of capitalised English names in favour of a rather random but mainly lower-case style favoured by newspapers, despite capitalisation being the standard in most authoritative name databases (e.g. BSBI) and books; I strongly feel that in commons (and also wikispecies), we should follow the style of the official naming authrities like BSBI and not the newspaper style now enforced at en:wiki. Can you set wikidata so that any English names follow the official capitalised style? Also, one other thing I have noticed a couple of times in wikidata is it setting a single image as the 'standard' image for that taxon. I don't think this is a good idea; in one case I saw it resulted in the image displayed on a wiki not matching the existing image caption (in this case, I changed the image shown by wikidata). Also I think different wikis will often wish to use a different image, e.g. fr:wiki will want to have a specimen at a location in France, da:wiki a specimen in Denmark, es:wiki a specimen in Spain, and so on. So I think it would perhaps be best if wikidata did not include an image in its listings. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it has lost the simple english. But is worse than that: they associated wikidata category with commons category and wikidata article with commons gallery. So they did reintroduced the war category vs gallery. This is under discussion somewhere, but I cannot find where. As fr.wikipedia can only have categories for order and families => 90% of commons categories won't have a fr interwiki
• Do you want me to merge english and simple-english in the {{VN}} ?
• Could you give me example of this capitalisation error ? So that I can try do something ?
• About the image, it is an error of the taxobox template writer: he should take wikidata image only if an image is not provided as parameter.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liné - sorry, been forgetting to reply. First point, yes, could you merge Simple English into English, please. What would be a useful addition though would be en-us (or just 'us'?) for American language (where it differs from normal English, as at e.g. Uria lomvia, I have just put it in there), it isn't currently available. Second point; see the discussion here, where decapitalisation was rather railroaded in without good consensus; for an example recently decapitalised page, here. Thanks for the clarification on the category vs gallery problem, and the images, too. - MPF (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I added en-us for you.

I suppressed parameter simple from {{VN}}

and merged en= and simple= in their usage. The parameter simple was often wrong:

• same as en (not wrong but useless)
• scientific name
• the vernacular name of only one of the subtaxon (scientificaly incorrect)
• a shortcut of the vernacular name (without the 'american' part: a typical behavior to forget other part of the world)

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pteridium aquilinum

Hi MPF,

Thank you for the correct identifications! DenesFeri (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Пейзаж в Лебедівці 1.JPG

Hallo! Are you sure it is Chroicocephalus ridibundus on the picture? Am I not sure we have this species in Ukraine, because here we have similar species, Larus cachinnans! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Chroicocephalus ridibundus (Мартин звичайний) is common in Ukraine (maybe you know it under the old scientific name Larus ridibundus?). You can see the head pattern typical of a specimen moulting from summer into winter plumage. - MPF (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK! Not a problem! Best wishes. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Location

Hi. That picture was taken in Quinched, Chonchi, Chile. Accords GoogleMapss, its coordinates are -42.56575, -73.7668. Bye. Lin linao ¿dime? 04:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Gracias! - MPF (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Pictures of Podocarpus saligna were taken in Teja Island, Valdivia, Chile. Accords GoogleMaps, coordinates of first location are -39.8069 -73.2519, and for second one are -39.8062 -73.2530. Bye. Lin linao ¿dime? 05:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Eider down

I think, the category Eider down (singular is ok?) cannot be correct for skins(!) of Somateria mollissima. Bird skins are no downs, and the context to Somateria mollissima is also lost. --Kürschner (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a better category for it, please do! But all species of Somateria may be used in this manner, the individual species is not important in this context (can you guarantee there are no S. spectabilis skins used on the items in the relevant photos??) - MPF (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to add, yes, eider down is a non-countable noun in this context, so no plural -s - MPF (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just short, before a walk outside: Better a not exact category, as a not findable image, I think. This is the chance for people which know it corretly to change it. --Kürschner (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Location?

I took the pics from North China Shijiazhuang city, but now it is in winter here and the tree have no leaves. there are lot of pics in category I think.--Fanghong (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there are lots of photos in the category, but they are almost all of non-native (cultivated / naturalised) plants, not wild specimens in their native habitat. The latter are far more valuable scientifically, so it is best to get such images where possible. So if you possibly can, please do ;-) MPF (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Copernicia alba.jpg

File:Copernicia alba.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 21:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

VI

For your problem I VI Suggested ask User:Myrabella Good day... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:LA2-Blitz-0257.jpg

Yours sincerely, Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Location

Hi. Just added location information to File:Kleiber pae.jpg Cheers, Paethon (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of categories.

Hello MPF !

I would like to know why you removed the categories Église Saint-Martin de Biez and Champ de l'Hospice, Grez-Doiceau from my picture L'église de Biez vue depuis le Champ de l'Hospice à Grez-Doiceau 001.

I know neither of both have been created yet, but in my opinion, the first one was justified because the aforementioned church (which I mentioned in the title of the file) was visible atop the distant hill, at the horizon, while the second one points at the path from which the picture was takenn which is called "Champ de l'Hospice".

I often walk around in Grez-Doiceau, taking pictures. When uploading these pictures to Wikimedia Commons, I had somehow in mind that anyone interested in the evolution of landscapes in this commune or interested in creating a small guide for walks and hikes could use them, in which case an odonymic indication might be useful. I intended to create categories for a number of pathways, streets and roads in the commune after having uploaded a sufficent number of pictures, when I would have some time.

Considering this, do you think it would be appropriate to add the categories back?

I wish you nice end year celebrations !  :-)

Cheers,

VerboseDreamer (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was (as you suspected!) because the categories did not exist; I am frequently removing 'red' categories from files. Having images categorised in non-existent categories does not help people find them! By all means add them to the image again when the categories have been created. Hope this helps! Best wishes for 2014 ;-) MPF (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It does help indeed.  :-) I'll try to create the red categories for my files later this week. Best wishes to you too. VerboseDreamer (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorghum halepense

You requested photos of Category:Sorghum halepense from Israel. I don't think I could identify it if wanted, but you need more than [this usable material]? Danny lost (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, but yes, I do need other than those from those from bugwood - as mentioned in my request, what Commons is lacking is specimens shown in their native environment. The ones at bugwood are all non-natural material. - MPF (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)