User talk:MPF/archive7

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

Templates

[edit]

Hello my friend,
Would you mind:

I did a check to verify if ITIS identifior is the same as Property:P815 on wikidata.
In case of difference, it fills Category:Pages with biology property different than on Wikidata.
Of course, I did the same for other templates ;-).
Happy new year! Liné1 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dead feral pigeons

[edit]

Hallo MPF,

how do you know File:Dead pigeon in snow.JPG is a feral pigeon? To me it does look like a Fancy pigeon --> what is the reason, we desided to go without "dead feral pigeons", "dead fancy pigeons", "dead sporting pigeons", "dead racing pigeons"-categories and equals in Category:Pigeon life cycle.

Would it be OK to cancel Category:Feral pigeons (dead), again? If you are 100 percent sure it is a feral one, you may ad Category:Feral pigeons as well.

Best regards, --PigeonIP (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PigeonIP - I have no proof that it is a feral bird (as opposed to one owned and cared for by someone), but my presumption is that a bird which is being looked after, is unlikely to end up dead in this situation. As to the plumage - "To me it does look like a Fancy pigeon" - 'fancy' pigeons with this plumage are as likely to escape and join feral flocks as any other breed. I frequently see individuals with this plumage pattern in feral populations. But do change it to whatever category you think most appropriate. - MPF (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure: it was no feral one.[1]
as for: a bird which is being looked after, is unlikely to end up dead in this situation: Two days ago, I lost one myself (two more the last weeks) and it looked exactly like that.
The question is: are Categories like Category:Feral pigeons (dead), Category:Fancy pigeons (dead), Category:Sporting pigeons (dead) and Category:Racing pigeons (dead) really necessary or useful? Isn't Category:Dead pigeons enough? --PigeonIP (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PigeonIP - thanks! Yes, from the page history, it was a captive bird (that category had been removed before I edited the file, though). Yes, I would say there are sufficient relevant files to retain Category:Feral pigeons (dead) and probably also to create a similar Category:Domesticated pigeons (dead) - Category:Dead pigeons contains all deceased Columbidae, e.g. there are a couple of dead Columba palumbus in the category, and several others not identifiable to species (actually, it should really be renamed Category:Dead Columbidae or Category:Columbidae (dead), to fit with the established scientific name usage). - MPF (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The couple of dead Columba palumbus should be sortet in a cat like Category:Columbidae (dead) + Category:Columba palumbus. pigeons-categories are for domestic forms of Columbida. (see Category:Pigeons, that was implemented, because Category:Domesticated pigeons did not work, the situation with new uploads is much better now. There were some pigeons/dove-discussions, as well)
--PigeonIP (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that 'pigeons' is imprecise, it can mean both all Columbidae, and just Columba livia. How do you indicate to users that in the case of Category:Dead pigeons it is only to be treated in the second, restricted sense?
As an aside, "Columba livia f. domestica" is not a valid scientific name ;-) Zoology does not use the rank of forma, only botany does so. MPF (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Columba livia f. domestica --> I know! But I am tired of these discussions on Commons + Wikipedia + Wikidata, all over again (on data "my" breeds where feral pigeons for some time, cause someone merged feral and domesticated pigeons, maybe because both where marked as domestica.)
as for indication: ok so? --PigeonIP (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watsonian boundaries

[edit]

To which note are you referring to here? I've never seen any notes to that effect, although I don't often deal with botanical images. Ultra7 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra7 - if you click on edit you'll see it; unfortunately this isn't visible when using things like Cat-a-lot or HotCat, so you wouldn't have noticed it. For more info on botanical recording, see en:Vice-county. When I can find the time, I'll split the Flora of Northumberland cat into South Northumberland (v.c. 67) and North Northumberland (v.c. 68). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely wouldn't have seen that. If you need people like me (commons regulars who use tools for categorisation but don't regularly deal with botanical images) to know that, I suggest something like an information template, which can be added to the description page of every category in the branch that uses this convention (obviously it would be best to use a bot to place the actual template). That's where I would expect to find notes like this. Ultra7 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreed; unfortunately, I don't know how to create complex templates like that! - MPF (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but I've created one for you, at Template:Use vice-county. The way you use this template is to edit a category page, adding {{Use vice-county}} at the top, which will display the following:
English: Images in this category should be categorised by vice-county
You would need a bot to add it to every category, which I have no idea how to do (or even where to ask). Once that's done though, the advantage is that if you ever want to change what it says, you only need to edit the template page itself, the changes will then be visible on every category that it is used on. And then, whenever you create a new category, adding {{Use vice-county}} is all that is needed. In the meantime, it's probably best to simply add it to the top level cats, like Trees by county (which is where I looked when you first mentioned the note). It's not perfect by any means, but all the other features you normally see on these things are beyond my current expertise (adding an icon, colour, automatically mentioning the category name, etc). Obviously, add it to your watchlist if you're going to use it (and probably protect it, policy permitting - knowing about that sort of thing is definitely above my paygrade). Ultra7 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll work on it and/or ask advice from others over the next few days - MPF (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm very unsure about using the vice-counties for categorisation in this manner. I would prefer to see some sort of consensus established on their use (possibly via CFD or the VP). The fact you pointed at a note, rather than a discussion, suggests there is no such consensus at this time.

I have a number of concerns:

  1. First off the vice-county boundaries are different - should we use the same name for the different concepts? eg The vice-counties of County Durham and North Devon are very different to those terms as used in local government (first includes half of Tyne and Wear, second is much bigger than the district of North Devon.
  2. Some of the differences are more subtle, which are harder to identify. eg Category:Werrington, Cornwall is in the vice-county of North Devon, and the Watsonian split of Norfolk and Suffolk looks like a straight north-south line not corresponding even to parish boundaries (generally the lowest level of geolocation).
  3. Aside the obvious confusion introduced, this makes error detection harder as well. Geograph files are mostly placed in "Geograph in county" cats which allows CatScans to detect errors. If vice-counties are used then File:Werrington, oak tree - geograph.org.uk - 457031.jpg should be in (North) Devon and would be falsely identified as an error. This is important, because the initial GeographBot categorisation got the county wrong in many thousands of cases (for instance). Using cats like Category:County Durham (vice-county) to make the distinction clearer would resolve these three issues.
  4. However, a more fundamental issue is when should the vice-counties be used at all? They aren't used by everyone in the UK for all biological purposes eg The Woodland Trust uses the modern counties for the Ancient Tree Hunt, as does Natural England for SSSIs. To me that suggests against using them for everything in Category:Flora of the United Kingdom (and Fungi, Animals etc) instead of the standard scheme, but their use should be rather more considered (eg via a parallel tree, or only in certain situations). eg Doesn't strike me as sensible to use them for ones like Category:Flower beds in the United Kingdom--Nilfanion (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:County Durham VC66 would make better sense for the name. As to whether they should be used: yes, absolutely they should. They may not be used by everyone, but they are used by most, including very importantly, the official biological recording organisations like BSBI, etc. Things like Category:Flower beds in the United Kingdom are not relevant to the issue, as cultivated plants are not part of the flora of a region and should no more be included in it than e.g. Category:Barack Obama in the United Kingdom should be a subcategory of Category:People of the United Kingdom. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the BSBI uses them - I am not automatically convinced that that means we should, which I why I recommend a stronger consensus is established on how to use them. There are 3 alternatives: Use standard county info only, use vice-county only, use both in parallel. Looking at Category:Trees in England, and its by-location sub-cats, the categories are following the standard non-biological scheme (eg Category:Trees in England->Category:Trees in London->Category:Trees in the London Borough of Enfield‎). This is probably best way to support location-based searches by general public (who are generally unaware of vice-counties). They wouldn't look for Enfield's trees in Hertfordshire, and would look for Newcastle's in Tyne and Wear. This suggests vice-counties are not a suitable replacement, at least for biologically broad categories like trees, birds or insects. As a complementary resource they are certainly useful.
Parenthetical disambiguation may make more sense, as it makes it more explicit what the cat is, and reduces change of good-faith changes to the admin county (like Ultra7's).
I brought up flower beds, because they are a subcat of flora. You could have a situation where you have an image in Category:Flower beds in Newcastle upon Tyne and Category:Hyacinthoides in County Durham‎, which is absurd. It may be unclear if a plant in a park is cultivated or not (especially trees), so the same species may be treated differently in different circumstances.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anser cygnoides head.jpg

[edit]

It seems the file-name and included category are different. Could you check and correct it? Jee 04:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - MPF (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jee 08:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have look on this, please. Jee 05:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Note added. - MPF (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Setophaga coronata

[edit]

MPF, thanks for editing categories for File:Pine cones Mammoth Lakes CA 01.jpg‎ and File:Pine cones Mammoth Lakes CA 02.jpg‎. It was exactly what the image files needed, as I can't tell pine trees apart, let alone pine cones; all I could provide was info on the location. BTW, I see that you are a species expert... and I was wondering if you could take a look at this issue whenever you have time. Thanks in advance. --Nandaro (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!, and Done - MPF (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Buteo buteo dis.PNG

[edit]
العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Buteo buteo dis.PNG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psittacopasserae.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the old version of File:Psittacopasserae.jpg and consider making it the current version. The "non-free" image was found to be free after all and restored at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AUndeletion_requests%2FCurrent_requests&diff=116120064 . Davidwr (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done - MPF (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milvus milvus (portrait).jpg

[edit]

I just opened a discussion on the generic concerns on Commons:File renaming at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Commons:File_renaming. Please share your opinions too if any. I see some merits in renaming; but concerned on some side effects too. Hope we people can arrive into a gentleman agreement. ;) Jee 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia arbaro

[edit]

Hello, and thanks for this (and for identifying the Eriophorum, too). What’s the related file that helps to locate this place on Estonia, though? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tuvalkin - by going to the photographer's facebook account, it states Estonia there; the habitat in the photo does not conflict with that. Obviously there is a small chance the photo was taken away from the photographer's home base, but I see nothing to suggest it is not in Estonia - MPF (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you. I take the liberty of copying this discussion to the file’s talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acer saccharides vs. Acer platanoides

[edit]

I see that you edited File:Acer_saccharum_seedling_Quebec.jpg to show these leaves as Acer platanoides. Given that the file was apparently from Quebec, and that is outside the normal range for platanoides, it's very possible that the original uploader was correct. I'm reverting your change and discussing this on the attached talk page. I'm not an expert, my reversion is not a claim that you are incorrect, but that this has not been established based on any reliable source or information that is verifiable. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some more looking, platanoides might also be found in Quebec. However, we still need to know how to differentiate platanoides from saccharides. This file is used on Wikiversity as part of a plant identification resource, so resolving this is important for the educational purpose. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abd - the original uploader and identifier was me ;-) - the Flickr original is only identified to genus. I realised I'd made a mistake when I compared it with other images, and corrected it. The important differences are (a) the sharply pointed (almost bristle-tipped) leaf lobes and (b) glossy leaves, both A. platanoides characters; c.f. blunt-tipped lobes and generally matt leaves of A. saccharum. Not sure if you'd noticed, but I also replaced the image at Wikiversity (using an ip number as I don't have an account there) with a true A. saccharum photo. As to distribution, A. platanoides is common in Quebec, being listed as an invasive alien (ref), as it is also in most of the rest of eastern North America. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the edit here because of the edit there. Yes as to distribution. I'm not utterly convinced, though, the bristle tips seem not as strong as on other images of platanoides. Nevertheless, I will restore your edit with a little change that calls attention to the misidentification. This should really be confirmed independently if possible. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about ducks

[edit]

Hi MPF,

On this picture File:Anas platyrhynchos - wetland 7.jpg the ducks might be Anas capensis File:Anas capensis wetland 5.jpg; because of the same date and place + the spots on their underside? Could this be File:Anas platyrhynchos - wetland 10.jpg Aythya fuligula File:Aythya fuligula - wetland 5.jpg? And thank you for the correct identifications! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denes - thanks! Yes, Aythya fuligula for the second - I was pretty near certain on that before, only put it in 'unidentified' as it is in a zoo so the possibilities (e.g. hybrids) are wider. I'll check the first one again. - MPF (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks also! DenesFeri (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

answer: Rhea pennata

[edit]

Hello MPF. I'd rather not give details of the locations where I took some photographs. Greetings. --CHUCAO (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking images from Panoramio

[edit]

Hi Sir. I uploaded new images from Panoramio and mentioned template:Panoramioreview. May you check the license like past time? thanx.Iranian engineer (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will do! - MPF (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatgrass

[edit]

Hello. Why did you delete Category:Wheatgrass? This is name for a plant and food - see d:Q248408 for the various languages using this designation. You said "Undefined name of no useful meaning", but there are multiple Wikipedia articles about this topic. Could you recreate it and start a deletion discussion if you object? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were photos of about ten diverse different species of grass that had been placed in the category which bore no common factor other than ultimately being members of (various subcategories of) Category:Poaceae. If a single species is involved, then we use the scientific name as the category, not an undefined name without any clear meaning. Looking at d:Q248408, the obvious category name to use is Category:Triticum aestivum, or to create a subcategory of it, perhaps Category:Triticum aestivum seedlings or Category:Triticum aestivum cotyledons - and then not include the vast majority of the images that had been dumped in the old category. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too many categories

[edit]

Many thanks for your help. Should I note this for the future or delete categories from my existing images? Charles (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaon

[edit]

Hi MPF, the account Lycaon is blocked since long and no longer used. You should notify the user at User talk:Biopics. He asked for deletion of his old talkpage, which I have performed. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus bhutanica

[edit]

Hi !

We were really really far from the subject when I clicked Buteo burmanicus . But surely will upload all that I have. Thanks for the info.

Identifying birds

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for identification of the birds I uploaded using ZankaM account. Usually I have some ideas of what bird is on photo and use this in the description. Last Cuban photos (File:Cuba undefined bird2.jpg, File:Agelaius humeralis, Holguin, Cuba.jpg ) were completely unpredictable for me. Actually, I believed that these two are from one species. However, after you identified one of them, I searched one more time avibase list ([2]) and think that second species could be Shiny cowbird (Category:Molothrus bonariensis). What do you think about it? --Zanka (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that looks a good call. - MPF (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Could you rename file than or we need some third opinion? --Zanka (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Moved to File:Molothrus bonariensis female, Holguin, Cuba.jpg - MPF (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll probably upload few more photo of birds unknown for me soon. --Zanka (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find your emailaddres my name is Peter van der Sluijs username toilet the bird was taken in Brielle (Holland) my English writing is not so good I hope that you can understand me

Location

[edit]

I have locations for File:Plant .jpg and File:Plant 2.jpg, I'm not sure how to add them but they are Latitude 53.525663, Longitude -2.918589 Novalia (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also same to her. i am a new user to commons. plz help. how to add???--Aathavan jaffna (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cupressaceae in Slovenia

[edit]

Hi, why are you deleting the category all the time? It fits nicely with the category tree, categorizing the flora of Slovenia by orders and families. We also have such categories for other plant families, therefore what's wrong with this one? Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 22:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC) P.S.: I think we have a discussion process for contentious categories.[reply]

Plants don't follow human political boundaries; neither is "Cupressaceae in Slovenia" a genus in Cupressaceae (as which you had it listed). This sort of subdivision also makes images difficult to find, as it means searching through (potentially) 190 subcategories, instead of just one or two - which defeats the purpose of categories. - MPF (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think that as we do list all the species living in a certain country in scholarly literature (e.g. for Slovenia, that would be Mala flora Slovenije), the same would be very usable here: to have a collection of images of (all) plants living in a certain country. If "Cupressaceae in Slovenia" was truly categorised as a genus, that's another matter, a simple mistake that can be quickly fixed. As to the searching, we can also categorise plants by species and genus and per month and plant anatomy to allow for easy searching, whereas large categories don't really allow to easy search for relevant material; it's like a needle in a haystack. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus mugo

[edit]

Hallo MPF, That picture of Pinus mugo was taken on Gothard Farm, in the middle between Ottawa and Montreal about 45.468293, -74.588658, where we took saplings for building decorative garden on Mazepa Farm, some 10 km to the north, about 45.4506587,-74.5301851,407. So now it grows there - in the Ukrainian article on Pinus mugo (Сосна гірська) there is also picture from Mazepa Farm. All the best, Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar-apple

[edit]
Sugar-apple 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 gallery, 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.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Briarfallen (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoiadendron giganteum (trunks) category?

[edit]

Hi, MPF. What did you intend to do with Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (trunks)? Delete? Redirect? I don't think we should just leave it empty... — hike395 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hike - I'm awaiting a response from User:Tangopaso who made it. The problem is, it wasn't well-thought out, and resulted in serious information loss with natural and cultivated trees mixed together in the same category, which they shouldn't be. One option would be simply to delete it; another would be to retain it as a subcat of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum, and make a new cat, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, trunks), as a subcat of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated). The important thing is not to mix natural and unnatural in the same category. Do you have any suggestions? - MPF (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I thought that it is interesting to create subcategories for cones, trunks, bark, foliage, and so on. Because :
I am not sure that a cone of a cultivated sequoia is very different from the cone of a sequoia in the wild. And gathering images of cones, foliage or trunks make an easier identification.--Tangopaso (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you created another redundancy in my File:Sequoiadendron giganteum (Rentilly) trunk.jpg.
Its categories are Category:Château de Rentilly, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum cultivated in Seine-et-Marne, Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated). And obviously Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum cultivated in Seine-et-Marne, is linked to Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated) ; (Seine-et-Marne is a departement of France).--Tangopaso (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple compromise here. I think that categories like Category:Trunks of Sequoiadendron giganteum, Category:Cones of Sequoiadendron giganteum can easily co-exist with Category:Wild Sequoiadendron giganteum and Category:Cultivated Sequoiadendron giganteum. Namely, a photograph can reside in two categories (e.g., trunks + cultivated), and it does not violate Commons:OVERCAT, because all of these categories should be peers and children of Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum. No wild/cultivated information will be lost, and users who are searching for specific trunk photographs will be helped. Everyone wins. — hike395 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about creating the odd redundancy as in File:Sequoiadendron giganteum (Rentilly) trunk.jpg, they can easily be sorted (I've just done that one). Cases like File:Sequoia sempervirens Big Basin Redwoods State Park 8.jpg are trickier; Category:Big Basin Redwoods State Park actually shouldn't really be in Category:Sequoia sempervirens, as the pics in it could be of any thing in the state park, not just Sequoia sempervirens. But neither should it be reversed (S.s. in BBRSP) as it isn't endemic there, yet a link between them is desirable.
"I am not sure that a cone of a cultivated sequoia is very different from the cone of a sequoia in the wild" - yes, they can be, and often are. Cones on Sequoiadendron in the wild are significantly larger than those on cultivated trees; the reason for this is not known, but possibly due to differences in climate. But that comment also misses the important ecological aspects of natural versus human-influenced. Published floras don't include cultivated plants, just as bird checklists don't include birds in zoos. In 'birder's speak', wild is "genuine, real", while cultivated / captive is "plastic junk" and "not tickable". Ask any field biologist, or anyone else with a strong interest in observing and recording wildlife; they don't want their wildlife lists "contaminated" with cultivated or captive plants and animals. Additionally (though unusually, not relevant in this case), cultivated plants are very often of dubious identity due to hybridisation, etc.
There is also another problem with dividing species categories into multiple subcategories: external Commons users like the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) harvest Commons images automatically by detecting the taxonavigation template. Splitting out e.g. the foliage images into a separate subcategory denies EOL access to the images. That doesn't matter for the low value cultivated material, but for EOL to lose access to important images is a major loss to that site. Having all the photos of natural material gathered together in one category is very useful. - MPF (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For some species, it is impossible to publish flora with only wild plants" - sad that Commons does not yet have any images of these in their native habitat. But sooner or later, it is likely some will be posted.
EOL gets images from multiple sources; Commons is one of the more important. Regrettably, EOL is getting many fewer than it could do from Commons, precisely because of this problem of overuse of subcategories. - MPF (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I propose to create Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, foliage) and Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, cones) as you proposed. Idem for Sequoia sempervirens. And perhaps also categories for trunks. Do you agree ? Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine! - MPF (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done for Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cultivated, cones) and Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum (cones).--Tangopaso (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identity

[edit]

Hi Fab5669 - can you get a close-up of the foliage of File:Châlons - petit jard (40).JPG, please? It does not look like Pseudotsuga menziesii, more like Picea omorika, but there is not enough detail for definite identification in this photo. Merci! - MPF (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not from Châlons-en-Champagne, and went to this city only for one day. So I can't get such close-up. But a plaque has been placed next to almost each tree. For this one, the text mentions (in French, sorry...) :
Sapin de Douglas - Pseudotsuga douglasii - Hauteur : 40 à 50 m - Longévité : 500 à 700 ans - Écorce : gris-brun, lisse puis rougeâtre et crevassée. - Feuille : persistante, mince, aplatie, molle, 2 raies blanches discrètes à la face inférieure. Disposée de part et d'autre des rameaux. - Fruit : cône allongé, de 5 à 10 cm, pendant, ne se désarticule pas.
Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga douglasii - Height: 40-50 m - Lifespan: 500-700 years - Bark: gray-brown, smooth then reddish and chapped. - Leaf: persistent, thin, flat, soft, 2 white discrete stripes on the underside. Arranged on both sides of the branches. - Fruit: elongated cone, from 5 to 10 cm, does not dislocate. --Fab5669 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014

[edit]
100px|Wiki Loves Earth Logo
Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014
Patrimônio Natural
 x100px|Chapada Diamantina x100px| x100px|

Oi, MPF:

Estamos na reta final do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014! Você ainda poderá submeter mais fotos até o dia 31 de maio e ampliar suas chances na premiação de até R$2.500,00! Além da premiação em dinheiro, as melhores fotografias serão publicadas na edição de Agosto da revista impressa Fotografe Melhor da Editora Europa.

A comunidade Wikimedia Commons agradece a sua participação desde já, obrigado por enviar uma foto, esse material será usado em vários dos nossos projetos. Acesse o site do concurso e submeta mais fotografias! Contribua também divulgando para seus amigos, contatos e curtindo nossa página no Facebook

Em breve anunciaremos novidades sobre os vencedores e a exposição das melhores fotografias do concurso.

Atenciosamente,

Movimento Wikimedia

Elk image

[edit]

Better late than never :) Updated File:Elgportraet han (Alces alces).jpg - as requested. The elk is in a park, so in captivity. -Malene Thyssen (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding categories

[edit]

Hi - as discussed on Liné's talk page, do feel free to transclude {{Category:Species name}} on subcategories of Category:Species name. EoL won't pick them up until my modification to the commons harvester is OKed and set to work. But that should only be a matter of weeks. If you do transclude, I suggest that you put the template that Liné and I worked out onto the page with the Taxonavigation – the simplest is to use {{subst:NoteTransclusion/subst}}. Don't forget to enclose any [[Category]] declarations in <noinclude> tags too. HYanWong (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebraminio

[edit]

Hello MPF,
I think that all the modifications from Ebraminio in our biology templates can be reverted.
He did not test them in any way. Its modifications cannot work on half the browsers. He did not use the sandbox templates...
And he seems admin... Strange...
He did modifications in:

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can revert 3 of them, the other 2 are protected.
Can you revert:
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identification

[edit]

Thank you for ıdentification of Circaetus gallicus. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nevit - you're welcome! I've seen plenty of them, including in Turkey ;-) MPF (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

palm sp.

[edit]

Hi MPF,

Actually Hindustanilanguage idenified the palm in that picture as P. theophrasti. I just asked the renaming of it. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Earth 2014 - Ein sichtbarer Wiki-Beitrag für den Naturschutz

[edit]

Hallo ,

vor gut einer Woche endete der zweimonatige Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth. Du hast daran aktiv teilgenommen und wir möchten Dir dafür herzlich danken.

Mit rund 14.500 Fotos hat Deutschland einen Anteil von 20 % an diesem internationalen Projekt erbracht, an dem sich 15 Länder beteiligten. Sehr erfreulich ist die hohe Zahl an 729 Teilnehmern allein in Deutschland. Einen Überblick zu den Fotos und Teilnehmern findest du auf unserer WLE-Projektseite.

Gegenwärtig ist die deutsche Jury dabei, diesen wertvollen Fotobestand zu geschützten Naturlandschaften und Naturdenkmalen zu sichten. An diesem Wochenende wird in Hamburg die entscheidende Jury-Sitzung stattfinden. Wir wünschen auch Dir mit Deinem Foto-Beitrag dabei viel Glück und Erfolg.

Der nächste Fotowettbewerb steht bereits vor der Tür. Im September findet nun schon zum vierten Mal der Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt, wo die Kulturdenkmale im Vordergrund stehen. Doch du musst mit dem Fotografieren nicht bis zum September warten. Vielleicht kannst du den Sommer nutzen um entsprechend den offiziellen Denkmallisten geeignete Motive aufzuspüren. Ebenso kannst du gerne dabei helfen, die hochgeladenen Fotos zu kategorisieren oder in Wikipedia-Artikel und Listen einzubinden.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Noch ein Hinweis: Du kannst zukünftig bei den Fotowettbewerben gerne auch mehr Fotos hochladen. Eine Begrenzung auf nur ein Foto gibt es bei Wiki Loves Earth bzw. Wiki Loves Monuments nicht.

Viel Spaß dabei wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 12. Juli 2014)

Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014

[edit]
100px|Wiki Loves Earth Logo
Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014
Patrimônio Natural
 x100px|Chapada Diamantina x100px| x100px|

Olá, MPF:

É com imensa satisfação que anunciamos os vencedores do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil. Recebemos cerca de 7.000 fotos com a participação de mais de 900 fotógrafos de todos os cantos do Brasil, as fotos submetidas contribuirão para a melhoria de vários artigos da Wikipédia e demais projetos Wikimedia. Confira a seguir a lista dos vencedores da etapa nacional do concurso:

Vencedores

[edit]
Categoria Melhores Fotografias
  • 1º Carlos Perez Couto
  • 2º Roberto Pavezi Netto
  • 3º Eduardo Muruci
Categoria Melhores contribuições

Lista completa com todos os vencedores e a relação das 10 fotos que representarão o Brasil na etapa internacional do concurso: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2014/Brasil/Vencedores

Exposição

Realizaremos uma exposição fotográfica durante o 10° Paraty em Foco - Festival Internacional de Fotografia de 24 a 28 de Setembro, que será realizado em Paraty - RJ. Nesta exposição exibiremos as fotos vencedoras e as melhores contribuições submetidas pelos participantes do concurso. Para saber mais sobre o evento, acesse http://paratyemfoco.com/. Publicaremos maiores informações sobre a exposição na do concurso e em nosso grupo no Facebook

Revista Fotografe Melhor

A revista Fotografe Melhor publicará na edição de Agosto os vencedores e demais informações sobre o concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil. A revista estará disponível em formato digital a partir do dia 28/07 e nas bancas de todo país a partir do dia 4 de agosto.

Obrigado pela participação, Movimento Wikimedia

Rosa

[edit]

Hello MPF,
could you please explain why you moved the page Rosa species to Rosa? After all, the page was well linked from the main gallery and most people don't think only of rose species when they talk about roses...
I probably will only be able to look into it in a week as I'm on a holiday at the moment, but I am quite unhappy with the changes I just saw... I'd also like to know if it's possible to still recreate the gallery content of Rosa as your move seems to have merged the history of the pages, overwriting the old Rosa with Rosa species. If that's not possible, I'd ask you to be much more careful in the future as you are distroying hours of work without discussion.
Best wishes and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that action, --Anna reg (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just found the old Rosa gallery (and am very relieved to know that it still exists ;->).
I'm still not happy with the change (neither the new Rosa nor the new title for the old gallery), as the gallery is not about roses in cultivation, but my attempt to create an overview over the topic, showing different aspects of roses - from wild species to candy roses - and rose parts and rose species feature prominently in it. As most people looking at the gallery Rosa aren't botanist, I think that such an overview is more useful than a gallery showing solely rose species, which are of interest to only a part of the people visiting that page (not that I think that my attempt at an overview doesn't leave much room for improvement). Still looking forward to hearing your thoughts (and now with a bit more calmness than in my first outcry ;->)
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes! The move of "Rosa species" to "Rosa" is to bring it into line with other taxon classification galleries with a taxobox. The other, your gallery formerly named "Rosa" is a good gallery, but is not a scientific taxon gallery with listing of the species, so does not have a taxobox, nor belong at the scientific genus name, but have (per Commons language policy) a vernacular language title (default language, English). I thought "Roses in cultivation" would be a suitable name, but am happy to consider other names if there is something you would prefer. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of other galleries about plants also have sections for cultivars and plants in art. I could imagine making a bigger species section in the overview gallery I made, but I really don't think that it's necessary to have all the species in the main gallery. Roses are after all a bit different to some other genera where the wild forms are at least as well-known as the cultivated forms. What do you think of the gallery Lilium to give an example of another plant with well-known wild forms and many cultivars?
The problem with moving an overview gallery to a name as the one you suggested is that it probably won't be found by most people - and a name like Roses just causes confusion - even more, as I'd like to create a gallery that is botanically correct and useful for everybody - at least in providing the links to the pages providing more detailed information. It therefore should have a taxobox (providing links to related plants is useful also for non-botanists), should show the difference between cultivars and species and where to find more information on each - and include other aspects of roses (as do the plant in art section of species with less pictures on commons than rosa (Category:Rosa has more than ten thousand pictures in its subcategories!).
I am more of the opinion that galleries for other plants missing aspects shown in pictures on commons should include them, rather than changing the main rose gallery to a species gallery...
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't like the Lilium gallery too much ;-) I don't think there's any need to worry about people having difficulty finding galleries, they can easily be cross-linked, and humans can cope with that sort of thing; very often, they are more likely to look with the English name than with the scientific name. Computer robots are far less versatile, and this is where the problem lies: organisations like the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL) harvest many of their photos robotically from Commons, and they do so by detecting the Taxonavigation and using that to direct the images to the correct EoL taxon page. But they only want natural biological taxa, and don't want to be cluttered up with thousands of pics of plant cultivars (or domesticated animals) as these are not biological taxa. On Commons, having multiple galleries to cover different aspects of a topic is no problem at all, so separate galleries for the biological taxa under the scientific name (and with taxonavigation), and for cultivars and other wider aspects (without taxonavigation), is very sensible. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does help to understand your point of view. I still don't share it as I'm not creating galleries for bots but for humans - and I still think that of the 80 persons a day who find 'Rosa', most are not looking for a species gallery and would be happy about the overview. In my opinion galleries are very useful to illustrate topics and provide links to the subgalleries and -categories existing on commons and could be an asset for readers in general (and they will normally find the gallery with the logical name, which is also linked from the different wikipedia projects - in this case 'Rosa' - only a part of those people will carry on to follow links to subpages and subgalleries - all the more if the link they are looking for is provided at the very end of a long gallery with things they are not interested in) - but that doesn't really fit with your plan to create galleries for bots.
I'd like to try to get some more opinions on this topic as it would be great to find a solution everybody can accept (and I'm still quite unhappy with your solution and don't see how I should go on working on plant galleries with the knowledge that at least some users think that they should be primarily useful or bots...) - do you know where this could best be discussed?
--Anna reg (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MPF,
I just started a discussion on Commons:Village pump, as I don't know any better place - I hope I didn't misrepresent anything. Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 startet in Kürze

[edit]

right|150px| Hallo MPF,

in Kürze ist es wieder soweit. Der nun schon traditionelle Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments wird im September zum vierten Mal stattfinden. In ähnlicher Form hatte unlängst der Wettbewerb "Wiki Loves Earth" eine erfolgreiche Premiere. Zu allen bisherigen vier Wettbewerben haben seit 2011 gut 3000 unterschiedliche Teilnehmer (User) ihren Beitrag geleistet. Du warst dabei, und bist auch herzlich eingeladen, am bevorstehenden WLM-Wettbewerb wieder dabei zu sein.

Allein in Deutschland wurden in den letzten drei Jahren im Rahmen von WLM rund 100.000 Fotos zu den insgesamt ca. 850.000 Kulturdenkmalen bundesweit hochgeladen. Jährlich haben sich mehrere Hundert Wiki-Fotographen daran beteiligt. Auch im kommenden Denkmalmonat wird dies gewiss wieder der Fall sein. Der Tag des offenen Denkmals am 14. September bietet bundesweit vielfältige Möglichkeiten, Denkmale nicht nur von außen, sondern auch von innen zu fotografieren. Denkmallisten sind dabei ein wichtiger Orientierungspunkt und zugleich auch Ziel der Einbindung der Fotos. Auch in diesem Jahr sind wieder neue Denkmallisten hinzugekommen, die hilfreich bei der Planung von individuellen oder Gruppen-Fototouren sind und auf eine Bebilderung warten, wie z.B. zu Görlitz oder Zittau. Unter den Landeshauptstädten fehlt nur noch Stuttgart. Aber auch hier ist Licht in Sicht.

In der Mitte Deutschlands hat die Denkmallandschaft der thüringischen Landeshauptstadt Erfurt nun das Licht der Wikipedia-Welt entdeckt. Mehr als 50 Tabellen enthalten 3.700 Denkmale. Allein die wunderschön restaurierte Altstadt umfasst 1.800 Denkmale. Eine von WMDE geförderte WLM-Fototour nach Erfurt am Wochenende vom 29. – 31. August lädt herzlich ein, diese einzigartige Kulturlandschaft zu dokumentieren. Mehr Informationen findest Du auf der Projektseite.

Wir freuen uns auf Deine weiteren Beiträge für Wikimedia-Projekte.

Viel Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia wünscht Dir das Orga-Team.

( Bernd Gross, 16. August 2014)

About an edit on File:Vache.jpg

[edit]

Hi there. Did you do that because you believe it is not a bos taurus? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eusebius - just moving it from a category to an appropriate subcategory :-) Bos taurus -> Cattle (i.e., domesticated Bos taurus) -> Cattle in France (regional grouping of domesticated Bos taurus) MPF (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Didn't check the categorization above "cattle". Thanks. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultivated plants of the United States

[edit]

Hi, MPF, thanks always for identifying species. I have a question about plants. Can Category:Cultivated plants of the United States be used for non-indigenous plants that are found in the U.S.? I have photos of jacarandas, bottlebrushes, lilies of the Nile, lantanas, etc. taken in California. I'd probably have to create a subcategory for each genus or something, but maybe there already are categories for such things, since Category:Cultivated plants of the United States and its subcategories don't seem to be used much (and the word "cultivated" doesn't seem to fit exactly anyway). I thought I'd ask for your guidance before doing anything. Thanks. --Nandaro (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandaro - yes, it can; what you propose sounds very sensible. - MPF (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've created Category:Callistemon in the United States, Category:Cultivated plants in California and Category:Callistemon in California. Please let me know if I'm on the right track (before I create more categories like these). I've also created Category:Phoenix canariensis in California to help make Category:Palms in California less crowded. --Nandaro (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also created Category:Eucalyptus in the United States under Category:Cultivated trees in the United States, to fill a gap between Category:Eucalyptus by country and Category:Eucalyptus in California. --Nandaro (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


identity Malus sylvestris

[edit]

Hallo MPF, the photo was taken in the botanic garden of the University of Karlsruhe, Germany (KIT) and was labelled as Malus sylvestris. I'm not a specialist and it is possible, that the label was wrong (on the other hand, it is the garden of the Botanic Institute of the University...). --Llez (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinus pinaster pics

[edit]

Hi Jack - please leave the photos of natural (not cultivated) Pinus pinaster, etc., in the species category; there are well short of the 200 images in the parent category so subdividing is counterproductive and not necessary. If they are removed into numerous minuscule subcategories, it makes them exceedingly tedious to find, and denies access to them to external users like the Encyclopedia of Life which use the taxonavigation as a target to access images. Also, please be very careful, when categorising plant photos, not to mix natural and cultivated specimens in the same category. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MPF. Category:Pinus pinaster is like any other category. There are many Pinus pinasters in Charente-Maritime (France). Category:Pinus pinaster in Charente-Maritime is a more precise category than Category:Pinales in Charente-Maritime. So please leave these categories by countries. But exceptionally (COM:OVERCAT, more than 2 levels between), we can duplicate these pictures to Category:Pinus pinaster. Jack ma (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bristlecone signs

[edit]

Easily corrected with the addition of a new category. Famartin (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RilaMon2.jpg

[edit]

Hey there! Could you check I've filled out the Information template correctly for this? Also, I have to say: it's really impressive that an image from 2005, back when we were actively discouraging high resolution images is still, by far, the best image in its category. That's really a sign of a good eye for photography. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can probably add a bit of extra data, like the date I took it. Surprised, as I just took the pic without any thinking about composition. I'll have to dig out the slide and see if I can re-scan it at a higher resolution. - MPF (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wild deer species

[edit]

Hi, MPF, I hope all is well for you. I took pictures of wild deer in the Eastern Sierra region of California in April. I've uploaded some of these photos (below) with Category:Unidentified Cervidae. My best guess is Odocoileus hemionus (perhaps Odocoileus hemionus californicus?), but I was wondering if you could verify it. No rush. Thanks. Nandaro (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cedrus atlantica injured trunk

[edit]

Location : way from Itzer to Ajdir (near Aguelman Azigza), some 5 km after "forestry house" of Imi Quram, province of Khenifra, Middle Atlas, Morocco.

I translated the comment in French and English.

Can you have a look at English text ?

--Lucyin (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The same trunk, on side view : File:Buk cede coixhî.JPG
--Lucyin (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

taxodium distichum cones

[edit]

why the distinction exactly? most people going to "taxodium distichum" would expect a subcat of cones. Famartin (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that natural and cultivated specimens are not mixed up in the same category. As I'm sure you'll understand, of primary importance. - MPF (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most people going through here are probably more interested in sub-parts of the plants than distinquishing between cultivated versus wild (since they would look about the same and this is a site of images), so I added these cats back and made the cultivated ones subcats. Famartin (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too good an idea; it is important for the likes of external users like Encyclopedia of Life that all the images of natural specimens be together on the main taxon page that it harvests from. Removing all the photos of foliage of natural plants to a subcategory makes them unavailable to EoL, which is not good. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I was not aware that Commons primarily served another website and not general users... Famartin (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's for all. But gathering all the images together in one or two categories is better when there are under 200 images, it makes it much easier for general users to find them too, without having to click through numerous subcategories each with just 2 or 3 pics in. - MPF (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I often find anything more than, say, 50 a bit overwhelming. Famartin (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far, far easier to check through 190 images all on the same page, than through 10 images on each of 19 different pages! 200 is the limit where they won't all fit onto one page (see e.g. Category:Unidentified plants!) - MPF (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tm

[edit]

F.y.i. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junipeus sabina in the Queyras

[edit]

Dear MPF,

The Queyras is a part of the French Alps, adjacent to the Italian Piemonte. I have photographed the plant on a slope, on which the endemic Astragalus centralpinus was also growing.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the category

[edit]

Thank you for the categorisation of [3] and the following pictures. Lionel Allorge (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juniperus californica in Joshua Tree National Park is not the same as Category:Juniperus californica

[edit]

Category:Juniperus californica in Joshua Tree National Park is not the same as Category:Juniperus californica since it categorizes files which belong to a specific location. Is there any reason why you removed those files from Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park by species category tree? --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not the same it is true, but it does split the Juniperus californica files into too many small categories, making it tedious to find them, and unavailable to robot-based image finders (which use the taxonavigation template). When there's nearing 200 photos of the species, that's the time to split the category; that's a long way away yet. - MPF (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was splitting Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park which become to crazy and hard to manage, I never looked at Category:Juniperus californica. --Jarekt (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly categorizing of bird photos

[edit]

Once again you have categorized photos incorrectly. The photographer confirmed me by e-mail that this is a wild bird File:Händkakk.jpg. If there is not mention in the description that the animal is in captive, then it is not in captive. Do not guess or make your own assumptions. You have categorized a lot of pictures incorrectly, by guessing that close-up bird photos is taken in captive when really they have been taken in the wild. Please, STOP guessing. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't adequate evidence to prove that it was wild, rather than captive - no detailed (only very vague) location information, no photographer's statement, no habitat evidence visible in the background. For species like this which are more likely to be protographed in captivity, lack of mention cannot be taken as proof of being wild: that needs a higher degree of evidence. Obviously I am pleased that it is of a wild specimen, but I couldn't assume so on the (lack of) evidence presented. - MPF (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if there is not mention in the description that the animal is in captive or you can not see on the photo that the animal is in captive (fences, jesses etc.) then you can't make assumptions like that. Some professional photographers get offended by that kind of argument. It is disrespectful toward the photographers. It seems that this needs to be discussed more generally in the Village pump. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one can make assumptions like that. With many taxa, the vast majority of the photos are of captive animals and CC-licensed in-the-wild photos impossible to find. For species like these, photos cannot be accepted as of wild animals without adequate proof that they are genuinely wild - for a more extreme example, see e.g. Ailurus fulgens. And if the photographers fail to document their photos adequately, they can have no complaint. - MPF (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with MPF. Occasionally, an image will be incorrectly categorized. If so, it is easily corrected, as in this instance.[4] In my opinion, a good faith effort to categorize images that are not well-described adds value to them and should be encouraged. Geocoding or a good description of the location of the subject generally suffices to determine if the subject is wild or captive. Such information adds value to most images, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPF/archive7&oldid=372583477"