User talk:MPF

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful tags
  • {{rename|Bettername.jpg|filename mis-identifies species}}
  • {{low quality}}
  • {{Category redirect|Correct cat}}
  • Category renaming and pic moving at: User:CommonsDelinker/commands



Thank you[edit]

Thanks for fix my photos of birds, regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


I wonder about this edit. Why unused? --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the 'implausible' part of the reasoning. The problem is if a photo of a misidentified item has erroneously been put into dozens of articles in numerous wikipedias, Commons does not have a clear, easy method of doing a single-edit bulk removal (or replacement with a correctly identified photo), so I had to use this work-around of deleting the redirect. - MPF (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Mapa pinus pinea.png[edit]

You should upload it with a different name since it is a completely different image from that originally uploaded by Patrol110.--Carnby (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The old version is woefully inaccurate and very low resolution; emendation of inaccurate maps is permitted under the guidelines for uploading new versions. If I uploaded it under a new name, it would need editing into the numerous wikipedia articles the map is used on. - MPF (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Polunin & Walters (and my direct observations) your version is inaccurate as well. The delinking editings are not a problem: they can be done in a few minutes (I can help).--Carnby (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What's inaccurate about my version? It is derived (as cited) from the work of noted authorities on the species. Patrol110's version by contrast, shows it (because of the thick sweep of pen used for drawing) native across e.g. extensive high altitude areas of the Rhodope mountains of southern Bulgaria, where the species cannot even be cultivated, let alone occur naturalised or native. - MPF (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think now is better:

Take a look at the description page; I have corrected also all the wikilinks.--Carnby (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Though File:Mapa pinus pinea.png remains highly inaccurate; the Bulgaria example I gave was just one of many errors, another is e.g. showing it as native along the entire southern and eastern Black Sea shores, which it isn't, and another is its absence from the extensive areas of inland Spain where it is native. - MPF (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have copied it from an Italian book written by a renowed botanist (Luigi Fenaroli). As far as Italy is concerned your version is inaccurate too: two of the most famous Italian pinete are that of Ravenna and Grado (North Adriatic sea), completely absent in your map; the pine is also present along all the coasts of Ligurian and Tyrrhenian sea, sometimes also on the hills in Tuscany countryside (I know it well, since I live there).--Carnby (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ravenna, and the other Italian sites you mention, were deliberately excluded by Critchfield & Little: "we have omitted those stands known to be artificial in origin, such as the well-known forest near Ravenna in Italy" (Critchfield & Little 1966). The problem in determining exactly what is native and what is human in origin, for a species cultivated for over 6,000 years, is a tricky one; Rikli concluded that it can only be considered genuinely native in Iberia, the only area where it occurs widely away from known trade routes. This is supported by the distribution of its primary seed dispersal agent (Cyanopica cooki), also restricted to Iberia. - MPF (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your map anyway says "Ancient cultivation and/or naturalised" and, in my humble opinion (and that of most Italian botanists), the Italian area with ancient cultivations or naturalised populations is too small.--Carnby (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to add some pink on my map as relevant, that would be helpful, thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added Italian pinete in pink according to Fenaroli.--Carnby (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Eadweard Muybridge-related bird categories[edit]


Yes, feel free to rename them to whatever you think appropriate. There were more than 16,000 images in a single category to begin with, so I didn't bother deviating from the titles of the individual motion studies in the initial subcategorization, but we certainly don't want people placing images in these categories thinking their scopes are broader than they are. Thanks for the message!

Neelix (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A bot sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, I've never created any bots and I don't know of anyone who could create one for this purpose. I'd also like to see the words "in the USC digital library" removed from all of these titles and replaced with a "Images from USC digital library" hidden category to be added to all of the individual images in these categories; there are a few rare cases in which some images in these categories are not held by the USC digital library, but creating sub-subcategories (like "Eadweard Muybridge's 'Storks, swans, and other birds' in the USC digital library" for the "Eadweard Muybridge's 'Storks, swans, and other birds'" subcategory) seems like a ridiculous way of taking these rare instances into account. Both of these tasks are too extensive for me to consider doing them manually. Do you know of anyone who is savvy enough with bots to do this for us?
Neelix (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ardea cinerea map.png[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ardea cinerea map.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.

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!

Yours sincerely, 1989 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! A very old file from before the standardisation of sourcing details. I've added the missing info. - MPF (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Unidentified bird, Gembira Loka Zoo, 2015-03-15.jpg[edit]

  • Thanks for the recategorization. Do you think Acryllium vulturinum is a reasonable guess? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! Yes, it is; I'll change the category - MPF (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'll move the page. (And thanks for picking up the pied myna earlier. I knew I recognized the bird, but couldn't think of the name. It was in the avarium, so there were no name plates to refer to). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I just found you -- seemly an expert about plants -- moved my uploaded file in 2014 to a file with the name of Equisetum arvense. I think it is a good chance to discuss with you. The plant Equisetum arvense form fertile shoots like File:Equisetum_arvense_fr.jpg, but my plants did not. They were indeed Ephedra sinica that I bought from a professional in Taipei. Nothing was sown then. If you agree with me, I would like to move the file back to the one with a proper name, or maybe you can help me with this. --KasugaHuang (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Unfortunately, there is no Ephedra in your pot; if it was there when bought, it has died. The plant in the pot is readily recognisable as Equisetum arvense by its distinctive branching structure. The lack of fertile shoots can be explained by the small size / young age of the plant in the pot; fertile shoots are only produced by large, long-established specimens. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/154893241: removal of the ITIS link?[edit]

Curiously, what was the reason for the removal of {{ITIS}} from Category:Strix? The link looked sane, and the template doesn’t seem to be obsolete. Thanks. ⁓ [Gyft Xelz · talk] 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Because ITIS isn't a useful reference in birds (and also plants); its taxonomy and nomenclature is decidedly dated, and coverage poor, particularly for taxa outside of North America. In some other taxonomic groups, it can be a useful reference, so there is currently no justification for the deletion of the template overall, but it is best not used in taxa of Aves and Plantae. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you please add a note to that effect to Template:ITIS/doc? Something along the lines of “This template should not be added to the pages related to the subtaxa of Aves and Plantae because of (the above)”? I guess that’d be helpful to the newcomers to the field. (And even more so given there’s already a somewhat similar note regarding fish taxa.) ⁓ [Gyft Xelz · talk] 11:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Done! - MPF (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This is good to know. Thank you for doing that. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Alcedo Atthis location[edit]

Hi! I don't see where do I add a location now on the picture... Anyway, it was taken in Tel Aviv, Israel Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Passer domesticus" on my table[edit]

How did you understand that the bird was male? (I was so near and could not say the difference with a female one... :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare the head pattern with the plainer brown females ;-) MPF (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which gull species[edit]


Do you happen to know the species of this gull (side view)? I think it is a very commons species, I am just gull-ignorant ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Larus canus (Stormmåge), first-winter - I've recategorised them ;-) MPF (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You are both fast and very helpful (as usual)Face-smile.svg. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting again. Is this Black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus)? -- Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes! ;-) MPF (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you (again)! -- Slaunger (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Eurasian Oystercatcher[edit]

Hi for the third time today, MPF

OK, so I am becoming more confident now; I think this is a pair of Eurasian oystercathers (Haematopus ostralegus). Can you confirm that? Can you say anything about age (juvenile/adult) or male/female from the picture? I observed them at a lake about as far away from the coast as you can come in Denmark, which I think is slightly unusual, unless they were just passing through? -- Slaunger (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ja! Both are adults; the sex differences are very small, but males usually have a slightly thicker bill, so the one on the right is probably a male, but not definitely so. The white marks on the throat of the left bird are the last traces of winter plumage (white half-collar in winter, all-black throat in summer). In many areas (including where I am in northern England), they commonly breed inland in summer, so it is not unusual for me; in Denmark is it less common, but does occur (map). They may be breeding on the flat roof of a nearby industrial building (a good safe place for them!). - MPF (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks again, MPF. I had a look at the same database for observations accumulated over the last 15 years. This species has only been reported 5 times since year 2000 at or near the town of Viborg. I have just asked to get an account, such that I can enter my observation in the data base. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A good find, then! Maybe increasing in the area. - MPF (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


There may be a very good reason to 'de-localise' the Black Swan photos - policies and principles and all, but I havent seen an explanation somewhere... also due to the drastic reduction of numbers in the wild in western australia, the context is, in itself of interest. sats (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Because Commons has so few photos of Black Swans in their natural environment (95% of the Black Swan photos are of captive or feral birds), it makes good sense to keep them all together so they are easy to find. When the main species category becomes full (close to or over 200 pics), then it becomes useful to add further subcategories, but not until then - MPF (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I happen to believe the opposite, but will leave your edit as is. Thanks for your reply. sats (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The other option (done fairly widely) is (if they aren't already in it) to add them to Category:Birds of Western Australia, or to create a new Category:Anseriformes of Western Australia, to include all ducks, swans, etc., in WA, while retaining each photo also in its species category. - MPF (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. The thing is with some species of animals, plants that are endemic to west australia that are now found around the rest of australia - like the black swan issue - eds from the heavier populated states in the east add their photos from their local contexts, to the point there hardly any in the local endemic context... this goes for a whole range of plants and trees. But thanks again for your replies. appreciated. sats (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

user box[edit]

Dear MPF, I have been trying to reach you with email, did you get it? Did you see this userbox Template:User Specadmin? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! Replied now! - MPF (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Location?[edit]

The location of File:Tordo negro o zorzal entre las ramas.JPG is Aguascalientes, México. You're welcome. --Luisalvaz (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! - MPF (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2015[edit]

WLE Logo MA.svg

You receive this message because we noticed your contributions relating to the Moroccan natural heritage. We would welcome you to participate in the contest Wiki Loves Earth, which aims to encourage the development of natural protected areas throughout the Wikimedia projects (mainly the encyclopedia Wikipedia and its multimedia library Wikimedia Commons).
The contest runs from 1 to 31 May 2015 and is open to all. Prizes will be awarded at the end.
A question, a problem? Do not hesitate to leave a message on the discussion page of the event.
Face-smile.svg See you soon, Reda benkhadra (d · c)

Icon tools.svg For more details | Nuvola apps email.png Contact
Camera with pictures icon.png


Hello my friend,
A contributor discovered Nyctiprogne which is a valid bird genus for which we sadly have no media.
But strangly, Nyctiprogne is a redirect to Chordeilinae which is a gallery showing 1 pictures of Chordeiles henryi + 1 of unknown species.
Clearly I would have suppressed the gallery without any doubt, but an admin (non interested in biology) decided to keep it.
Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Nyctiprogne, please ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liné1 - thanks! Normally an empty gallery would just get deleted, but it doesn't do any harm being left as a redirect so I'm not greatly bothered by its being kept. But more usefully, I just found a pic of one of the two species on biodiversity heritage library (a pd-old license painting), so I'll upload that later today, and then convert the redirect into a proper gallery. Just off out birding now, so it'll be in 2 or 3 hours before I do so. - MPF (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You rock my friend.
Because clearly, Nyctiprogne showing Chordeiles henryi botheres me a lot.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Wmpearl - do you have a photo location for File:Setophaga aestiva.JPG, please? Also for any other bird pics without locations ;-) Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The picture was taken on the Galápagos Islands, but I don't remember which island. Wmpearl (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes it Setophaga petechia; I'll rename the file - MPF (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Convite - Concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2015[edit]

Wiki Loves Earth Logo
Bem vindo ao
Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2015
Patrimônio Natural
Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos Velejando nas nuvens.jpg Baía de Guanabara vista do alto do Corcovado.jpg

Olá MPF,

No ano anterior você participou da primeira edição do concurso fotográfico Wiki Loves Earth Brasil enviando ótimas fotografias!

O concurso foi um grande sucesso graça a sua participação e ajuda!

Este ano estamos repetindo o sucesso do ano anterior, já são mais de 1.000 participantes e mais de 7.500 fotos recebidas até o momento.

Você poderá participar do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2015 até o dia 31 de Maio e concorrer a R$9.000,00 em premiações!

Esta ano, estamos premiando 2 categorias, categoria melhor foto onde premiaremos as 3 melhores fotos do concurso e a categoria melhores contribuições onde premiaremos os usuários que mandarem a maior quantidade de fotos úteis. Até o momento os 3 participantes que enviaram mais fotografias enviaram respectivamente 356, 297 e 93 fotografias.

Além da premiação em dinheiro, as melhores fotografias serão publicadas na edição de Agosto da revista impressa Fotografe Melhor da Editora Europa.

Agradecemos a sua participação desde já e obrigado pelas fotos enviadas no ano anterior!

Para maiores informações e para submeter suas novas fotografias, acesse o site do concurso e participe!

Contribua também divulgando para seus amigos e colegas e também curtindo nossa página no Facebook e seguindo nossa conta no Twitter.

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


Comitê organizador do Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2015

Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa, Rodrigo Padula (talk). message left by IlyaBot.

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | svenska | +/−

Hello MPF,

the following content you uploaded is not free and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:


The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files which can be used for any purpose, including:

  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload works you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked the image source and it is cc-by-3.0 license (as expected for PLOS-ONE material), so I've restored the files and corrected the missing license details - MPF (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Much obliged! :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

English vernacular names and the uppercases[edit]

Hi MPF, can you help me a bit please? in English when must I put uppercases in the vernacular names:

  • Order : Bucerotiformes (Hornbills, hoopoe and wood hoopoes)
  • Order : Bucerotiformes (Hornbills, Hoopoe and Wood hoopoes)
  • Order : Bucerotiformes (Hornbills, Hoopoe and Wood Hoopoes)

-- Christian Ferrer 17:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christian - the usual convention is upper case for individual species, and lower case for genera and families, but also upper case for the first word; thus: Hornbills, hoopoes and wood hoopoes. In the past there was just one Hoopoe, but now it's been split into two species, so "hoopoes" rather than "Hoopoe". Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it helps me, thank you, you're friendly :) -- Christian Ferrer 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

add GeoGroupTemplate to better find images with coordinates[edit]

Hi MPF, thought [1] to be a service for all trying to identify and describe images. It helps to filter out those images that do have coordinates and can be localized by them. Sure, it does not make much sense for things that do not have a geographical meaning, it simply will keep the map empty. But people working on unidentified should be able to cope with. Now, I will do it the tedious way and put the template individually to the categories I'm interested in. (For me it's just a small number) regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving Columba-livia-f.-domestica-categories to domesticated-pigeons-categories[edit]

While moving categories, please use "domestic pigeon" (Columba livia). Some authors do believe the streptopelia roseogrisea (Category:Barbary Doves) and geopelia cuneata are domesticated pigeons, as well. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Move them on if you wish - MPF (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinus ponderosa[edit]

Not sure if you've seen this... maybe you disagree with it (with evidence?)... but this says your subspecies labeling is wrong: File:PonderosaRangeMap.png [2] Famartin (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seen it; while Callaham's work is very good, it does contain some results at variance with multiple previous studies, which (apart from their lack of any nomenclatural conclusions, using informal terms like "race" and "ecotype" rather than formal subspecies) give the distributions mapped in File:Pinus ponderosa subspecies range map 1.png. In this map, your photos are correctly allocated to subsp. brachyptera. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Curlew location[edit]

Hi! I've added approximate location for File:Eurasian stone curlew.jpg in "details" section per your request

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Files renaming[edit]

As for renaming File:Platycladus orientalis20140713 131.jpg to File:Thuja occidentalis 20140713 131.jpg and File:Platycladus orientalis20140705 080.jpg to File:Thuja occidentalis 20140705 080.jpg.

I bought this plant as Thuja orientalis 'Aurea Nana' (= Platycladus orientalis 'Aurea Nana'), and it looks like Platycladus orientalis (see [3], [4]). --Bff (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, mislabelled plants are very common in the nursery trade! Yours does not look like Platycladus, lacking the erect branchlet layout (compare e.g. File:Platycladus orientalis Limón.jpg (a yellow-leaf cultivar, as yours was supposed to be), or File:Tree with vertical leaves.jpg (where the very name of the file makes obvious the distinction!), while being very like T. occidentalis.
One good way to test: rub a small shoot between your fingers, and have a sniff - what does it smell like? - MPF (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Der WLM-Countdown hat begonnen[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Hallo MPF,

nun ist es wieder soweit. Vom 1. bis zum 30. September findet zum fünften Mal der internationale Wettbewerb Wiki Loves Monuments statt. Im Mittelpunkt steht bekanntlich das Fotografieren von Kulturdenkmalen. Du hast an einem der letzten Fotowettbewerbe teilgenommen und wir freuen uns auf weitere Bildbeiträge von Dir.

Viele interessante Motive, nicht nur Burgen und Schlösser, sondern auch Fachwerkhäuser, Brücken und Brunnen, technische und Industriedenkmale und vieles mehr gibt es noch zu fotografieren, damit sie in der Wikipedia dokumentiert werden können. Nützliche Tipps findest du auf unserer WLM-Projektseite. Du kannst gerne individuell Fototouren durchführen oder aber Dich auch Gruppentouren anschließen. Besonders freuen wir uns auf Fotos, die Lücken in den Denkmallisten der Wikipedia ausfüllen.

Darüber hinaus kannst Du auch an der Arbeit der Jury teilnehmen, die Mitte Oktober die Fotos bewerten und die Gewinner ermitteln wird. Bis zum 15. August kannst du hier Deine Bewerbung einreichen.

Viel Erfolg und Spaß beim größten Fotowettbewerb der Wiki(m/p)edia in den bevorstehenden Wettbewerbswochen wünscht Dir das Orga-Team. Wir freuen uns auf Deine Fotos.

( Bernd Gross, 6. August 2015)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your tireless work to categorise photographs of birds here on Commons - thank you, and please keep it up! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) MPF (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


I notice you deleted a redirect as "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect" two minutes after you renamed the file. Here is the result:

CommonsDelinker edit

I hope you can be more careful in the future. Most Wikipedia editors are not active at Commons and not ready to fight about a deleted file (which is the common reason for CommonsDelinker actions). Files can also be in use in external projects, so even checking "global" file usage is not enough.

(I thought this was handled in some guideline, but cannot find it now.)

--LPfi (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems sv-wp was indeed not the only affected project, see Commons Delinquent log. I hope you can repair these before editors start searching for alternative images. --LPfi (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Not under the 'unused', clause, but the 'implausible' clause. Yes, editors do need to start searching for alternative images, as the deleted filename was misidentified, showing a Phoca largha but included incorrectly on dozens of pages about Pusa hispida in different languages. The problem is if a photo of a misidentified item has erroneously been put into numerous articles in different wikipedias, Commons does not have a clear, easy method of doing a single-edit bulk removal (or replacement with a correctly identified photo), so I had to use this work-around of deleting the redirect. - MPF (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. That point was not at all handled in the deletion comment (which editors at other projects will see as it is included by CommonsDelinker – but "Noaa-seal5" does not imply Pusa hispida), the earlier comment "identity" was not very clear and moving to "Spotted Seal" did not ring any bells for me, as I do not know the English names of seals). For sv-wp I used the page history to find the new name of the file, others might have done the same.
If you want editors to change the image, having a good edit comment would be key. Does the rename and deletion interfaces you use not give a possibility to add a handmade comment? Thank you anyway for noticing and dealing with the misidentification (odd: the original uploader had described it as Phoca largha).
--LPfi (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Making a redirect to another ("correct") file at Commons or (semi)automatic replacement is problematic, as the file at least on some projects may be appropriately used or used in a context where the replacement image makes no sense (in this case I had to change the caption on sv-wp, which was easy now that I was involved – but had somebody just changed the image I would probably have noticed such a problem only much later). --LPfi (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, perhaps I could have used a clearer reason summary in the rename, though that would not have been used by the Commons Delinker when it did its delinking, it will always and only ever give the edit summary you saw. In an ideal world, if I'd had more time, I would have changed the file in all its page uses before the renaming, but over 20 uses, mostly in languages I don't understand, was more than I had time or will for. Renaming it "Spotted Seal" was because I tend to follow the previous file name (if meaningful) or file description for style; the file name here did not name the species, but the file description used English ahead of Latin, so I used English in the renaming. You're right that the file was originally correctly identified on upload (not surprising from NOAA, they're usually accurate!), it only acquired the misidentification later. Looking at the file history, the scientific name was first changed from Phoca largha to just Phocidae, before being misidentified as Pusa hispida, but the person who did it never changed the English name (which was my first clue that the file was wrongly categorised - I'm lucky that I do know the English names ;-)).
Unfortunate that the Swedish caption was so specific to the misidentified pic; that only happens rarely. I did wonder whether to delete the caption when I added the new photo, but decided to leave it (I knew just enough Swedish to see it was not relevant to the new photo, but not enough to create a new caption!). - MPF (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Caspian seal[edit]

Hi. The picture is not mine. Unfortunatelly, as I wrote in the description, I just downloaded it from the english wikipedia long time ago.

--Nanosanchez (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-- I have no idea of who is the author of the picture. I don't know why the link to the original picture is not working. May be, with the fusion of all the different media in wikipedia the original file was deleted. --Nanosanchez (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the en:wiki original will have been deleted with the fusion process, that's normal practice. Someone with admin rights on en:wiki would be able to see the details of who uploaded it originally, but I don't have that. - MPF (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek Szczepanek photo locations[edit]

Hi, I wrote email to Marek and he confirmed that File:Falco cherrug (Marek Szczepanek).jpg was a bird used for hunting, so it could be that it was some kind of a hybrid. --Piotr Kuczyński (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll move it to Category:Unidentified Falco (captive). - MPF (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Wiki Loves Monuments Logo
Wiki Loves Monuments Brasil 2015
Patrimônio Histórico
Ruinas de Sao Miguel das Missoes.jpg Cristo Redentor Rio de Janeiro 2.jpg Museudainconfidencia2006.jpg

Olá MPF,

Obrigado por ter participado do concurso Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014/2015.

Ao longo destas duas edições contamos com a participação de quase 3.000 fotógrafos e recebemos ao todo mais de 20.000 imagens que estão sendo usadas para ilustrar artigos da Wikipédia e enriquecendo o nosso repositório de imagens aqui no Wikimedia Commons. Devido ao grande sucesso das duas edições do WLE, decidimos trazer para o Brasil o maior concurso fotográfico do mundo, que será realizado de 1 a 30 de setembro de 2015.

O Wiki Loves Monuments é organizado em vários países do mundo e é considerado desde 2011 pelo Livro dos Recordes como maior concurso fotográfico do mundo. Estamos aqui para te convidar a fazer parte da historia e do maior concurso fotográfico já realizado!

Acesse o site do Wiki Loves Monuments Brasil 2015 - Patrimônio Histórico confira nossa lista de monumentos a serem fotografados e submeta suas imagens para concorrer a premiação de R$6.000 em dinheiro.

Contribua também divulgando para seus amigos, contatos e curtindo nossa página no Facebook e seguindo nossa conta no Twitter.


Comitê organizador do Wiki Loves Monuments Brasil 2015

Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa, Rodrigo Padula (talk). 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. :-) -- (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Populus alba[edit]


I was looking at the page on Populus alba on, which uses several of your photos. How sure are you of the identification? I suspect they may be of the hybrid Populus × canescens (P. alba × P. tremula), rather than P. alba; the leaf shape is quite different, although the trees are otherwise similar. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go and check the tree again in the next few days, but I'm pretty sure it's White rather than Grey; the leaves on vigorous shoots are strongly 3-lobed. I suppose there's always the possibility of 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation backcross hybrids, not sure how one would tell them apart!! - MPF (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Urocissa erythroryncha v. U. erythrorhyncha[edit]

As far as I can see the second spelling is the right one. Shyamal (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal - no; Urocissa erythroryncha is correct, -ry- is the spelling used in the protologue Corvus erythrorynchus (here; see #622), and that spelling (apart from the gender agreement with transfer to feminine Urocissa) is the one that has to be used. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. There can however be emendations as seen in most later catalogues (Peters list notes Boddaert's spelling as an error) and the original spelling appears to have been restored recently (when?) as an "unjustified emendation"- and I have not been able to find a source with an explicit statement on that. Shyamal (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Image permissions[edit]

I have permission to use images from a few sources you have flagged for deletion, screencaps of emails etc. How do I provide the evidence? It's my first time uploading images but I got permission for all of them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jippa99 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arses telescophthalmus[edit]

Dear MPF, the scientific name of the Frilled Monarch (Arses telescopthalmus) is in the wikispecies article name misspelled as Arses telescophthalmus. I don't know how to correct this, because I am rarely active on Commons. Maybe you can.--HWN 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwdenie (talk • contribs) 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Done :-) MPF (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action! --HWN 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwdenie (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, or advice for other tag[edit]

User:MPF, the image Janie Buck by Pretty Buck [5] that I uploaded needs to be deleted. I apologize, but I misread the copyright notice on the back of the photo before I uploaded it. There are reproductive and commercial restrictions so the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is incorrect and the image must be deleted from WP. Thanks Atsme😊Consult 02:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done :-) MPF (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nepi y Pacini 1993 Fig 1-A Cucurbita pepo flor masculina y recorrido de las abejas colectoras de néctar.svg[edit]

Hello MPF, your opinion is welcome there, it's about a scientific drawing of a flower. Although your favorite subjects are the birds, you're certainly familiar with scientific drawings copyvio cases. Archaeodontosaurus already said he agree with me that scientific works must be protected. If you have an opinion and whatever is your opinion, can you write it in the DR please? Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Charadriiformes by country[edit]

Hi MPF :) I was near to create a category when I saw the others are not identical, what is the best way : "Charadriiformes in..." of "Charadriiformes of..." ? IMO it's in.--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think 'in' as well, but most of these categories have been made as 'of' unfortunately. There are important differences between the two terms, which many people don't appear to understand: if one had for example a photo of David Cameron visiting Paris, that photo could be placed in Category:People in Paris, but not in Category:People of Paris. It is the same with birds; non-native birds (e.g. a bird in a zoo) could be in Category:Birds in France but not in Category:Birds of France.
But on another level, I don't think any of these 'by country' categories are a good idea; countries are human political constructs, and wild animals (and plants) don't follow them at all. If any subdivision is needed, it should be by infraspecific taxa or biogeographical regions, not countries. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It would certainly have been better to class them by Ecoregion , although humans of Wikipedia tend to apply them the same country political constructs. These categories such as "Charadriiformes in Germany", countains the photos of the Charadriiformes taken in Germany, this is a photo classification, in no way a bird classification, we well agree. But it can help for species identification to can look at other photos of similar animals (or plants) taken in the same area. The photos with geolocation can be classified by ecoregion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with a bot[edit]

A user requested an incorrect orientation of File:Spotted Moray Eel.jpg and a bot obliged by rotating the file into an incorrect orientation. The orientation of the upload was exactly how I shot the image so it was correct. I attempted to undo the bot rotation but it seems I made things worse. Please help? Atsme😊📞 23:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

PS - think I got it fixed. I reverted the orientation to the original. Atsme😊📞 00:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Atsme: Yep, looks OK now! I've edited the file to move the location to its correct position in the description ;-) MPF (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

...For the adjustments! Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Rangifer tarandus caribou[edit]

I notice that you have moved quite a few images to Category:Rangifer tarandus caribou, which is a specific subspecies. I hope you have ensured that each image really is of that subspecies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

They should be, but I'll double-check to be sure - MPF (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyanocorax yncas map[edit]

Hi, could you tell me why you changed this distribution map? In English article for green jay (Cyanocorax yncas) we have cited information that inca jay is just subspecies of green jay. Also IUCN map (from where I took the data) both birds treat as one species. And even we want to separate this species, your edition is wrong: you left distribution of inca jay (Cyanocorax yncas yncas), not of green jay (Cyanocorax yncas, which is titled on the map).

Sorry for my English, I'm not a native English speaker, but I hope so that you understand me ;)

Best regards, Netzach (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Netzach - the English article is out of date and/or using a non-standard parochial authority; the two are split as separate species by the international standard authority IOC (scroll down about 1/5 of the page for Cyanocorax). Several other wikipedias such as Dutch, Swedish, and others are up to date with the split. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Need some eastside Sierra flowers identified[edit]

Can you help? Are these photographs of Carex or Schoenoplectus? The descriptions and categories disagree:

File:Large sedge Rock Creek Canyon close.jpg
File:Large sedge Carex sp Rock Creek Canyon.jpg

Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Why do you delete my uploaded photos? They are within terms of WP:Licensing because I made them and are not as same as the original ones... --Obsuser (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Obsuser: They are so similar as to be derivations of the originals, and - sorry to say - that counts as breach of copyright. Take a look at Commons:Copyright for more details. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Maude White shares works for free, and they are not copyrighted as I can make same thing, take photo of it with my hands below, and upload it... If it differentiates in one pixel, it is not as same as original. Can I upload it again? --Obsuser (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no! I looked at Maude White's website, and there is nothing there to say they are free of copyright. Every work of art is copyright unless there is a clear statement that it is free of copyright (which you would need to show proof of!), until it is 70 years old (or older in some situations) - only then does copyright expire. Please read the Commons:Copyright and licensing information very carefully, it is complex! - MPF (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Why did you delete F1 steering wheel? How it could be "copyright protected"? --Obsuser (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This one is supposedly "own work" and is not deleted... My is also own work. How do you know it isn’t or the one mentioned is? --Obsuser (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What about this one? Can I use Creative Commons 2.0 GL? --Obsuser (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Obsuser: - someone had to go and take that photo of the F1 steering wheel: it is their work with their camera, so their copyright! If you take your own camera and go to an F1 car showroom, and take your own photo, then yes you can add it to Commons. But not someone else's photo, unless they have specifically stated with a creative commons license that other people can use it. That is the case with the last one you mention, you can see the photographer (Nic Redhead) is cited, and the link given to the original photo, where the creative commons license "Some rights reserved" is clearly shown. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
How can you know someone went there and took a photo? Maybe he found it elsewhere too. How can someone prove it is his/her own work? It is not revealing a state secret publishing a steering wheel... What’s the matter if ca. 10 web-sites published steering wheel and it is available on internet right now (google images show it too) for anyone that has access to web? --Obsuser (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you answer these thoroughly? --Obsuser (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, illegal "license laundering" as you suggest does happen, unfortunately; users (and particularly administrators) have to be on the look out for it constantly, and delete cases where it occurs. With time and experience, it is often possible to spot cases with ease; image searches on google can help too. On the steering wheel example: just because others elsewhere on the internet have broken copyright, does not mean that we can do so too. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Caloenas maculata Brian Small.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Caloenas maculata Brian Small.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceased Naturalis birds done[edit]

Dear MPF,

My overcategorised tsunami of old birds is done - thanks for your patience. The deceased birds reside in Category:Songbird_specimens_at_Naturalis_Biodiversity_Center and number now 136.232. A few thousand of multiple views of 1 specimen have been uploaded erroneously as "new versions" - old ones can be downloaded but cannot be used in articles - with their first view (1 specimen, more photo's). The List of species and genera in Category:Songbird specimens at Naturalis Biodiversity Center gives an overview of (missing) categories.

  • Shall i do a repair run for those images, and reduce the overcategorisation beforehand this time? Best regards, Hansmuller (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! As you like on the new versions :-) - MPF (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


1. Could you please verify this photo is properly licensed? I’ve just cropped it, and it does have now license (CC Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) on Flickr) so I hope it can stay forever on Commons! Face-smile.svg [Autoreview says size not found – that’s because I cropped the image...]

Yes, that one is OK! MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Could you tell me whether these files: File:Bone tumor skull.jpg, File:Zuzi Jelinek Opatija 0510 1.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek 1936 godine.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek sa braćom 1939 godine.jpg, File:Žuži Jelinek sa Jovankom Broz.jpg comply rules so they can stay here on Wikimedia Commons? I’ve been blocked by an admin for one week on .sr because I’ve uploaded these on Serbian Wikipedia but I’m pretty sure they don’t break any rules as they are very old photos (> 70 years) whose author deceased and have [photos, not authors] small resolution (< 300 px) and comply both the Croatian license {{PD-Croatia}} and the {{PD-old-70}}. Note that first image of the skull is not related to the other from-same-group images.

The skull is unfortunately not OK, even though it is widely used on the internet - no guarantee it is validly licensed! The Žuži Jelinek photos, it is very unlikely they are valid; she only died very recently, and the photographers are likely to be of broadly similar age, so won't have died more than 70 years ago ;-) You would need to have accurate details of who the photographers are and when they died. - MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
May I crop the skull? --Obsuser (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No; any part of an image is as much protected by the copyright as the whole image ;-) MPF (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
What about two photos of 1936 and 1939 which comply {{PD-Croatia}} or {{PD-old-70}} for being older than 70 years? --Obsuser (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is not just that the photo has to be over 70 years old; it has to be 70 years after the photographer died. This is very unlikely for photos taken in the 1930s: you would need to find out who took the photos, and if they died before 1945. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Are admins permitted to block an user if he/she sends about ten files that maybe not comply or have proper license on some language project, if that is not because an user wanted intentionally to provocate anything but didn’t know license was maybe not applicable (or even worse if it was actually applicable)? Thank you in advance. --Obsuser (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though they should warn you first about copyright breaches: always best to negotiate first before blocking (I don't know if they did or not!). - MPF (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A, let's say, "nice quote" of yours...[edit]

Hello MPF!

I totaly agree with you on the point that there are "there's many far, far worse pics on Commons", but wouldn't it be a bit too cheeky filling up the DR listings with, let's say, 150 to 200 deletion requests all based upon a low image quality? ^^ Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep! It's very rare that I put out a DR based on low image quality - I won't say never, just maybe one or two a year perhaps :-) MPF (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So do you have an opinion how useful this deletion ratioanle of "bad quality" is? Actually, I'd plead for a more extended use of it, as the n-th noisy, blurry image of e.g. a seagull (cf. your example of those unidentified Laridae) does really add nothing to Commons as a media source... Hardly browsable (in a reasonable time), hardly findable media could be deleted, I think. BTW, is it worth to port this exchange to the Village pump for a broader collection of opinions? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess it is useful, but haven't devoted much time to detailed thought about it. Every now and then I happen upon a really awful photo, and either ignore it, or nominate it for deletion, depending on how I'm feeling at that moment :-) I usually err on the side of keeping. Sometimes awful photos are actually in use, typically if they're old ones from the early days of wiki when there wasn't much choice available. But yes, I agree, it would be useful to have some clearer community guidelines that those currently in place. - MPF (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You were fully right, it was really not difficult in finding gull photographs that could reasonably proposed for deletion on quality grounds, there are currently nearly ten listed on DR by me... Grand-Duc (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: Aye! As an aside, the series with the young gull on the roof window, with no location information, I'm not sure at all they are Larus argentatus - the contributor has photos from both France (Alps region?) and (I think) Georgia; of these, Larus argentatus only occurs in the north of France and not at all in Georgia. In southern France, L. michahellis is the commonest gull, while in Georgia, L. armenicus is most likely. But unless we can find out where the photos were taken, it is not possible to identify them. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ouh, OK... Well, that shows well that most, if not all, well-established Wikimedia projects are now in a state where it is hard to contribute without being specially educated in a subject - I'm not an ornithologist and simply was not aware (or did not think about it) that the hatchlings and juveniles of gulls often look similar... This teaches me well to shoot ahead. (And the more, I fell victim of a "false friend", when you wrote "Georgia", I automatically thought about the US state, and not the country. I took a look at old versions of the FR-WP userpage of said contributor, and he is indeed an Georgian by his own saying, even if he seemingly masters at first glance the French language as if it's his mothertongue.) Thank you for reminding me to be a bit more cautious! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 2.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 1.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Antrostomus vociferus, Lancaster, Massachusetts 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello! Yes! The photo was taken very close to Ávila, Spain: {{Location dec|40.65423877|-4.64892268|}} I've added this information in the photo description. Thanks a lot! --DPC (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

All the serie "Fringilla coelebs 01 by dpc.jpg" to "Fringilla coelebs 06 by dpc.jpg" is taken in the same place. --DPC (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gracias! - MPF (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Swiftlet ID[edit]

I appreciate that swiftlets are not the easiest group to id, and if I'd found these birds away from this site and on my own, there might be some room for error. However, unusually for me, I was with an organised group with two professional guides,one of whom was Kamol Komolphalin, illustrator of Birds of Thailand, Lekagul and Round. The site is also, apparently, a known and regular breeding site for this species, so it wasn't a random find. In the circumstances, I think the id is hard to dispute, and German's is widespread along the coast of Thailand. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect google pointed me in the wrong direction for the temple, it suggested two locations well inland in northern Thailand, not along the coast ;-) MPF (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
In truth, I can't remember exactly where the temple was, since we were not travelling under our own steam, but my wife and I both remember it as being in a decent-sized twon at or near the coast Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Pseudhirundo griseopyga Sharpe.jpg[edit]

I note that you have changed the colours of this picture, which I agree with. It would appear as if these swallow illustrations, see Category:A monograph of the Hirundinidae, were printed on yellow paper, which somewhat obscures what the artist had in mind, white plumage would become yellow for instance. I have also given three illustrations a white background, over the original, which seems to restore the illustration. Should I do the same with the rest? JMK (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, seems a good idea to me; up to you how many you want to do. I might get round to doing some more myself too, if I can find the time. I'm doubtful they were deliberately printed on yellow paper, it's normal for old paper to go that colour after a century or so. If it had originally been yellow paper, I'd think Sharpe would have used white paint to make vivid white parts white in the pictures - and I don't see much evidence of that (possibly in File:Tachycineta thalassina 1894.jpg as the breast looks marginally lighter than the outer page). - MPF (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi MPF, I just added location info for File:FraserFirFoliage.jpg! I took this picture on my trip to Mount Rogers last summer! Broly0 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you tag these for rotation?[edit]

File:Nine picea rubens cones from Pisgah National Forest.jpg and the rest of the contents of Category:Picea rubens cones. I do not see that they fit either of the situations presented in Commons:Rotation. The only thing I can think of is that because the cones hang a certain way while on the tree, that means a photo of one must reflect that orientation? Or is there something else I'm missing? I'm all for having multiple versions in case someone wants to use them, but I do prefer them the other way (which is also the way the US Fish and Wildlife Service presents them). — Rhododendrites talk |  14:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to reflect their natural orientation; i.e. USFWS posted the pics up-side-down. They definitely look better / more realistic in their natural position. - MPF (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2016[edit]

WLE Austria Logo.svg

Hallo MPF,

Du erhältst diese Nachricht als Teilnehmer von Wiki Loves Earth 2014 oder 2015. Dieses Jahr wird sich Deutschland wieder am Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth beteiligen. Wir würden uns über weitere Bilder von Dir freuen. Der Zeitraum für das Hochladen der Naturbilder ist vom 1. bis 31. Mai 2016.

Für die Weitergabe an den internationalen Wettbewerb ist ab diesem Jahr eine Mindestauflösung von 2 Megapixeln erforderlich. Bitte gib an, in welchem Schutzgebiet oder an welchem Schutzobjekt (z.B. Naturdenkmal, Geotop) die Fotos gemacht wurden. Wenn Bilder gar nicht zugeordnet werden können, gelangen sie nicht in die Wertung. In die Bilder eingefügte Zusätze wie der Name des Fotografen, Datum, Beschreibung oder ein Rahmen sind unerwünscht.

Seit der letzten Runde sind unter anderem Listen aller FFH-Gebiete und EU-Vogelschutzgebiete in Deutschland erstellt worden, die nun ebenfalls auf Bilder warten.

Dieses Jahr wird eine Vorjury die Vorauswahl der Bilder nach den Wettbewerbsregeln übernehmen. Als Teilnehmer aus den Vorjahren kannst Du Dich daran beteiligen. Bei Interesse bitte unter WLE-Vorjury eintragen, ein Zugangscode kommt per E-Mail.

Viel Spaß und Erfolg wünscht im Namen des Organisationsteams,

--Blech (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of useful categories[edit]

hi, I noticed that you are removing files, like File:Joshua Tree National Park - 49 Palms Oasis - 01.jpg from subcategories of Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. Please do not remove useful categories. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I was restoring it to Category:Washingtonia filifera, so that the file could be easily found there: Commons has very few photos of the species in its native environment (as opposed to cultivated), and it doesn't make good sense for most of the few we have to be hidden away in obscure subcategories ;-) MPF (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
So your concern is with the quality of Category:Washingtonia filifera and my concern is with quality of Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park, as I am trying to make sure all images of plants from Category:Joshua Tree National Park are also present in Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. So whatever you do to Category:Washingtonia filifera, do not remove them from Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park. --Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I added Category:49 Palm Oasis in Joshua Tree National Park‎ and Category:Oasis of Mara in Joshua Tree National Park to Category:Flora of Joshua Tree National Park, were they all in that? If not, I can add them directly to Flora of Joshua Tree National Park (or do that anyway, if that's preferrable) - MPF (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Phalacrocorax capillatus[edit]

  • I have reverted some of your nonsensical edits (a, b, c et al). Being a Phalacrocorax capillatus does not necessarily mean that it always stays on rocky coast. See for example this document issued by the Japanese Ministry of the Environment, if you can read Japanese. --トトト (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]

POTY barnstar.svg

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear MPF,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cygnus atratus[edit]

Hi MPF, in biologischem Englisch bin ich nicht so firm, aber unter "captive" hätte ich tatsächlich (nur) ein Tier in Gefangenschaft eingeordnet. Mein Bild vom Max-Eyth-See in Stuttgart mit den Betonsteinen sieht auch nicht gerade nach freier Wildbahn aus ... Grüße, --Pjt56 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes[edit]

Thanks for commenting on some existing themes. I see you opposed "three of a kind" and "black and green" as a "gimmick". Themes do not need to be subject categories in order to be very successful. We have had great abstract themes, some similar to those, that result in wonderful educational images. Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals is just one of well over a dozen examples. Why don't you look at see what worked and what inspired people to take great photos. On the voting result page you can see how many people submitted entries, how many voted and how many photos were entered. Ideally we want all three of these to be high. Themes that are very specific on specialist subjects, for example, will not be popular, and themes that are not popular will not attract voters. At the end of the day, the popularity of a theme will determine how many high-quality educational images we get, not how worthy the theme topic it is. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Thanks! Looked through the Diagonals set, and agree there are many decent pics there, but they are very random in subject; this makes it trickier to get them all correctly categorised, as no-one has any expertise covering all of them. This contrasts with more subject-defined topics, where a person with expertise in that topic can go through the whole lot to verify identities, categories, etc., in one easy go. Also it isn't a good way to attract really high value photos (photos of items with no representation on Commons). I guess the latter is a real niche, but also a serious challenge (one I'd like to see is conifers in the mountains of Mexico - numerous endemic species, most of which don't have any photos on Commons at all yet). Having a photo challenge like that might make a Mexican contributor or two realise we have a major gap there that they can fill; Diagonals doesn't do that. - MPF (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The reality is that photos where Commons lacks good representation are that way for a reason -- nobody is interested in taking the pictures or we have so few contributors from that region. We simply can't run a challenge on Mexican conifers. Even a challenge on conifers would likely not attract the kind of photos you want (i.e. it would get lots of images of unidentified conifer forests and none/few of individual specimens with correct name/category). While a PC might move some photographers outside their comfort zone to try new things, that isn't going to work for many. Someone who likes taking photos of bugs, or of buildings, isn't necessarily going to be inspired to photograph a Pride march just because someone campaigns for more of those photos on Commons. The thing is that if you run a challenge on birds, then that's all you get. And if someone isn't interested in photographing birds, they don't contribute at all. If you run a challenge on "three of a kind" then who knows what you get -- three birds, three bugs, three buildings, three people, three fruit.... Serendipity is wonderful, and the challenge is open to far more people. So I think that PC should have a mix of concrete subject themes and a mix of abstract concept themes -- that way everybody is happy.
The problem with categorising challenge images is no different to the problem of categorising any photographer's work, if they are unfamiliar with Commons and don't do it themselves. Really the best categorisers are the photographers once they get familiar with Commons.
What we are seeing with PC is an increasing number of entries from developing nations. That makes it hard to manage as so many seem to have problems getting their submissions right -- probably because there is no translation in their language. Whenever I look at newbies contributions to the challenges, I often see they have uploaded other photos too. It inspires people to join and contribute, and we want them to contribute outside of PC too.
So I think the best way to look at it is as a bit of fun for regulars and a hook to lure newbies. The actual photographs entered, a few hundred at most, are a drop in the ocean for Commons -- so we really aren't going to right-any-wrongs wrt representation on individual challenge themes. But if PC can start attracting contributors from developing nations, for example, then it is solving a systemic bias issue, and perhaps a few of those are interested in conifers... -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with names, please?[edit]

I screwed up when I named two images I just uploaded but I'm not sure if they need to be changed. The 2 images are File:Texas thistle bud.jpg and File:Texas thistle.jpg. My concern is that they may be confused with the Texas thistle (Cirsium texanum). I'm thinking it might be better to rename them to File:Texas Milk Thistle bud.jpg and File:Texas Milk Thistle.jpg, both of which are Silybum marianum. Can you advise, please? Thank you in advance...Atsme 📞 13:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'll do it! - MPF (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Atsme: ... Done! - MPF (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ohhh THANK YOU, MPF!! You're amazing! Atsme 📞 14:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem, it's easy! - MPF (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm so happy to read that it's easy because I screwed-up. 8-[ Remember what we were taught in school about changing our answers on a test - that in some cases the first answer was the correct one? Well, my first titles may have been the correct ones, but before I ask for your help again, I've queried some botanists in Texas hoping they can positively ID the images. Atsme 📞 22:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to simply revert the name change? The images are definitely not a milk thistle. The original names were actually "safely" accurate. Once a botanist confirms the actual species of Texas thistle, I will simply add it to the infobox. My apologies. Atsme 📞 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's easy to change the file names, no problem there. But I've been checking up; it isn't Cirsium texanum, the bracts below the flowerhead are the wrong shape, and it isn't Silybum marianum, either. It is extremely like the UK/European native Musk Thistle Carduus nutans, and I've found that this is listed as an invasive weed in North America, so I'm sure now that's what your pics are. Compare e.g. File:Chardon dans la vallée de l'Avérole.jpg or File:Carduus nutans 3.jpg, showing identical bracts. So I'll rename & re-cat them to Musk Thistle shortly - MPF (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. The center of the flower is different. I shot the photos the other day here at my ranch in North Texas. I'm getting close to an ID and will advise as soon as I know something. Thank you for your help. Atsme 📞 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded a full shot of the plant File:Texas thistle FS.jpg, and also found the following images which are almost exact University of Texas, and a photog's site and a variety of Texas thistles. Atsme 📞 15:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I fear I'll have to disagree, File:Texas thistle FS.jpg is Musk Thistle again ;-) I checked some more serious botanical sites, University of Austin, TX (& photo gallery), Flora of North America, USDA, and Applied Medical Botany; Texas Thistle is quite constant (note the short, slender bracts below the flowerheads) and does not resemble your plants at all. Musk Thistle by contrast is quite variable (Flora of North America) and does resemble yours. The photo on Albert Vick's site is also Musk Thistle, misidentified, and none of the photos on the site labelled Cirsium texanum resembles yours. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be absolutely correct. My hesitation at this point rests on the fact that none of the thistles in my pastures are "nodding". All are upright. Also, none have that circular daisy-like center as the photos depict of a musk thistle. I'm waiting for a botanist friend to get back to me with a positive ID. Just want to make sure of a proper ID before we make further changes. Atsme 📞 18:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The 'nodding' isn't a hard-and-fast character, particularly with buds / young flowers, happens more with the mature seed heads though. I can put them in Category:Unidentified Carduoideae for the time being until your friend reports back - MPF (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm impressed, MPF - you nailed it. Musk thistle it is; Carduus nutans. Will you do the honors? :-D Atsme 📞 23:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do; it'll be tomorrow now (just gone midnight here!) - MPF (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's the list of images for your convenience:

Done! I gave them all the same name, just 1-4 at the end, File:Texas invasive Musk Thistle 1.jpg et seq., as I find it useful to keep related images together in their category, hope that's OK! - MPF (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Eastern Europe 1990 (4523835289).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hiddenhauser (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello MPF,
MILEPRI creates hundred of categories for tribes and subtribes from BioLib. He moves 1 or 2 genera in these category to ensure that they are kept, but leaves most of the genera in the subfamilies, leaving me the work of finishing the work. This is not nice but authorized.
Could you look at [6], please?
He must at least respect an unanimous rule: not to create tribe categories when the subfamily has only one tribe.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in identifying birds![edit]

Thank you for identifying the bird in File:Corvid in tree calling.gk.webm! If you get some time to, I hope you get a chance to identify File:Sparrows bathing in fountain.gk.webm as well. It is an astonishing level and quantity of work you're doing here. Thank you very much. grendel|khan 01:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Done :-) MPF (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Look at this, I hope you like my choice of green. :) (updated, see below) -- Fulvio 314 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fulvio314: Thanks! Somewhat similar to what I'd got to and not ideal (too blue-green); I fear it probably won't be possible to get anything decently accurate unfortunately. But thanks for trying! - MPF (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
We say: "since we did 30, let's do 31!". I just chose a green of my taste and there are many other tones to do the color turn, now I know how to do it without affecting the grays. Pls, show me a picture where there is a good green you like and I'll try again with a reference :) -- Fulvio 314 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fulvio314: Thanks! Here's a selection of photos of the same species showing typical vegetation colour in its habitat: File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicata)- cambaiensis race at Hodal I IMG 5835.jpg, File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicatus) Male Thane Maharashtra IMG 1341 (3).JPG, File:Indian Robin (Saxicoloides fulicatus)Kalyan IMG 1341 (4).JPG, File:Saxicoloides fulicatus Bhindawas.jpg. I suspect the real problem though is that the original we've been working from only contains a very limited range of colour, and it is impossible to split a single blue into a mix of different varieties of greenish-yellows. But give it a go if you like! - MPF (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Here there is the green version most similar to the samples (use CTRL-F5 to clear the cache and update the displayed picture), Cascading background (colorized).jpg is it ok? You are right, there are few tones available in the original, but with the help of the color weel (The Gimp) you can expand the range a little. -- Fulvio 314 19:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fulvio314: Nice, thanks! Definitely better than anything I'd managed; I'm happy with that as the best that it'll be possible to make - MPF (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll probably rename both this and the original into something more meaningful soon :-) MPF (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello :-) I worked some more on @Fulvio314:s image. Hope its better, otherwise revert. cheers Amada44  talk to me 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Yep, I think that's a bit of an improvement :-) MPF (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Buffalos in Berlin[edit]

Hey MPF, regarding File:Tiefwerder Wasserbueffel 01.jpg and File:Tiefwerder Wasserbueffel 02.jpg. You are of course right that those are buffalos are captive ones. But they are most definitely not living in a zoo, but in a large fenced grassland area that is publicly accessible. The buffalos are not "attractions", but basically cheap lawnmowers. They are as much in a zoo as cattle on a meadow or sheep on a dike. --Sebari (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thanks! I've checked the category tree, there's a better cat at Category:Water buffaloes of Germany, I'll move them there - MPF (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that category fits well! --Sebari (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mixed flowers[edit]

Hello. I noticed you also did some work on unidentified plants. Maybe you can give some input regarding this category. There is an old thread on the talk page where its categorization is questioned. --Averater (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)