User talk:MPF

Useful tags

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

Archive

Old stuff up to end 2007 Old stuff up to end 2008 Old stuff up to end October 2009

quality/featured images

Hi MPF, this is a bit of an off the wall question, but I was wondering what the consensus is on nominating ones own image for quality/featured/valued image status. I have always felt that I shouldn't nominate my own images, but am saddened by the lack of images of fossils which have these stats. can you recommend anyone to look through the cats. and galleries for qualifying images? again sorry for the random question and thanks for any guidance you can give.--Kevmin (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Icteridae maps

Hi Cephas - nice work on these! If / when on creating a map and placing it in its species category [[Category:Genus species]], if the category appears as a redlink (does not exist!), can you create the relevant category, by entering [[Category:Genus|species]] in it, please? Also if the genus category itself is a redlink, add [[Category:Icteridae]] (or whatever other family you are working on!). Thanks! PS I've created the missing categories for the Icteridae maps you've already done in the last few days.

Hello MPF, I use to create missing pages at first, but was confused with the structure of them. For example, here on Category:Sturnella militaris, there is a page Sturnella militaris. Why two pages for the same species? Thank you. --Cephas (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Maybe on this

you could identify the trees?!

Greetings --Alex1011 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Alex1011 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

hi. please tell me if I chose a good license at this painting of a painter dead in 1907 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Sofronie_Miclescu.jpg). Thanks. Cezarika1 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Even the photo of the painting is made by other person? Cezarika1 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If we don't know the author of a postcard image, how we can act? Cezarika1 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. You helped me much. Cezarika1 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image from public places

Hi. Tell me if the image of mortuary photo (on the cross) can be uploaded on Commons. The cemetery is a public place. Cezarika1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, help me to find the answer. Cezarika1 (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:HoreaGorunulTebea.jpg

You added a category to this image the day after the upload. Did you happen to check the license on Flickr? If so please comment the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

People in trees

Hi! Please look at Category talk:People with trees. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Brombeerlaub.jpg

Hi! The exactly scientific name is rubus caesius. --je-str (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The leaf had actually three leafs. I have only the middle left to stand. The scars can not be seen because they are outside the picture. Tomorrow I'm doing a photo from the bush, from which the leaf is. --je-str (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Image replacement

[1] You have universally replaced an image by a different one. It was a promoted image on the VI project and it resulted in quite a mess. Please revert the bot's actions. If a picture is misidentified, you should properly identify it, and perhaps warn the reusers, but not push the image you like instead! I honestly think it is a mistaken use of the tools here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

COI

Hello my friend,
if you want to make a cat follow en:International Ornithological Congress classification, you can use the templates:
* {{Genera|Sylvia|source=ioc2.2}}
* {{IOC|warblers|Passeriformes|Sylviidae }}
That will generate:

• Included genera (for IOC classification 2.2):

Sylvia

• IOC link: Sylviidae in order Passeriformes subcat

Brockhaus_and_Efron_Encyclopedic_Dictionary

Hello, I see that you have introduced a category for bird illustrations from Brockhaus_and_Efron_Encyclopedic_Dictionary, which is a good idea indeed. I would like to know why you have removed the species categories I had put to some of those images, such as Calypte anna for File:Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary b30 678-2.jpg. It seems to me that in doing so, you cause the loss of some information, that I have spent time to enter.

Yours, Frédéric (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

more than 20 photos of the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palace_of_the_Parliament. 79.112.34.190 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Busuresti-Intercontinental.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.19.138 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.18.133

All these images violate the copyright law of Romania. 79.112.34.190 07:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming images breaks deletion review

You renamed File:Cute duck, cute young women, in Pangnirtung.jpg to File:Two women with duckling, in Pangnirtung.jpg; I don't object in theory to the move, but it's currently at Deletion Review, and you broke the link from the image to the deletion review and vice versa. Images at deletion review should probably not be moved for that reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that renaming can make "a mess". I think I fixed the links. --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why delete it? It seems to be doing well enough at DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anser albifrons

Please see File_talk:Anser_albifrons.JPG. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Federal Hall NYC 22.JPG

File:Federal Hall NYC 22.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Arctostaphylosklamathensis.jpg

Thanks for checking this, you are right, the photographs here are not free, also not accoring to the websites terms. Yours? --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No, not mine; I just happened to spot the Calphotos credit at the bottom of the page, and know that they are not PD-US. Guess I'll have to see if any of the other pics on that page are also uploaded (I'd just been sorting the Arctostaphylos pics when I found it) - MPF (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

copied your answer back I meant if you will delete them or I ;) the search for the author name only leads to unfree images as far as I can see. I will check them and delete. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems to be a much larger problem, continued at User_talk:Stickpen#US_Forest_Service_photos. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG, a huge task! - MPF (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems so, my idea at the moment is to collect all files (just doing this), figure out the problem, request all files in the category for {{PDreview}} and announce the problem to Commons:PD files reviewers. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. Each one will need to be checked individually; some will be genuine PD-USGov and can be kept, others won't; the source USFS pages should say, but it isn't always very clear. - MPF (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mess in Low Quality

Hello,

I guess I am responsible for the mess in {{Low quality}}. Could you be more specific about what was wrong please, so I can fix it? Thanks!

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks to your explanation, I think I have been able to fix it. I had not noticed that an alternate rationale, other than the "very small, blurry..." thing could be given to the template (seems that it is displayed for English users only, that's also why I did not notice). So, well, indeed, I broke everything , but I believe it is okay now. I'll try to be more careful next time! Thanks again, Jean-Fred (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lepus acticus groenlandicus

Hello,

Do you realize that by removing category:Lepus arcticus groenlandicus as a distinct category, you are emptying category:Animals of Greenland of some of its contents ? Teofilo (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"I've added Category:Animals of Greenland to Category:Lepus arcticus, "

This is the wrong thing to do, because that category contains pictures of hares in Canada. Teofilo (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Little Egret foot.jpg

You're wrong; this is a Little Egret. I can't comprehend how people keep confusing these birds. It would be polite to ask first, especially when you so obviously don't know them (or their regional variations?).

• Great Egret's bare facial skin extends in a dagger shape behind the eye. They're big. The have a long neck with a very distinct kink. They have a flat-topped head profile that aligns with the top of their bill. They don't run after fish in shallows (as this bird is doing).
• Little Egrets are small. The bare facial skin does not extend behind the eye. They have a domed-top head. And yellow-soled feet - as the photo illustrates!

Budgerigar

Re: File:Melopsittacus undulatus -Fort Worth Zoo-8a-4c.jpg. I wondered why you thought this wild-type Budgerigar at Fort Worth Zoo was domesticated. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof of domestication? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I put it in the category for the species which there is no doubt, and this does not say anything about its wildness or domestication. I do not have to prove anything. You put it in the "Domesticated budgerigar" category, so I would like to here your evidence to justify this move. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Budgerigar is a monotypic species and a monotypic genus. There are no images of hybrid Budgerigars crossed with other species on commons. The category "Melopsittacus undulatus" is correct for Bugerigars. I think careful analysis is needed prior to putting a Bugerigar in a subcategory. If there is a doubt, then it should not be moved out of in the "Melopsittacus undulatus" catagory into a subcategory. I think that a more sophisticated approach is needed to the category of Budgerigars than putting almost everything that is not a Budgerigar in the wild in a "Domesticated Budgerigar" subcategory. There could be a sub-categories: "Budgerigars in Zoos", Budgerigars pets with their cages", "Budgerigars in the wild", "Budgerigars with people", and categories for colour mutants. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Towers

Hello. First, I had no intention of giving offence, and I apologize if I did. I do believe, however, that I am entitled to point out that a template is in my opinion being used incorrectly, without another user taking it as a personal insult or treating it as a disparaging remark. If you didn't understand my initial edit summary, you could have inquired rather than reverting. Having said that, my second edit summary could have (and should have) been more detailed, and for that I am sorry. If I had known I was causing you grief, I would have done it differently. Your point is well taken.

(I will respond to your substantive comments shortly. I began to draft this response this morning (and finished the above para), but it's been a busy day, and I keep getting pulled away. I am going to post part now, however, because I don't want to go any longer without acknowledging your note. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring it). Will get back to you soon.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry for never fully responding to this. I guess I got caught up with other things, lost track of the discussion, and forgot to get back to this.

I don't disagree that this is a low resolution image. But the intent of that template isn't to simply tag low quality images, but rather to give editors a heads-up that we could use better quality images of the article subject. If this image was one of the few that we had on the Commons of the CN Tower, gulls or street lights, and we wanted to encourage the uploading of more and better quality images, then I'd agree that the template was warranted. But, unless I am mistaken, we have plenty of images of the article subjects. Moreover, this image is merely a semi-interesting, quirky juxtaposition of the gull, the street light and the tower -- it isn't necessarily something that would be easy (or even necessary) for someone to go out and get a better image of the same thing. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Sorry for taking four (!!) months to share them with you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

Hi MPF, I see you deleted some of the categories user:MGA73 created. These categories will fill up when Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph starts so could you please not do that? Thank you! Multichill (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Multichill - presume you mean those empty 'Avenues in ....' categories? If you're sure they'll fill, they can easily be re-made, but as they'd been lying empty for the best part of 2 months they didn't serve any useful purpose as of when I found them. I left the one for Avenues in UK (and added some files to it) even though that was also empty before today. - MPF (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MPF, please don't hop talk page. I use my watchlist. We have several thousand empty categories and 250.000 images waiting to be uploaded, but I have to wait until the new storage is properly working. I have been waiting for way too long so also having our work being undone adds to the frustration. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK! Want them restored? - MPF (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Handbook of the Birds of the World

Hello my friend,
If you want to provide a list of taxa out of Handbook of the Birds of the World (like here), you can now use Genera, Species... with the param source=hbw.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Gagea unidentified 10 Larinae.JPG

Thanks for the identification !

Sincerely, --Gagea (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is it possible to know if it's an adult, and wich sex is it ? If so, I would add the information in the description. Thanks in advance !

--Gagea (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Quite an easy one as there is only one species of large black-backed gull in South America. It is an adult; no way of telling the sex though. - MPF (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Palm tree Las Terrenas.JPG

Thanks for the identification! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for idnetify and categorise my gull's photos :). Yarl ✉ 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fringillidae

Hello MPF,
Where did you find the repartition of the Category:Fringillidae genera into the 3 subfamilies Carduelinae, Drepanidinae, Fringillinae?
en:Finch even speaks of 4 subfamilies.
We have the same problem with other families for which IOC totally ignore the subfamilies.
Liné1 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't remember offhand, I'll have to look into it. But the en:Finch article seems to be well referenced, so I'd not object to that being followed. - MPF (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MPF. You have new messages at MGA73's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

category:Trees

Hi MPF, I saw your note at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph. I'm doing category:Trees first so most of the Geograph images should be out of that category soon :-) Multichill (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I got the easy-to-identify ones done to species categories. Know if there's any possibility of getting hi-res originals of any of them from the photographers? There's some potentially very useful photos in there, if only they were 3 megabytes, rather than ~100 kb. - MPF (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Small correction

Thanks You for the information. And tiny correction: the southern area of Ukraine is called Crimea, not Krym.
With best regards, George
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chroicocephalus ridibundus

Thank you for identification - Chroicocephalus ridibundus Pe-Jo (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An Aleppo Pine cone

Thanks for your help! I can now add specimen's identification to Conifer cone - you actually saved this photo from menacing deletion by impatient Wikipedians.... איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Yamaha Oak Drumset 1.jpg

On last moment, you changed category of File:Yamaha Oak Drumset 1.jpg, etc. from Category:Oak wood to Category:Wood of Quercus, but it is seemed to be unreasonable change.

In the musical instruments community, "Oak" or "Oak wood" is well known name for material of musical instruments, and "Quercus" is not popular. Your change may cause huge troubles for musical instruments users. Such trouble are already occur in Bird community, where all bird are named in scientific name, thus ordinarily people can't identify categories of well known birds.

Please revert your changes. best regards, --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think that Wikimedia Commons racks concept of multiple name space. One object has multiple name in different name space, such as "Scientific name" space, "Musical instrument material name" space, etc. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was merging two categories covering the same topic; the category merged to was much older, which is the normal proceedure for merging categories. I left a redirect in place so it is easy to find the correct category. Also please remember, that while 'oak' is more familiar to English speakers, 'Quercus' is universal and much more familiar than 'oak' to speakers of other languages - MPF (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. But, "Oak" is standard name in musical instruments community... Can I create multiple name space in manner of Commons Wikipedia ?

If it is possible, I'll create Category:Musical instrument wood name, Category:Birds of Japan in Japanese, and subcategories of these may be mapped into more standard categories using sub-categorization or redirect mechanism... --Shoulder-synth (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not a good idea - all images of a particular topic should stay together. If you want to, you can add a request for the category to be renamed here (under the header #Category move requests), but I doubt it will get a lot of support. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oak as wood species is much more universally known than Quercus. A solution to avoid ideological problems is making an in between category, such as "Oak based instruments", "Oak based objects" ... --Foroa (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! for your kindly comment. I'll try to create adaptive category based on your idea. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To make a [Category:Oak based instruments] (or perhaps better [Category:Oak wood instruments]?) which is then a subcategory of [Category:Wood of Quercus]? That sounds a reasonable compromise. - MPF (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you ! --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Inga (Fabaceae)

Please note that the move from Category:Inga (Fabaceae) to Category:Inga is controversial as Inga is used in too many other context. Please issue a move request or vdf for controversial moves. --Foroa (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it is controversial at all. I didn't "move" it anyway, I merged it into an existing Category:Inga which someone else had created and categorised several Inga images and taxa into. For other contexts, these are better sorted by using a hatnote "For the Inga in xxxxx, see Category:Inga, xxxx"; that is far preferable to trying to leave the category deleted when someone will soon come along and create it again. Please also note that having taxa categories at anything other than the taxon name alone (such as the Category:Inga (Fabaceae) example) creates major problems for taxonavigation boxes; they should only be used as a very last resort (e.g. where the same name is used for an animal taxon and a plant taxon). - MPF (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Some precisions.

• you did the move which I reverted.
• It is controversial as several other contested moves you did to get rid of the disambiguation term, such as Category:Sylvia for which you have no support.
• The category lives already 31 months as Category:Inga (genus) and later as Category:Inga (Fabaceae) without taxonavigation problems
• When looking into Category:Inga history and and its logs, it is clear that it was used for a place in Congo till recently, and that disambiguation is clearly needed
• You know that hatnotes don't work for bots and most professional categorisers that hardly check the outcome of a categorisation: if the category is blue or accepted by HotCat, they don't look back. --Foroa (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank

hierfür! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gull identification

You have my sincere thanks for identifying the birds in these three pictures. Regards, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds id

Hi, I found the birds feeding on ticks off the impala. Any ideas? --Muhammad (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! - MPF (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --Muhammad (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Larus argentatus distribution map.png

Hi, MPF. You have replaced a world distribution map of Larus argentatus sensu lato by a european distribution map of Larus argentatus sensu stricto. But 1°) I need the previous one for the article fr:Goéland argenté 2°) You have chosen a wrong representation (the good one is File:European Larus Argentatus distribution map.svg). Is it possible to put the previous map back ? Thanks ! VonTasha (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to put the old one back, but if doing so, it is important to clarify that it is not a map of Larus argentatus, but a composite map of several species, and with a new file name - MPF (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK for me ! But how is it possible to do that ? VonTasha (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not entirely sure what you're meaning there "It's OK for me" - MPF (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that it's OK to put the old map back (but I don't know how) and clarify the description. For the "new file name", I fail to see how to do that too... VonTasha (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK! I'll put the old one back and change the caption - MPF (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! The clarification is done too VonTasha (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording slightly and added extra categories for the other species. I'll re-name the file a bit later - MPF (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MPF. I know that in the past, this species grouped a lot of populations together, but when I said sensu lato, I meant sensu lato in 2010. I'm trying to formulate the current situation, not the 1990 one (or the 1970 one ). I don't know if there is a better way to formulate it, because you know that the sensu stricto acceptance is not validated by everybody, and I think that the expression "grouping L.argentatus, L.vegae and L.smithonianus" is not at all neutral : it means "the first acceptance is better than the second". If you see a better way to formulate this idea, you're welcome !. VonTasha (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) PS : sorry for my bad level of english

Taxa templates

Hi Liné - when using taxa templates {{taxa|...}}, please always include spaces, like this: {{taxa |Taxon1 |Taxon2 |Taxon3 |Taxon4 }} or this: {{taxa| Taxon1| Taxon2| Taxon3| Taxon4 }}, NOT {{taxa|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}, as the lack of spaces in the last creates severe formatting problems in the edit boxes (particularly where there are numerous included taxa). Also, please remember (as pointed out several times above!), ITIS is a poor reference source, and we shouldn't be using it, please don't add links to it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me an exemple of buggy {{taxa|rank|Taxon1|Taxon2|Taxon3|Taxon4}}? This problem has to be solved.

Your solution of spaces is only a workarround that, like many workarrounds, should be avoided

(the fact that some people will put spaces at the end and other at the beginning show the problem: why not 2 spaces before and 3 after).

Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Windthrow category

Category:Windthrow should only have uprooted trees in forests (as it is to do with the uprooting of trees in an area/row or sometimes an isolated tree(s) in a forest) rather then in urban areas as the term Windthrow is only used in forests the same applies to Windsnap. See [2],[3],[4] Bidgee (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd differ there, the term Windthrow is also used in urban tree care at least in Britain (maybe because many of our urban tree people took forestry degrees). But if you'd prefer to have the category renamed I've no major objection; when I merged Category:Uprooted trees into Category:Windthrow, I did it that way round on the basis of the latter being the page with the longer history (July 2008 vs Dec 2009) and shorter title. - MPF (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Pinusquadrifolia1.jpg

Hi, in case you're interested, I took another mediocre pic of a garden specimen of Pinus quadrifolia. Edit as needed! Cheers, Stickpen (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

JPEG

Hi MPF, can you tell me why you removed category:JPEG? The way I understand category:JPEG, category:GIF, category:PNG, category:Ogg files, they are for files in the correspondig formats.

Commons has over five million files, the vast majority of which are jpeg files; I don't see category:JPEG on any of the rest, which makes it a decidedly useless category serving no valid purpose. But if you can make a substantial case for including it, go ahead and put it back in (and add it to the other five million, too!). - MPF (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"make a substantial case for including": Don't have to. Category exists, fits, and is obviously a basic part of our category structure. Obviously terribly neglected, also. Is there any reason to remove the category from any file? "useless" is not listed in COM:DP as a reason to delete categories.

"add it to the other five million": Ok, give me some time, though. Paradoctor (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Abies "formating"

Hi MPF,

Im curious as to why you have formatted the Abies species categories to remove all taxonav. above family? it does not conform to any other taxa categories and forces extra clicks when someone wants to move above Pinaceae from one of the species cats.--Kevmin (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Largely accidental, as I'd copied a template across from Pinus, where the top rank was family; the reason I did Abies was to add species authors and remove the incorrect 'Cronquist' cite (as Cronquist only applies to Angiosperms). I did leave Pinophyta in after noticing the difference in the later species, but Pinopsida (a redirect) is superfluous and Pinales pretty much so too. Maybe the Pinophyta bit should be added to all the Pinus cats and pages too . . . another 190-ish edits to be done! - MPF (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Pseudotsuga glauca cones.jpg

Can you upload full resolution version of this file? Crusier (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The pic was done on a scanner, so it is the full resolution (I didn't have a digital camera back then ;-) but I can dig out the cones again and take a new photo of them - MPF (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi MPF,

I now realize you may be an expert in Botanics or, at least, someone who knows much more than me. It is very difficult to identify the wild plants accurately and I really don't have such hability (...) I do what I can, using some good books and the images in Commons, but I feel helpless quite often. The main problem is that there are many different species (and varieties) in the Mediterranean area and books cannot illustrate them all. Where can I find some competent help? Is there a group here in Commons dealing with identification? Here is an example of a flower that I shot yesterday and cannot identify. Any kind of Orchidaceae? Greetings, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar - I'll do what I can, though I'm better on trees, conifers in particular, than on small plants. This one is a species of Trifolium, very similar to Trifolium rubens though not quite right for it (i.e., probably a closely related species). I guess the most important point is always to add the location to the file (and if discernible, whether the plant is growing wild, or is planted), that can be a big help in identification. If you can put a list of your unidentified photos somewhere (your user page, or a sub-page from it), or alternatively make a category for them and put it as a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants by location, I'll take a look through them. Also add a link to them on the Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life page. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just did a bit of checking myself; it's Trifolium angustifolium - MPF (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. I would never conclude this is a Clover (though it is in the book with an illustration and everything...)! I only photograph wild flowers but will be careful in georeferencing the photos. Now, wait for the flood. ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I have created a gallery with some unidentified species in here. Take a look at the type of place where I'm now taking most of the shots: File:Flowers April 2010-1a.jpg. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird plants

Hi MPF, do you know which plants are visible on the field behind the blue thingy? ;-) Maybe some kind of Allium? Hmm, dunno … --:bdk: 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know. The lack of any location info doesn't help, unfortunately (no idea whether temperate, or tropical, or what). - MPF (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please behave

Please MPF, could you use correct manners ?
You are not supposed to touch my private doc (1 & {http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lin%C3%A91/mydoc&curid=1441255&diff=37999455&oldid=37895406 2].
If you want to talk, please use my discussion page.
Liné1 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I entered an entry in Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Cronquist_in_Commons to solve the ITIS problem. Liné1 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I wasn't aware that pages like that were private. On one or two other occasions with such edits, I got thanks from the user for making corrections before they went 'live' with subpages. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

MPF, I got permission to take a number of photographs of Blume's Flora Javae, a very rare work. When I took the photographs, I was assisted half a day by a staff member of Groningen University Library. They appreciate it very much if I add a statement to the effect of "Courtesy of Groningen University Library staff" to the pictures I upload to Wikimedia Commons, and it will help me a great deal if I want to get permission for taking pictures of other works in the department valuable books in the future. In the end, Wikimedia Commons will also profit from it. Can you at least explain why you deleted the courtesy notes in all my files from Flora Java? And don't you think it would have been a good idea to inform me of your wish to delete the notes and the reason why, and to try to reach some kind of understanding, instead of just boldly deleting them? - Wikiklaas (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, I was too quick. You only replaced the notes to the English comments. But when I added them in the upload form in "additional comments", they were placed where they ended up: under the license tag. I'm very curious why you placed them somewhere else. - Wikiklaas (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Trees

Hi MPF,

I am going back to Mexico today, but I will be coming up regularly for the next 3 months or so, and I´ll be glad to take those pictures. Yesterday I did photograph some within the landscape, and saw some beautiful junipers, but the lighting was no good. Let me see what I can rescue and will upload them. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Baker Beach full res

Please don't take it personally, I'm a bit tired of commenting on this issue and I refuse to make this FPC nomination a place for soap boxing. If you genuinely have no idea why I uploaded in this particular order: a couple of reviewers seem unable to take image size into account when reviewing. It sucks that I now have to defend myself here. I'm not the bad guy. I supply full size versions (recent ones going up to 260MP ) for all my pictures at licenses that allow simple reuse, and I have zero monetary interests or hidden agendas. Go ask some of the guys that upload downsampled to barely minimum size and use GFDL-12-only licensing. It drives me fairly mad that thos downsampled demoversions harvest supports for their so called sharpness whereas every hint of CA a normal un-oversharpend focus in my 12MP full size pictures gets picked on and used as an oppose reason. It seems like a cruel joke that I'm now getting a hard time for still making my full size version available, just under a different link, while regulars who upload only downsampled versions are not bothered at all. --Dschwen (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I wasn't aware of any of the background to this; sorry to hear about it - MPF (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Baldcyrpess

Hi MPF, It's been a while but I am pretty sure it was Lake Phelps in Pettygrew State Park NC 152.1.193.138 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) No login, sorry Jcwf (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm from zh-wiki,I want to upload pictures about China Expressways's logo,like this.What Copyright tags could I use?Could I use cc-by-2.0 ?--Rocking Man (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

really thanks,have a nice day :)--Rocking Man (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

patroling

Hi MPF! If you revert some things, could you also mark the contibuter as patrolled? that would be great!! thx. Amada44 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

see you again

Hi,nice to see you again,I just up load the pictureFile:China Expressway G98.svg,however it didn't show up,WHY????--Rocking Man (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DAMN!! I think I find out the problem,would you please delete it?--Rocking Man (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man,you rock!--Rocking Man (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Poplars?

Hi MPF!
What is visual difference between poplars Populus × canadensis and Populus nigra?
It was very old and very thick tree (was cut in this spring). The black poplar is typical plant for the central Ukraine, i don't expect to see here hybrids planted more half a century ago.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi George - they are distinguished by leaf size and shape. P. nigra has smaller leaves, with a more rhomboidal shape (angle at base of leaf around 100-150°) and only very small teeth on the margins; examples here, here, here, here, here. Populus × canadensis has larger leaves, with a more deltoid shape (angle at base of leaf around 140-190°) and larger teeth on the margins (examples here, here, here, here, here), characters which it inherits from its P. deltoides parent (example here). Unfortunately, size of the tree is not a very useful character, as P. × canadensis is so fast-growing that even quite young trees get very thick. I would also strongly suspect P. × canadensis will have been cultivated for far longer than 50 years in Ukraine (the hybrid was first made in France early in the 1700s, and hybrid trees were widespread in cultivation by 1850 onward). Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank You! I agree with your identification now.

And VI promotion must be removed or fixed (renominated?) now? --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I don't know about the VI system, what needs to be changed there. Maybe ask on the VI discussion page (I assume there is one, I haven't looked!) - MPF (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews

Hi MPF,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying File:Commonsnipe67.jpg - again!

Hi,

I recently found this image with the wrong public-domain tag. This led me to find the original image and link to it, so I could add the proper tag. In the process, I found two copies of the image, both on the US Fish & Wildlife Service's site, with contradictory identifications. I notice that you were the one who changed the identification back in 2008 from Common Snipe to Wilson's Snipe. Unfortunately, the Common Snipe source looks just slightly more reliable to me than the other source.

So would you mind re-confirming that your identification is not (only) based on that other source I found?

Thanks!

Ken g6 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken - definitely Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata. It is a matter of recent taxonomic revision - in the past, Wilson's Snipe used to be considered just a subspecies of Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago (as the subspecies Gallinago gallinago delicata). Since the photo was taken in North America, it can't be what is now treated as Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago sensu stricto, formerly subspecies Gallinago gallinago gallinago), as that is restricted to the Old World. The second ref is just using out-of-date terminology. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Linebreaks

Hi MPF, dont know what happened here, maybe a bug using an external editing software? --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your vote

Hi MPF, thanks for the comment on my image. I added the borders between frames: File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpg. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Magnolia identities

Hi MPF, thanks for your compliment on my talk page and thanks for taking notice. As I don't know whether you check my talk page, I thought I'd better drop a note here. There are many more Magnolia pictures in the "unidentified" category that can easily be placed better than there, and I will continue to do that. I'm less concerned with the file names since I guess users will find the files they are looking for if they are placed in the right category. But I certainly wouldn't mind if you do that bit of the job as I was not granted the right to change filenames when I asked for it. Cheers. - Wikiklaas (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, MPF, I just corrected the situation round Magnolia dianica / Magnolia laevifolia / Michelia yunnanensis and saw you were the one that made Michelia laevifolia the redundant category. I thought I'd better explain this to you then. The nomenclatural history of Michelia laevifolia is quite complicated but the name was published validly by Law & Wu in 1988 (Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 8(3): 72-73, fig. 2). The name Magnolia dianica was proposed by Sima & Figlar in 2001 (Yunnan Forest. Sci. Technol. 2: 30) as a nom. nov. for Michelia yunnanensis Franch. ex Finet & Gagnep. upon transfer to Magnolia, since the epithet yunnanensis was not available because of Magnolia yunnanensis (Hu) Noot. 1985 (= Parakmeria yunnanensis Hu). If Michelia laevifolia and Michelia yunnanensis are considered conspecific (as they are by the vast majority of botanists, including Nooteboom), then the oldest available name has to be used for the taxon (In Michelia this is yunnanensis). In Magnolia, the epithet yunnanensis is not available as already stated and also the epithet dandyi (Michelia dandyi Hu, 1937, considered a synonym for M. yunnanensis Finet & Gagnep. by Chen & Nooteboom, 1993) was unavailable, being already taken by Magnolia dandyi Gagnep. 1939. The epithet of the taxonomic synonym laevifolia however was available and dated from 1988, much earlier than dianica which was only published in 2001. I don't know why this has not yet been corrected on the website of the Magnolia Society, where it is Dick Figlar himself who keeps the nomenclature up-to-date, but in this case we must rely on published scientific articles and flora's, like Flora of China (2008): 86-87, where the three names I started with are treated as synonyms, and thus Magnolia dianica has to be rejected in favour of Magnolia laevifolia. - Wikiklaas (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MPF, nice to talk to you again. I sort of finished my round on Magnolia pictures and moved the ones that were clearly miscategorized. When I was not sure, I left them where they were. I guess there still will be some Magnolia × soulangeana pictures amongst the liliiflora's and an occasional salicifolia in category kobus or vice versa. The three campbellii pics from Parc floral in Paris might turn out to be hybrids but for the moment I'm quite comfortable to have them in category campbellii. At least they look very much like true campbellii flowers and are better placed here than in category "acuminata" or in "cultivars" or "unidentified". Meanwhile I came upon a dozen or so of files that had misleading filenames. Some tripetala's that were in fact obovata; some sieboldii's that represented × loebneri Leonard Messel. An occasional Mulan being in fact Saucer. I marked them all with a template for renaming. It turned out to be too cumbersome to keep a record of the files. I used the copy and paste function of my keyboard for copying and pasting the Information template and typing names in full just to be able to send them to you for renaming was too much of a burden. I requested the right for renaming files (filemover) a couple of days ago but was denied it on the basis of "not enough experience". When I asked what kind of experience the moderator was looking for it stayed painfully quiet at the other end of the line, so I still have no idea in what field I should improve myself before applying again and how many edits I will have to do or how many files I will have to upload or what kind of tricks I would have to practice before I qualify. Can you shed some light on that for me please? It would have been really handy if I could have renamed files myself in the last couple of days. By the way: I "watch" this page so you can reply here. - Wikiklaas (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check them out. Sorry, not sure on the requirements for adminship offhand, I didn't become one until I had several thousand edits, probably rather more than actually needed. - MPF (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want te be an admin. The only thing I asked for was the right to rename files, which, as I pointed out, would have made my work on cleaning up the mess in the Magnolia pictures much more effective. By the way: Some Leyo advised me to apply for autopatrol rights as an alternative. I read the autopatrol rights page and I don't see any benefits for me if I would have them. Or am I wrong? - Wikiklaas (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother to answer this one: I just discovered that as of 24 March 2010 I was granted the autopatrol right, without me asking for it or anyone else thinking of informing me of the fact. So Leyo's advise too was a bit out of the order. The only thing that leaves me puzzled is: how will I ever get experience with the filemover rights if I won't be granted those rights. In real life I am a diving instructor (and speedskating instructor too) and I know the only way of learning things is to practice them. - Wikiklaas (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Quercus ident help

I was wondering if you could ident what species this tree (leaves and acorn) is? I had asked this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and User:Melburnian thought that you would be the best person to ask. Bidgee (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a Holm Oak Quercus ilex, both my ident and confirmed by a top oak expert I know in France. I'll tag the photos. - MPF (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the ident! The park where I photographed the tree has at least three of them, none are marked with the ident nor the year or circa years when it was planted (likely late 1800s to 1940s). Bidgee (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FishBase species

Hello my friend,
If you have time, could you look at my modification request on Template talk:FishBase species ?
Looks like we temporarely lost our User:Rocket000.
Thanks in advance, cheers Liné1 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Horned melons

There has been several discussions about horned melons, [5] and species with commons names or that are used in the kitchen or as fruit. Please issue a move request before moving such categories. --Foroa (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop re-creating all these improper IP-number creations. The WikiProject Tree of Life has very long accepted that species pages should use the scientific name. Many of the pages the IP number created are incorrectly formed, too, or use POV-pushing names inappropriate in an international context - MPF (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery names can be in any language, so you don't have the right to delete galleries by redirecting them . Moreover, many species have common names for their category:fruit, such as apples, bananas, pears, cherry, .... Please use proper merge procedures before merging categories with common names into the species names. --Foroa (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"many species have common names for their fruit" - that only applies to a very few major crop species with very large numbers of files. It doesn't apply to minor species with just a handful (or even just one) photo. - MPF (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That applies for many more crops than you might imagine because in that aspect, commons is in only at the beginning. Last months we have seen hundreds of exotic fruit image uploads, especially all the mango varieties. Anyway, there is a consensus not to delete galleries that have several images. So please use the proper procedures. --Foroa (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense to create these as and when they are needed, not before so. And anyway, most of those IP-created galleries were pure duplicates of existing galleries, and were not of food crop species at all. You are making it more and more difficult to do any editing here at all, if every single edit has to be approved by a week's talk page discussion before it is permitted. Commons will grind to a complete halt, and I for one, will give up and leave if this continues. - MPF (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of anonymous that do, from time to time, substantial efforts to provide media and prepare for "fruit" categories (several of them quite original ones, but several got already deleted). In the end, almost all fruit/vegetable/legumes categories will contain recipes, dishes (cakes, drinks, ...), cats for harvest, production, storage, transport and packaging, their use in art and decoration etc.. So why demotivating those people by deleting all the time their contributions by stating that it is not enough for a separate gallery. This is the way all wikipedias started and why we have some rules about deleting galleries. Helping them will be much more productive and enjoyable than trying to force everything in the taxonomy straitjacket till it explodes. --Foroa (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy isn't a straitjacket, it is an essential tool for maintining order and 'findability', and avoiding pointless duplication. When an anon creates a new gallery and category identical to an existing one but titled with a very obscure local variant name as a parallel universe of galleries and categories, how is that helpful? While perhaps not vandalism within the strict sense, it is getting borderline close to it, and certainly isn't helping Commons. Also, what "substantial efforts to provide media" has any anon made? Anons can't upload media, they need a user page to do so. And as for contacting the anon, how? From the editing behaviour, all the IP numbers are clearly the work of a single contributor, who has shown no evidence of any willingness to respond to points made by others on the respective talk pages. Highly unlikely that the contributor will ever even see the notes, as the next time s/he edits it will be with another new IP number and s/he won't get the 'New messages' prompt. - MPF (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chestnutbanded Plover blue cast

...appreciate your processing of the image. It looks much more natural. Prashanthns (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Thomas_Rowlandson_-_Vaux-Hall_-_Dr._Johnson,_Oliver_Goldsmith,_Mary_Robinson,_et_al.jpg

Moved, per request. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Flexopecten glaber ponticus

The Scallop Flexopecten glaber ponticus began to disappear quickly after invasion of Veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) in the Black sea in XX Century (was found after 1947). Rapana venosa is predator and eats other mollusc and crabs. Oysters became very rare, mussels too have suffered.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting galleries for which there is no consensus

Please stop deleting galleries for which there is no consensus --Foroa (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus for merging - MPF (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Category talk:Horned melons No consensus whatsoever. It is not because you start another discussion elsewhere that you gain consensus. --Foroa (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dracæna Draco rename

Regarding your recent reneaming of File:Dracæna Draco, Nordisk familjebok.png to File:Dracaena draco, Nordisk familjebok.png. The original name wasn't a typo but the spelling as it was given in the original source [6]. As such I believe it's the best filname (and definitly the correct file description/caption) for the image. Obviously it would still be categorised as Dracaena draco and link to Dracaena draco but it's important to maintain the original info as well. /Lokal_Profil 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think the file should retain its Nordisk familjebok filename, OK, but I'd say the description should be more on the lines of "''[[Dracaena draco]]'' [Nordisk familjebok spelling Dracæna Draco] ..." - MPF (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Erle im Tümpel 3701.JPG

Hello MPF, I thank You for identification. Greetings --Hedwig Storch (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2010-05-25-Video-Meise-2.ogg

Hello MPF, are You very sure that the bird is a "Blue tit" (Cyanistes caeruleus) and not a "Great tit" (parus major)? Then I have to change the trailer. Regards, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definite. The Blue Tit head pattern is clear when it sticks its head out of the box each time just before leaving, and also when it perches in the tree on flying in. - MPF (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the trailer and the description of related images. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of plants by day taken

JFYI, I'll stop adding plant images to these cats only after they are nominated for deletion and deleted. Until that I'll keep adding them, regardless of whether you'll keep deleting these cats from image pages or not. Cmapm (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What use are they? If you really want files categorised by date, would it not make far more sense to auto-encode the "|Date=" syntax in the information box into hidden date categories? That way, every file in the whole of Commons would be categorised automatically without having to edit each one. - MPF (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you've got them all wrongly formatted to fit with commons standards; they should be titled by day-month, not month-day - MPF (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, Cmapm. I looked for a relevant discussion on your talk or user page without success. MPF's suggestion to auto-encode the date may be helpful. Please see ru:ISO_8601 for the date format. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/07/Category:Images of plants taken on June 1 for a deletion request for these categories. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aubépine de Bouquetot

It is a Crataegus Oxyacantha - Best regards Gérard (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! PS C. oxyacantha is a synonym of Crataegus laevigata ;-) MPF (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gardens in Sweden

Hi MPF, I saw you changed the category "Quercus" in File:Hartekamp cropped.jpg, introduced there by Foroa, into "Gardens in Sweden", on july 19. Now I must admit that the category "Quercus" was a very bad label to go with this file, as there is no Oak to be seen, only the name "American Oak" is mentioned in the description. But where did you find the information that Hartekamp is an estate or a garden in Sweden? As this is in fact the one hundred points question in today's quizz, I'll let you ponder for a while before I will change the category into what it really should read. - Wikiklaas (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! I guess it was the Linnaean association ;-) I've changed it to Gardens in the Netherlands. Thanks for spotting it! - MPF (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And that's the correct answer in today's quizz! (And as I spotted this was not clear from the descriptions that go with the file, I'm going to add the country to the location). - Wikiklaas (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)