User:Polinova

One of my goals as a Wikipedian is to add media (primarily photographs) of animals (primarily birds) in order to benefit the quality of various animal related pages. I have been an amateur wildlife photographer and birder for many years. I generally keep track of birds using the ebird platform and I have an eBird profile of the same username.

Philosophy of adding photos

Generally all Wikipedians should follow MOS:IMG to determine when and how to update or add images to pages. For bird images in particular, the are also fairly useful guidelines for other organizations such as the Macaulay Library whose guidelines can be found here. These can be useful to determine when images will provide informational value. The Birds WikiProject home page also has great guidelines on when to add or replace (and when not to add or replace) images. I also have some personal opinions on which images are best for an encyclopedia setting.

In general, combining all of these rules can be summarized as follows: Images should be accurate representations of how you usually would see the bird. Someone who is unfamiliar with the bird should be able to look at the image and gain the relevant information about what the bird usually looks like. If your image does not appreciably increase that informational value compared to the image that is already there, you should not replace existing photos.

The following is my brief list of standards for uploading photos of birds:

When in doubt, users should not remove or replace other user's photos.

Users no doubt worked hard on their edits and taking their photos. They got there first and uploaded great photos. If you really want to upload new photos you can, but we should only replace images when there would be a clear improvement in terms of the informational value of the image.

If infobox photos should be replaced but would be useful elsewhere in the article, move them instead of simply removing them.

Don't just remove people's work if it can still be of service to the article.

Images should be high enough quality so they do not appear pixelated.

Images of lower quality

Earlier infobox picture of brown-headed nuthatch. This picture is very good for having been taken in 2008. However it is fairly pixelated and the lighting could be better. I replaced it in 2025.

Earlier infobox picture of a pygmy nuthatch. While this photo is also a little pixelated (having been taken in 2006), it does not detract much from the informational value of the image. It is a phenomenal shot. I would not object to someone replacing it but this is an edge case.

Images do not need to be excessively large. A photo is not better just because it has more pixels. This is not a competition of who can print the biggest billboard. The purpose of these images is for people reading an encyclopedia to see a thumbnail in the corner, and be able to gain information from that image. No additional information about the bird is really gained after a certain point. But Images need to be high resolution enough that the lack of pixels does not detract from the informational value of the image. The lack of pixels should not be what people notice before the bird itself. Newer photos tend to be higher resolution but this does not make them inherently better or mean we should just overwrite old photos. We should default to leaving old photos up unless they are clearly lacking or if replacing them would be a clear improvement.

When more pixels isn't everything

An extremely high resolution image of a bufflehead. But this image could be improved by having the subject fill the frame and show off more of the bird in better lighting in contrast to the background. It is a fantastic shot (buffles are difficult to photograph) but it is not the best encyclopedia thumbnail image. Much of the feather detail in the whites is lost and the darks are hard to see as well.

A slightly less high resolution image of a bufflehead. Nonetheless it is a much better encyclopedia representation of what a bufflehead looks like. It fills the frame and has better contrast. The lack of resolution does not detract from this image's use in the thumbnail of an encyclopedia.

Infobox images should show much or all of the bird and relevant field markings.

Former infobox photo of the Peruvian Booby. It is a good photo showing markings such as the white underbelly and brown wings. However it is missing key markings such as the grey feet and red eyes which are used to differentiate it from species such as the Blue-footed booby.

You may have some great photos of birds that show off just their face or have them posed in interesting ways where part of there body is obscured. For an encyclopedia, the purpose of photos (especially infobox photos) is to give a good visual of the bird in general, not to simply have an artistic shot. Infobox images should show as many markings as possible that make that bird recognizable as itself. This usually means images in profile are best. Images should show someone what they bird looks like in general or show off a specific aspect of the bird being demonstrated. For this reason, headshots or partial shots of the bird are not the best for the infobox.

The bird should be looking at or towards the camera

If possible, the infobox image should not have the bird looking away.

The background of the bird should not impact the viewer's perspective of the bird or distract from the subject.

If your image has weird lines or optical illusions that make the bird hard to visually parse, then that is impacting the informational value of the image

Most or all of the bird should be in sharp focus.
The bird should be in a somewhat standard position or pose.

There are great photos of birds stretching or rousing so that they are puffed up. Images (especially infoboxes) should be of the bird in a position you would normally see them in the wild. The informational value of the image lies in its ability to convey what the bird looks like. If the bird doesn't usually look like that then it isn't a good photo for an encyclopedia.

The subject should fill the image.

Don't just have a small bird in the corner of a huge field. If the point of the image is the informational value of showing the bird, the bird should fill (at least most of) the field of view. The purpose of encyclopedia images is information, not artistic expression.

Wikipedia also allows you to crop the image seen in the infobox using CCS Image Crop while leaving the image untouched if you click on it to see the full image. In many cases if you want to submit an atristically cropped photo, you can use this to still center and frame the bird properly in the thumbnail.

Infobox image of a Kelp Gull cropped to center the bird.

The subject should not be partially obscured or in shadow.

This is Wikipedia there are enough contributors that someone should have a shot that is fully and properly illuminated and in the shot.

Images meant to show a type of bird should not show multiple types of bird.
When possible or applicable, images should show the bird's eye in focus.
In cases of sexual dimorphism, there should be a infobox image that includes both sexes or one photo of each.

In cases of a breeding and nonbreeding, or winter plumage, one of each should be shown in the info box.

In the case of sexual dimorphism, I think showing the male and female should take priority over different plumages, however the different plumages should be shown in the article.

In the case of immature vs adult plumage, images should only be added to the infobox if there is only one adult plumage.

Only if there is no sexual dimorphism, and there is no separate breeding and nonbreeding plumage.

Immature plumage in infobox

Adult American white ibis. This is a good first infobox image of the bird.

Immature plumage. The American white ibis is an example of a bird with only one adult plumage and a commonly seen separate juvenile plumage. In this rare case it should be added as a second infobox image.

It is preferable to have images of birds in the wild

This is a looser rule. Obviously there are exceptions for birds that are extinct in the wild like the Guam Kingfisher. It also doesn't matter much if it's just a photo of a duck in water that could just as well be in the wild. But for the most part I think it is better to see the bird in its natural habitat rather than in an artificial captured one. Captive birds are also often tagged so that you can see bands or flags that wouldn't normally be on the bird. There are also some pictures where the bird is in the hands of a rescuer or rehabber. Obviously these are not the best image to see how you would normally see this bird in the wild.

Images in captivity

Earlier infobox picture of Magellanic Penguin taken at the San Francisco Zoo. This is a nice picture that shows the bird pretty well. However the setting is artificial concrete rather than the beach or dirt nests where you would find them in the wild. The bird also has a wing band that you would not normally see on a wild bird.

Former infobox image for Virginia's warbler being held in hand. Needless to say this is not how the bird would normally be seen.

The bird should not be molting, wet, or raggedy looking

We want images where the bird has its normal plumage. If its feathers are not pristine then it is not the best representation. This also goes for other deformities such as overgrown beaks. A falcon beak should look like a falcon beak. A bird should not look plucked due to molting unless that is what is being shown.