User talk:Abyssal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Abyssal!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Spiral burrow fossil3.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Spiral burrow fossil4.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jarekt (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral burrows

[edit]

Thanks for writing me back. The issue with your images was that they had no license. To get them undeleted you would have to go to Commons:Copyright tags and pick which license you would lik to apply. I would suggest {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} which is the current default license during upload. When you pick the license, than leave me a message and I will undelete the images. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil categories

[edit]

Hi, I see you've been editing a lot of images of fossils lately, so I was wondering whether you have found this[1] annoying? You can just comment here, that page is pretty dead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your great work changing the categories of fossils. Regards, --PePeEfe (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Tyrannosaurus life history has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Traces_of_fossil_shells_in_Vaires-sur-Marne has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Tangopaso (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abyssal,
Excellent job you are doing on dinausaures.
But having Category:Ornithischia, Category:Saurischia only under Category:Dinosauria by classification is not standard.
Taxon categories are always under taxon categories and Category:Ornithischia should be direclty under Category:Dinosauria.
Best Regards Liné1 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I created Genera of Dinosauria that will fill itself automatically when {{Taxonavigation}} is added to a genus cateory or gallery.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Category:Diclonius has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Gretarsson (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

[edit]

Just a drive by to say "Thank You!!" I apologize for my ignorance regarding categories, and am very appreciative of your diligence in seeing that images and videos are properly categorized. Atsme 📞 20:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop categorizing objects without knowing what you are actually doing?!

[edit]

You have been adding the categories Middle Triassic Reptilia, Late Triassic Reptilia, and Lopingian Reptilia to the category Procolophon. This genus, however, is restricted to the Early Triassic! So would you please inform yourself about the object that you are about to categorize before eventually categorizing it? Thanks! --Gretarsson (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

skulls and skeletzons categories

[edit]

Please categorice the categories correctly. A category like Category:Carcharodontosauridae skulls should be in, Category:Carcharodontosauridae bones if it exists, if not in Category:Carcharodontosauridae anatomy and if this doesn't exist, it should be in Category:Carcharodontosauridae, if this category doesn't exist, you should not make up Category:Carcharodontosauridae skulls. And it is not useful to make up one category for only one subcategory. --Kersti (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rugops specimen category

[edit]

Hi, given that only one specimen of Rugops is known (the jaw fragment in the category is of an unnamed genus, and probably doesn't belong there), isn't it a bit premature/redundant to make a specimen category? The point of these categories is to make images easier to find, but now we have to navigate through no less than four categories (several which are empty) to find photos of this skull (Rugops> Rugops fossils> Rugops skulls> Rugops (specimen MNN IGU1)). That's extremely excessive... In this case, having a Rugops and one Rugops fossils cateogory is way more than enough, especially with this few images and specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

[edit]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of an assumed prehistoric tooth

[edit]

I have recently relocated to North Carolina, near Wilmington. I found a tooth on a beach a few months ago of which I can only find 1 similar reference. I have poured over countless photos but am hesitant to believe that I have properly identified the tooth. Where can I have the tooth properly identified? Drthomas14 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drthomas14: Have you tried contacting the Cape Fear Museum? It's right in your neighborhood and while I don't think it specializes in natural history they may be able to help or direct you to someone who can. The fossil identification board r/fossilid on reddit may also be able to help. You could also try contacting local amateur groups like the North Carolina Fossil Club or check for less formal online groups on your preferred social media networks. Abyssal (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

[edit]

Please stop categorizing quite inclusive categories under very special categories. You can't place the categories Planolites, Rusophycus, and Cruziana, which currently AFAIK do not contain a single specimen photograph from California, in the category Paleozoic fossils of California! Only photographs of Paleozoic fossils of California should go into such a category, not whole categories of cosmopolitan genera! --Gretarsson (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gretarsson: I'm categorizing based on types of fossils found in those areas. We do have more specific subcategories for individual specimens found in those areas, eg Category:Fossils of California are the kinds of fossils one can find in California and Category:Fossils from California are individual specimens that were collected there. Abyssal (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. A fossil is not the same as a fossil (i.e. extinct) taxon. The word ‘fossil’ mainly is used as short form of ‘fossil specimen’ (e.g. “I am collecting fossils” means “I am collecting fossil specimens.” No one would ever assume that this sentence is said in order to express that someone is collecting fossil taxa. Actually no one would ever say “I am collecting fossil taxa,” because a taxon is an abstract concept which cannot be collected at all). Also it seems problematic to establish categories that have a quite different purpose whereas their names differ by one single small word (‘of’ vs. ‘from’). This difference is too subtle for non-native speakers, and I can imagine that even for a native speaker it is not intuitively clear that ‘Fossils of California’ acutually refers to fossil taxa of Californa. So you should at least change the name of that category to a less misleading one. Nevertheless I would consider such a category use- and senseless, because no one needs photographs of “fossil taxa of California” that do not show fossil specimens found in California. --Gretarsson (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gretarsson: I think a subcategory of Category:Prehistoric life of California that contains media of the fossils of those taxa is both sensible and useful. Specimens of a species found in California will be nearly identical to specimens of that species found elsewhere. Since the Wikimedia Commons may not have media of specimens obtained throughout the entirety of the range of that species, having a category for the types of fossils found in a given area will potentially allow readers access to better quality images than they would if there were only a category for specimens actually from California. However, you did make a good point about the name of the category being inadequate and I'm open to changing it. What would you prefer the new name to be? Abyssal (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“Specimens of a species found in California will be nearly identical to specimens of that species found elsewhere.” They can differ in lithology (composition of the matrix) because elsewhere they may occur in types of rocks that doesn’t occur in California. Second: Your subcategories are all on a generic level, so it is very likely that they often may include specimens of species, that doesn’t occur in California at all.
And no, a parent category Prehistoric life in Califoria is surely not self-explaining in that its subcategories are generated in order to accommodate taxa and not specimens. Therefore I recommend again that the categories for fossil taxa should renamed, so that their purpose becomes clear to the user. --Gretarsson (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category discussion warning

Artistic restorations of prehistoric life has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Themightyquill (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Gopherus_polyphemus_behavior has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Jotzet (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Stegosauria_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Cladograms including Anatidae has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:1840s_publications_and_works_in_paleontology has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museum collections

[edit]

I'm not sure I see the point of putting images of individual artifacts in Category:Museum collections from Washington (state). It doesn't seem to be the way analogous categories are used. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every institution has enough artifacts from certain locations to justify their own subcategory, so some individual items will naturally end up in a location's main collection category. Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's pointless. An individual artifact is not a museum collection, so this doesn't add anything useful. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Maybe we should rename the categories. Do you have a better idea for an "objects in museums collected from [location]" category tree? Abyssal (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting my workday right now, no time to think about it, but I will try later. I think, though, that "collections" is actually most useful when objects are within some particular collection within a museum, e.g. to distinguish for the Maryhill Museum of Art its collection of chess sets vs. its collection of Rodin sculptures. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with just something like Category:Objects in museum collections in Washington (state) is that it would also include every object that is in a category for a specific collection.
I think what is called for, if anything, is more of a maintenance category, something like Category:Objects in museum collections in Washington (state) not yet categorized by collection.
Conversely, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to set up a "collections" category for a particular museum if we have even three such photos. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: This category is for objects collected in Washington, not necessarily housed there. That's this category. Abyssal (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Then the current name is entirely misleading.
Then "objects in museums collected from [location]" makes much more sense. Not sure if "collected from" is really right, though. Maybe "objects from [location] in museum collections"? Also, is "collections" really germane here? Would this include or exclude an object on loan from a private collector and displayed in a temporary exhibit? - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: OK. I'll redirect and rename them as I go along. Abyssal (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bird subcategories

[edit]

Hi Abyssal - a few odds & ends on making new bird subcategories - first, please remember to copy in the taxonav into the new subcategory for subcategories of photos of wild birds (not needed for illustrations, museum specimens, captive or feral subcats); this is so that automated image harvesters (e.g. Encyclopedia of Life can find the images. Second, please check the nomenclature is up to date before making new subcats (e.g. Anas discors is now Spatula discors; all the extra new subcategories makes renaming them far more tedious). Third, for Old World taxa, please remember the appropriate regional spelling is "behaviour" (not "behavior"). Finally, I don't think "(distant)" is a good idea, as it is far too subjective (and in most cases wasn't anywhere near necessary either with well under 200 files in the relevant parent categories). Only create new subcategories when the parent category is "full" (>200 files) or very nearly full. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Ceratopsidae_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Ceratopsia_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Tsintaosaurus_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Hadrosauridae_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Ornithopoda_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Coelophysis_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Spinosaurus_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Ceratosauria_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Dilophosaurus_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Category:Inaccurate_Spinosauridae_restorations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


IJReid (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need your feedback!

[edit]

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Mounted Skeleton of Platecarpus.pdf 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!

P 1 9 9   18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moropus and Daphoenus cropped.png 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!

FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Megalonyx leptostomus cropped.png

[edit]
العربية  asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk nynorsk  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  简体中文‎  繁體中文‎  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Megalonyx leptostomus cropped.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Megalonyx leptostomus cropped.png]]).

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

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

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

FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titanophasma

[edit]

Hi, just to let you know, I've discovered that most of Category:Titanophasma's contents are in fact a set of unrelated cropped images you uploaded back in 2019. Somehow they all got placed in this category, rather than the categories of their source images. I already fixed some of these just now, by copying categories used in the original images, but maybe you could fix some of them yourself? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed the rest of them now, thank you! Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Megalonyx leptostomus cropped.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!

ZimskoSonce (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hulettia Fossil, from NewMexicoMuseum cropped.png 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!

Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion warning

Biological evolution by taxon has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MI Ictalurus punctatus record with human for scale.svg 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!

Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]