Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Abyssal!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Contents

Copyright status: File:Spiral burrow fossil3.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
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 OTRS 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)

Copyright status: File:Spiral burrow fossil4.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
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 OTRS 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)

Spiral burrowsEdit

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)

Fossil categoriesEdit

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)

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

Category:Tyrannosaurus_life_historyEdit

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

Category:Traces_of_fossil_shells_in_Vaires-sur-MarneEdit

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

Category:OrnithischiaEdit

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)

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)

Category:DicloniusEdit

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

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)

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)

skulls and skeletzons categoriesEdit

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)

Rugops specimen categoryEdit

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)

Image without licenseEdit

File:A Continuation of Researches Among the Batrachia of the Coal Measures of Ohio.pdfEdit

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


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)


File:Paleontological Bulletin Volume 9.pdfEdit

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


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)


File:Paleontological Bulletin Volume 8.pdfEdit

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


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)


File:Verbal Communication on a New Locality of the Green River Shales containing Fishes Insects and Plants in a Good State of Preservation.pdfEdit

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


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)


File:Third Notice of Extinct Vertebrata From the Tertiary of the Plains.pdfEdit

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


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)


File:Third Contribution to the History of the Vertebrata of the Permian Formation of Texas.pdfEdit

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


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)

Identification of an assumed prehistoric toothEdit

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)

@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)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
“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)

Category:Artistic_restorations_of_prehistoric_lifeEdit

Themightyquill (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Gopherus_polyphemus_behaviorEdit

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

Category:Inaccurate_Stegosauria_restorationsEdit

IJReid (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cladograms_including_AnatidaeEdit

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

Category:1840s_publications_and_works_in_paleontologyEdit

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

Return to the user page of "Abyssal".