Open main menu

Image without licenseEdit

File:Moros intrepidus.pngEdit

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) 07:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Just a head's up about this user, who is making a nuisance of himself generally, and continuing to make specious deletion requests --Epipelagic (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I think a block would be in order, but I might be too involved, because he also DRed some of my uploads... FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Tendaguru diplodocidsEdit

Hi FunkMonk, I wouldn't upload images if they are not free, see the link provided. I may have selected CC-BY-4.0 instead of 3.0, but the work of the journal Fossil Record is released under the CC-BY license. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, better to use that link instead of the PDF then, otherwise it's impossible to verify. The PDF just says the publisher owns the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files like this[1] have the same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

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

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Soldier of Wasteland (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

“Strange rationale”Edit

Good point: why should an object that is not in focus be considered in the categorization of the file? What exactly is the benefit in such a practice? To be honest, this is one of the strangest things I observe on Commons: Photographs are categorized because of things that are somewhere in the background, hardly recognizable, or make up a small to tiny portion of the photograph. This is ridiculous IMHO... --Gretarsson (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If people for example look for images that depict various kinds of pterosaurs together, or in this case, Brazilian pterosaurs, or pterosaurs from the Romualdo Formation. There are more reasons for the category than not. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. No one searches a particular category in order to find a blurry thing in the background. It’s just stupid to think so... --Gretarsson (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
And sorry, that’s not it. Imagine you are looking for a particular skeletal mount and you are guided via the categories to a photograph in which the object you are looking for is a blurry thing in the background. Wouldn’t you feel screwed? --Gretarsson (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you're so aggressive about this, it is a trivial issue, so the tone of this discussion is nonsense in itself. Yes, it is very likely someone would look for images that show multiple taxa from the same countries or formations, since I have just done so myself. It also serves to identify the subjects of the photos if they aren't in the description. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
In don’t think that this is trivial, but that this is something very elementary. Don’t you think it would make more sense to mention details like the things appearing in the background in the description than to categorize the file correspondingly? I often notice that users here on commons apparently believe that the file name and the categories are the elements that should be used to describe (sic!) the content of the file/photograph, whereas the actual file description contains almost nothing. Isn’t that strange? Many files are almost useless because of improper file description. Especially your files often give a “good” example for improper file descriptions, so I wonder what “informations” are you actually talking about. The description of the file in question contains the words “Thalassodromeus - 01”, and that’s it. The file name says “Thalassodromeus in Japan”. How should anyone know that Thalassodromeus is a taxon from of Brazil, not from Japan, an that it occurs together with Anhanguera in the Santana Group without wildly clicking through the categories (which could be wrong btw)? If I am looking for reliable informations on fossil taxa, I surely don’t do it at Commons, for several reasons. And regarding the “multiple taxa” thing: If these taxa are all in focus, multiple categorization would be fine (but would also depend on degree of information detail and number -- some of those figures should rather be treated as representation of the diversity of the group than as representations of individual taxa, e.g. this one), but if only one is in focus and all other are blurry somewhere in the background it would not... --Gretarsson (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
We are going in circles, and I simply disagree. But for example, I mention in the Thalassodromeus taxobox caption what other genus is shown in the background, which helps the reader distinguish the two. If it is helpful there, it is certainly helpful here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "FunkMonk".