Overleg gebruiker:Jonagold2000: verschil tussen versies
Laatste reactie: 6 jaar geleden door Wikiklaas in het onderwerp Afbeelding Betasuchus
Verwijderde inhoud Toegevoegde inhoud
→Afbeelding Betasuchus: what a strange debate: comparing three completely known animals with one of which only a femur is known |
|||
| Regel 36: | Regel 36: | ||
:::::::::::The point her is not "images created by amateurs" but amateurs using their own fantasy to create (parts of) images, in stead of basing themselves upon statements written by experts, or upon images published by experts but not admissible to Commons because of copyright issues. {{Gebruiker:Wikiklaas/Autograph-new}} 2 feb 2018 11:39 (CET) |
:::::::::::The point her is not "images created by amateurs" but amateurs using their own fantasy to create (parts of) images, in stead of basing themselves upon statements written by experts, or upon images published by experts but not admissible to Commons because of copyright issues. {{Gebruiker:Wikiklaas/Autograph-new}} 2 feb 2018 11:39 (CET) |
||
::::::::::::I am confused by the contradictory information then. Nobu Tamura is very much an amateur. He was first an artist here on wikipedia, and many of his old, inaccurate images can still be seen (''[[Agilisaurus]]'', ''[[Thecodontosaurus]]''). He has simply got better as an artist, while still being very much an amateur. For example, the ''[[Mosasaurus]]'' by Nobu Tamura does not have correct amounts of muscle and tissue, and the tail does not have the known mosasaur bi-lobed shape with a downturned tail end. So this image should be removed because it displays incorrect information. [[Gebruiker:IJReid|IJReid]] ([[Overleg gebruiker:IJReid|overleg]]) 3 feb 2018 01:41 (CET) |
::::::::::::I am confused by the contradictory information then. Nobu Tamura is very much an amateur. He was first an artist here on wikipedia, and many of his old, inaccurate images can still be seen (''[[Agilisaurus]]'', ''[[Thecodontosaurus]]''). He has simply got better as an artist, while still being very much an amateur. For example, the ''[[Mosasaurus]]'' by Nobu Tamura does not have correct amounts of muscle and tissue, and the tail does not have the known mosasaur bi-lobed shape with a downturned tail end. So this image should be removed because it displays incorrect information. [[Gebruiker:IJReid|IJReid]] ([[Overleg gebruiker:IJReid|overleg]]) 3 feb 2018 01:41 (CET) |
||
:::::::::::::Look. Of the three taxa you mention, much more was found than just half a femur. The skeletons of these animals are up to completely known, and because earth's gravity is the same now as it was in their era, it makes sense to create a reconstruction including muscels, tendons and the lot, based upon the same principles dictating the locomotive apparatus of a modern vertebrate. And of course numerous of these reconstructions have been made. By experts. There exists a whole body of specialist literature that can be used to create images for Wikipedia. And of course experts disagree on certain aspects of reconstructions, and opinions change over time. But there is a lot of '''knowledge''' on these three taxa that we like to see incorporated in Wikipedia. Including old and, with hindsight, erroneous reconstructions. And of course if this is done correctly, the sources are mentioned, and critical remarks made by expert scientists on some details of a reconstruction should also be mentioned. But all of this is a totally different story from ''Betasuchus''. Wikipedia has absolutely no task in filling in gaps in current knowledge. Wikipedia makes current knowledge freely available. There is no room for original research. |
|||
:::::::::::::''An image is absolutely a wonderful thing'' but there is one basic condition: there has to be something that can be depicted. What's the point of creating an image of a subject no one knows what it looked like. It is nothing less than deliberately deceiving our readers if we present them with an image based on nothing else but our own fantasy. In this case, such a bogus picture would, in the absence of anything sensible, erroneously become attached to the name ''Betasuchus'', and Wikipedia would have to take the blame for it. {{Gebruiker:Wikiklaas/Autograph-new}} 3 feb 2018 14:20 (CET) |
|||
Versie van 3 feb 2018 15:20
Welkom
.svg){kind=small}
Leer Wikipedia te begrijpen
Help mee
Persoonlijke hulp
Andere handige pagina's
Hallo Jonagold2000, van harte welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!
Hartelijk dank voor je belangstelling voor Wikipedia! We werken hier aan een encyclopedie die vrij beschikbaar, vrij bewerkbaar, en zo volledig en neutraal als mogelijk is. We waarderen het enorm dat ook jij hieraan wilt bijdragen!
In het menuutje hiernaast zie je enkele handige pagina's. Geen van de richtlijnen die in die pagina's beschreven staan moet overigens gezien worden als wet, want Wikipedia is en blijft vóór alles vrij bewerkbaar. Ze zijn alleen bedoeld als houvast.
Deze pagina, die nu op je scherm staat, is trouwens je persoonlijke overlegpagina, de plaats waar je berichten van andere Wikipedianen ontvangt en beantwoordt. Iedere gebruiker heeft zo'n pagina. Wil je een bericht voor iemand anders achterlaten, dan doe je dat dus op zijn of haar overlegpagina. Sluit je bijdragen op overlegpagina's altijd af met vier tildes, dus zo: ~~~~. Je bericht wordt dan automatisch ondertekend met je gebruikersnaam en de datum en tijd waarop je je boodschap voltooide.
Ga vooral aan de slag!
Met vriendelijke groet,
Mvg, .svg){kind=small}
TheDragonhunter | Vragen? 5 jan 2018 23:37 (CET)
Afbeelding Betasuchus
Er staat nota bene letterlijk in het artikel Betasuchus dat er gezien het gebrek aan gegevens, weinig te zeggen valt over het uiterlijk van de soort. Geheel in weerwil daarvan, en zonder enige vorm van verantwoording, presenteer je daar een afbeelding. Dan ben je toch niet goed bij je hoofd? Je negeert volledig de context van het artikel en plaatst er een afbeelding bij die op niks anders gebaseerd kan zijn dan op je eigen fantasie: er is immers over het uiterlijk niks zinvols te zeggen! Hoe haal je het dan in je hoofd om zo'n onverantwoord stuk geknoei te plaatsen, en als dat gemotiveerd verwijderd wordt zelfs weer terug te plaatsen? WIKIKLAAS overleg 6 jan 2018 00:02 (CET)
- Ik zal bronnen toevoegen. Het is letterlijk niks anders dan gewoon een standaard abelisauride. Er is niet echt iets bijzonders aan.
- Er is wél iets bijzonders aan: je weet, op basis van een gebrek aan gegevens, niet waarover je het hebt, en jij probeert door middel van een illustratie de indruk te wekken dat dat anders is. Dat is een geval van misleiding, en de encyclopedie moet op dat punt onverbiddelijk zijn. Geen ruimte voor
dat soort geprutseigen fantasie! WIKIKLAAS overleg 6 jan 2018 00:41 (CET)
- Er is wél iets bijzonders aan: je weet, op basis van een gebrek aan gegevens, niet waarover je het hebt, en jij probeert door middel van een illustratie de indruk te wekken dat dat anders is. Dat is een geval van misleiding, en de encyclopedie moet op dat punt onverbiddelijk zijn. Geen ruimte voor
- Hoi Jonagold2000, ik denk dat we op grond van de beschikbare gegevens niet veel kunnen en (hier mogen) zeggen over het uiterlijk. Zoals je weet, kunnen zelfs nauw verwante soorten toch er anders uitzien. Het leek mij beter de afbeeldingen te verwijderen. Ik waardeer je aanzet en je tekenkunst, maar je tekening past niet op wikipedia. mvg HenriDuvent 31 jan 2018 11:57 (CET)
- Nu ik het bericht van Henriduvent lees, denk ik dat ik ook wel wat vriendelijker woorden had kunnen kiezen. Ik deed dat niet omdat ik verontwaardigd was dat je de afbeelding onmiddellijk weer terugplaatste nadat ik die met duidelijke motivering had verwijderd. Wikipedia is niet de plek om je eigen fantasieën als "reconstructie" te verkopen. Het halve bot dat als enige tot nu toe ooit van Betasuchus is gevonden, is door diverse onderzoekers in de loop der tijd al in diverse, niet erg nauw aan elkaar verwante groepen geplaatst. Het is dus duidelijk dat we ruim onvoldoende weten voor ook maar het begin van een reconstructie. Om dan te beweren dat er "niets bijzonders aan" is, en net te doen of je weet dat het een "standaard abelisauride" is, is erg onzorgvuldig. Maar zoals gezegd: ik had dat ook wel wat neutraler kunnen verwoorden. Vandaar dat ik hierbij nog eens een poging doe, met excuus voor de eerste. WIKIKLAAS overleg 31 jan 2018 19:19 (CET)
- Ik snap jullie zorg, en zal de afbeelding van de pagina houden. Ik dacht dat het noemen van de groep die gebruikt is, in dit geval abelisauridae, duidelijk genoeg was dat het een speculatieve reconstructie was. Ik bedoelde niet dat ik zeker weet dat Betasuchus een standaard abelisauride is maar dat mijn afbeelding een reconstructie was van Betasuchus als een standaard abelisauride. Bedankt voor uw excuus, ik snap achteraf dat het nogal apart over kan komen om zomaar een afbeelding van zo'n fragmentarische soort erbij te zetten zonder duidelijke onderbouwing. Met vriendelijke groet, Jonagold2000 (overleg) 31 jan 2018 22:40 (CET)
- Hartelijk dank voor je begripvolle reactie. Enkele Nederlandse gebruikers hebben inmiddels ook actie ondernomen op de Engels- en Spaanstalige wikipedia, hopelijk heb je ook daarvor begrip, mvg HenriDuvent 31 jan 2018 23:36 (CET)
- ENGLISH: I was brought here because of the image deletion from the english wikipedia, which goes directly against our goal on that wikipedia at least, which is to best present the taxa to general people. An image is absolutely a wonderful thing there, and it does not violate any of our guidelines. We have even put it through our dinosaur image accuracy review, and there was nothing clearly wrong with it besides its speculative nature. Betasuchus is a more complete taxon than stuff like Gojirasaurus, which has an image by Nobu Tamura, so the speculation is not a reason for removal. Please keep your own-language wiki consensus to your own-language wiki, I do not appreciate having to translate dutch simply to make a point that the removal of the image from the english Betasuchus page is not appreciated. IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 02:23 (CET)
- An image is absolutely a wonderful thing if it can be made with a certain kind of accuracy. If from a specific kind of animal only half of one bone was ever preserved, and scientists cannot even agree upon the major group of animals it has to be placed in, it is ridiculous to even think it would be possible to give a general idea of what the animal must have looked like. Even if one only tries to make a reconstruction of an extinct animal, the reconstruction has to be based on expert opinions to be admissable as a general illustration on Wikipedia; if a "reconstruction" appears to be based on the creators own fantasies, as was done here, it is not someting one can use to "illustrate" the extinct animal. To create an image based upon ones own ideas on a creature, when the context says too little is known to create a reconstruction, is a seriuous breach of the No original research guideline. It is nothing more than deceiving readers with the idea a general representation of the animal can be given while scientists say that is not possible. WIKIKLAAS overleg 1 feb 2018 03:01 (CET)
- There are guidelines on the english wikipedia in WP:GOO that specifically make images exempt from the original research issues (Wikipedia:Geen_origineel_onderzoek#Originele_afbeeldingen). This is so that life restorations of any taxon that weren't from a published paper can be used. Art by Nobu Tamura on Mosasaurus for example is original research, not to mention that it is inaccurate because of the poor musculature and proportions. Also, photographs of fossils that aren't from published papers are also original research unless they contain the museum label which can be traced to a taxon through a verifiable source like museum websites. IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 06:15 (CET)
- This is not the English Wikipedia. And as I tried to explain in the above, even a "live restoration" should be based upon some expert opinion about what a taxon must have looked like. We cannot accept amateur users to create images based upon their own fantasy and upload them as "live reconstructions". In this case the "species" has been placed in Megalosaurus, in Ornithomimosauria (Friedrich von Huene), in Abelisauridae (Le Loeuff & Buffetaut), or as a close relative to Dryptosaurus in Tyrannosauroidea (Carpenter, Russell & Baird). The only reasonable thing to do here would be to provide images of representatives of these groups, so the reader will have a feel of the uncertainties. Presenting just one image as the live restoration is doing the opposite, and gives the false idea that anything can be reconstructed with some certainty. Jonagold2000 stating it was "no more than a standard abelisaurid" ignored three other possibilities. Lifting the WP:GOO-guideline for images was never meant to be abused in the way you seem to do here. WIKIKLAAS overleg 1 feb 2018 10:48 (CET)
- I'd like to point out then that the restorations for both Megalosaurus and Dryptosaurus are by amateurs, and that not enough of either is known to accuratly restore the taxon without using relatives, which is exactly what jonagold2000 has done. Betasuchus has not been considered a megalosaur or ornithomimosaur for a very long time, and as of right now the only other proposed possibility was it as a tyrannosaur by an author in the 1990s/early 2000s. There should be nothing wrong with stating the restoration is a "speculative restoration as an abelisaur". IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 15:50 (CET)
- I'd also like to point out Ijrijd is talking about the English version and not the Dutch. See, 'I was brought here because of the image deletion from the english wikipedia, which goes directly against our goal on that wikipedia at least, which is to best present the taxa to general people. An image is absolutely a wonderful thing there, and it does not violate any of our guidelines.' And you might've misinterpreted my statement, the 'no more than a standard abelisaur' was talking about the image, not the animals itself. Greetings, Jonagold2000 (overleg) 1 feb 2018 20:13 (CET)
- The point her is not "images created by amateurs" but amateurs using their own fantasy to create (parts of) images, in stead of basing themselves upon statements written by experts, or upon images published by experts but not admissible to Commons because of copyright issues. WIKIKLAAS overleg 2 feb 2018 11:39 (CET)
- I am confused by the contradictory information then. Nobu Tamura is very much an amateur. He was first an artist here on wikipedia, and many of his old, inaccurate images can still be seen (Agilisaurus, Thecodontosaurus). He has simply got better as an artist, while still being very much an amateur. For example, the Mosasaurus by Nobu Tamura does not have correct amounts of muscle and tissue, and the tail does not have the known mosasaur bi-lobed shape with a downturned tail end. So this image should be removed because it displays incorrect information. IJReid (overleg) 3 feb 2018 01:41 (CET)
- Look. Of the three taxa you mention, much more was found than just half a femur. The skeletons of these animals are up to completely known, and because earth's gravity is the same now as it was in their era, it makes sense to create a reconstruction including muscels, tendons and the lot, based upon the same principles dictating the locomotive apparatus of a modern vertebrate. And of course numerous of these reconstructions have been made. By experts. There exists a whole body of specialist literature that can be used to create images for Wikipedia. And of course experts disagree on certain aspects of reconstructions, and opinions change over time. But there is a lot of knowledge on these three taxa that we like to see incorporated in Wikipedia. Including old and, with hindsight, erroneous reconstructions. And of course if this is done correctly, the sources are mentioned, and critical remarks made by expert scientists on some details of a reconstruction should also be mentioned. But all of this is a totally different story from Betasuchus. Wikipedia has absolutely no task in filling in gaps in current knowledge. Wikipedia makes current knowledge freely available. There is no room for original research.
- An image is absolutely a wonderful thing but there is one basic condition: there has to be something that can be depicted. What's the point of creating an image of a subject no one knows what it looked like. It is nothing less than deliberately deceiving our readers if we present them with an image based on nothing else but our own fantasy. In this case, such a bogus picture would, in the absence of anything sensible, erroneously become attached to the name Betasuchus, and Wikipedia would have to take the blame for it. WIKIKLAAS overleg 3 feb 2018 14:20 (CET)
- I am confused by the contradictory information then. Nobu Tamura is very much an amateur. He was first an artist here on wikipedia, and many of his old, inaccurate images can still be seen (Agilisaurus, Thecodontosaurus). He has simply got better as an artist, while still being very much an amateur. For example, the Mosasaurus by Nobu Tamura does not have correct amounts of muscle and tissue, and the tail does not have the known mosasaur bi-lobed shape with a downturned tail end. So this image should be removed because it displays incorrect information. IJReid (overleg) 3 feb 2018 01:41 (CET)
- The point her is not "images created by amateurs" but amateurs using their own fantasy to create (parts of) images, in stead of basing themselves upon statements written by experts, or upon images published by experts but not admissible to Commons because of copyright issues. WIKIKLAAS overleg 2 feb 2018 11:39 (CET)
- I'd also like to point out Ijrijd is talking about the English version and not the Dutch. See, 'I was brought here because of the image deletion from the english wikipedia, which goes directly against our goal on that wikipedia at least, which is to best present the taxa to general people. An image is absolutely a wonderful thing there, and it does not violate any of our guidelines.' And you might've misinterpreted my statement, the 'no more than a standard abelisaur' was talking about the image, not the animals itself. Greetings, Jonagold2000 (overleg) 1 feb 2018 20:13 (CET)
- I'd like to point out then that the restorations for both Megalosaurus and Dryptosaurus are by amateurs, and that not enough of either is known to accuratly restore the taxon without using relatives, which is exactly what jonagold2000 has done. Betasuchus has not been considered a megalosaur or ornithomimosaur for a very long time, and as of right now the only other proposed possibility was it as a tyrannosaur by an author in the 1990s/early 2000s. There should be nothing wrong with stating the restoration is a "speculative restoration as an abelisaur". IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 15:50 (CET)
- This is not the English Wikipedia. And as I tried to explain in the above, even a "live restoration" should be based upon some expert opinion about what a taxon must have looked like. We cannot accept amateur users to create images based upon their own fantasy and upload them as "live reconstructions". In this case the "species" has been placed in Megalosaurus, in Ornithomimosauria (Friedrich von Huene), in Abelisauridae (Le Loeuff & Buffetaut), or as a close relative to Dryptosaurus in Tyrannosauroidea (Carpenter, Russell & Baird). The only reasonable thing to do here would be to provide images of representatives of these groups, so the reader will have a feel of the uncertainties. Presenting just one image as the live restoration is doing the opposite, and gives the false idea that anything can be reconstructed with some certainty. Jonagold2000 stating it was "no more than a standard abelisaurid" ignored three other possibilities. Lifting the WP:GOO-guideline for images was never meant to be abused in the way you seem to do here. WIKIKLAAS overleg 1 feb 2018 10:48 (CET)
- There are guidelines on the english wikipedia in WP:GOO that specifically make images exempt from the original research issues (Wikipedia:Geen_origineel_onderzoek#Originele_afbeeldingen). This is so that life restorations of any taxon that weren't from a published paper can be used. Art by Nobu Tamura on Mosasaurus for example is original research, not to mention that it is inaccurate because of the poor musculature and proportions. Also, photographs of fossils that aren't from published papers are also original research unless they contain the museum label which can be traced to a taxon through a verifiable source like museum websites. IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 06:15 (CET)
- An image is absolutely a wonderful thing if it can be made with a certain kind of accuracy. If from a specific kind of animal only half of one bone was ever preserved, and scientists cannot even agree upon the major group of animals it has to be placed in, it is ridiculous to even think it would be possible to give a general idea of what the animal must have looked like. Even if one only tries to make a reconstruction of an extinct animal, the reconstruction has to be based on expert opinions to be admissable as a general illustration on Wikipedia; if a "reconstruction" appears to be based on the creators own fantasies, as was done here, it is not someting one can use to "illustrate" the extinct animal. To create an image based upon ones own ideas on a creature, when the context says too little is known to create a reconstruction, is a seriuous breach of the No original research guideline. It is nothing more than deceiving readers with the idea a general representation of the animal can be given while scientists say that is not possible. WIKIKLAAS overleg 1 feb 2018 03:01 (CET)
- ENGLISH: I was brought here because of the image deletion from the english wikipedia, which goes directly against our goal on that wikipedia at least, which is to best present the taxa to general people. An image is absolutely a wonderful thing there, and it does not violate any of our guidelines. We have even put it through our dinosaur image accuracy review, and there was nothing clearly wrong with it besides its speculative nature. Betasuchus is a more complete taxon than stuff like Gojirasaurus, which has an image by Nobu Tamura, so the speculation is not a reason for removal. Please keep your own-language wiki consensus to your own-language wiki, I do not appreciate having to translate dutch simply to make a point that the removal of the image from the english Betasuchus page is not appreciated. IJReid (overleg) 1 feb 2018 02:23 (CET)
- Hartelijk dank voor je begripvolle reactie. Enkele Nederlandse gebruikers hebben inmiddels ook actie ondernomen op de Engels- en Spaanstalige wikipedia, hopelijk heb je ook daarvor begrip, mvg HenriDuvent 31 jan 2018 23:36 (CET)
- Ik snap jullie zorg, en zal de afbeelding van de pagina houden. Ik dacht dat het noemen van de groep die gebruikt is, in dit geval abelisauridae, duidelijk genoeg was dat het een speculatieve reconstructie was. Ik bedoelde niet dat ik zeker weet dat Betasuchus een standaard abelisauride is maar dat mijn afbeelding een reconstructie was van Betasuchus als een standaard abelisauride. Bedankt voor uw excuus, ik snap achteraf dat het nogal apart over kan komen om zomaar een afbeelding van zo'n fragmentarische soort erbij te zetten zonder duidelijke onderbouwing. Met vriendelijke groet, Jonagold2000 (overleg) 31 jan 2018 22:40 (CET)