User talk:Cobatfor

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Copyright question[edit]

Hello Cobatfor thanks for the question, I am not really an expert but the images if credited to the air ministry should be covered by {{PD-BritishGov}} have a look at Image:Peenemunde test stand VII.jpg for an example. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

German fighting vehicles[edit]

Please, don't mess with German armoured cars and artillery tractors if you can't tell them precisely apart. For example, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-04721A, Lüneburger Heide, Manöver des VI. Armeekorps.jpg is SdKfz 231, not 232. You also categorized at least two photos of halftracks with original descriptions SdKfz. 6 and 10/4, as SdKfz 11. Finally, "Schwerer panzerspahwagen" shouldn't redirect to SdKfz.234 - in fact SdKfz.234 was only one of "Schwerer panzerspahwagen"s. pibwl (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I hope I was not too straightforward. "Leichter/Schwerer Panzerspähwagen" were not that bad, since Leichter covered Sdkfz.221 family (221, 222, 223, 260, 261), and Schwerer - SdKfz.231 family (231, 232, 233, 263) and SdKfz.234. Do we want to create separate categories for each of them? (apart from the fact, that photos of 233, 260-263 will be probably rare). Other way is to create categories "SdKfz.221" or "..221/222" or "..221 family" for all 221 family and "231" for all 231 family. I think it is a good idea, for all these vehicles were variants of basic vehicles, but I won't insist much. As for "Wespe", "Hummel", "Nashorn" I don't see a problem, since English is a basic language of Commons, and therefore wasps will be in category "Wasp", not "Wespe". But I won't oppose names like "Wespe self propelled gun". Regards. pibwl (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09520, Kieler Hafen, Abfahrt der Deutschen Hochseeflotte.jpg und File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09519, Kieler Hafen, Abfahrt der Deutschen Hochseeflotte.jpg[edit]

Hi Cobatfor, ich will selbst nicht danach kramen, deshalb frag ich dich einfach was dich zur sicheren Einsortierung als Torpedoboot 1924 gebracht hat.--D.W. (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AW kopiert von dieser Disk: Hai, die waren in einer Serie von Fotos, wobei ich dann aus der Perspektive geschlossen habe, dass es sich um die gleichen Schiffe handeln muss (Anstrich, Aufbauten, BArch Nummer). Ganz sicher bin ich mir deshalb nicht. Grüße und frohe Feiertage --Cobatfor 15:48 23 Dec 2008
Mmh, was war´n das für ne Serie? Ich würde mich nämlich eigentlich mal über nen Bild eines Torpedoboot Typ 23 freuen, dem Artikel fehlt ein Bild ;) Wenn du dir auch nicht sicher sicher bist dann werd ich mich nochmal in der Bestimmung versuchen...ahh habe schon was gefunden, nach dieser Seite war Luchs als Typ 24er auch mit im Mittelmeer. Müsste man nur noch Wissen wie sich die 2. T-Halbflottille insgesamt zusammensetzte ;) Für den Bildvergleich sind ja beide Bilder ziemlich ungeeignet.--D.W. (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Pflüg, pflüg... Ich habe gerade das Marine-Arsenal Sonderheft Band 5 "Die Marine der Weimarer Republik" ISBN 3-7909-0464-3, da sind zwei gute Fotos von "Falke" und "Albatross" drin, kann ich ja mal scannen und mailen, falls gewünscht. Dort ist die Gliederung der Reichsmarine Ende 1932 auch angegeben: I. Torpedobootflottille: 1 Halbfl: G7, G8, G10, G11; 2. T151, T 153, T156, T158; II. T./1. Tiger, Iltis, Wolf, Jaguar; 2. Albatross, Möwe, Kondor, Falke. (Seeadler, Greif, Leopard, Luchs?) --Cobatfor 17:12 23 Dec 2008
Ach, die Angaben hab ich auch, II/1 ist aber die 3. II/2 die 4., im Folgenden Satz steht "zwei weitere Boote erfüllten Sonderaufgaben", könnten Leopard und Luchs gewesen sein, die erhielten in der Zeit irgendwann mal neue Geschütze (ich hab für den entsprechenden Artikel mal 1934 gefunden, hab aber gerade das passende Buch nicht griffbereit). Aber das hilft mir noch nicht weiter, in der Halbflottille können immer noch Typ 23 und 24 gesteckt haben, schwarz waren die wohl alle ;) Nochdazu sehe ich auf dem einen Bild 5 Boote (drei große Masten hinten, zwei im Vordergrund), also eins zu viel für ne normale Halb-Flt.--D.W. (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg[edit]

Hello Cobatfor - just a note. You recently called for the deletion of the above image because it was a misnamed duplicate? The correct way to do this is place (on the page of the file to be deleted) the following tag: {{badname|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} - i.e. the "badname" tag and then the name of the correctly named file.

The advantage of that is that a) you have less hassle nominating it in this way, b) it's quicker. An admin only has to check that you have nominated it correctly, and can then delete the file after ensuring all links are updated. If you nominate a file for deletion, it has to go through the whole review process, with mandatory waiting times etc...

Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I was not aware of that. So, if I understand correct, I should have added {{badname|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} on the "SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich" file, because "SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich" is the correct name. Is there also such a "shortcut" for duplicates? Cheers --Cobatfor 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct on your first question. Yes on the second too - it's conveniently called "duplicate" ;-) - used like this {{duplicate|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} with the tag being placed on the one that you want gone, pointing to the one that is to stay - and the one to go must either be an exact copy, or a smaller version of the one you mention within the tag. Try it on any image (but don't save the preview or you will confuse an admin ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Electric Boat[edit]

Hi Cobatfor,
I've seen that you tagged Category:General Dynamics Electric Boats as badname instead of Category:General Dynamics Electric Boat. Is there any special reason for that? Because usually cat-names on Commons are on plural.--Túrelio (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! As you can see, I made a new category "General Dynamics Electric Boat". The name does not refer to the ships built there (plural for boat would be boats), but the company's name is "General Dynamics Electric Boat" without an "s". They built boats, but surface vessels are called "ships" in English, "boats" are either small rowing boats or submarines. So "General Dynamics Electric Boats" is nonsense. If one had planned a category for ships of EB that could have been named "Ships of General Dynamics Electric Boat", but I think "General Dynamics Electric Boat" is sufficient, especially as the company was only named "Electric Boat" before it was acquired by GD. Greetings --Cobatfor 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
O.k. Thanks. I've deleted the Boats and added a small note to the Boat to prevent others falling in the same trap ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added an explanation. --Cobatfor 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: EP-3E China[edit]

Hi, the US Navy did not take those pictures. An employee of Lockheed Martin did. Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20020613054411/http://www.pacom.mil/pages/ep3photos.htm

Pacific Command was simply hosting the images (hence the "courtesy of ..."). Jappalang (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cobatfor 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Copyright questions[edit]

Unfortunately lately we face many cases of extreme copyright views on Commons by a certain group of users. I face today a similar problem by another user. It is a very disruptive behavior. Sv1xv (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I converted the latest one to a regular deletion request. Sv1xv (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interessante...[edit]

...Fakten hast du bei diesen beiden Dateien [1] [2] hinzugefügt! Großes Lob! Woher stammen die Infos? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Danke. Also, die habe ich mir zusammengesucht, ein Teil ist von der Seite der Feuerwehr von Deggendorf. Mit dem Datum findet man dann oft bei der USAF die Bombergruppen, entweder bei Veteranenseiten oder in Chroniken. Anderes Bild: Bei dem "Flakturm" (mit der Thunderbolt) übrigens sehe ich gar keine Geschütze. Könnte dies nicht auch ein stinknormaler franzöischer Wasserturm sein? Die Flaktürme, die ich kenne hatten immer 8,8 oben drauf oder so was. Das USAF Museum übernimmt ja leider immer die historisch doch sehr bedenklichen Kommentare aus der Entstehungszeit der Fotos... Grüße Cobatfor 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Diesen FLAK-Turm habe ich gedanklich ebenfalls angezweifelt. Geschütze sind wahrlich nicht erkennbar. Wenn du einen besseren Bildtitel in petto hast, können wir eine Bildverschiebung anstreben. Müsste halt dann in der Bildbeschreibungsseite erwähnt werden, bzw. korrigiert werden. --High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hier [3] steht Folgendes: " 13. CLOSEUP OF A FLAK TOWER-Disregarding the hazards involved, a U. S. Eighth A.A.F. fighter plane (P-47) can be seen here swooping in on a flak tower on a German airdrome in occupied France recently (muss dann 1944 gewesen sein!). This picture taken from the motion picture gun camera record of the American plane following, shows the hazardous type of action encountered when strafing at such a low level. Bursts can be seen striking the tower as the American fighter pilot roars perilously close to the tower in his attack." Trotzdem: Frankreich ist gepflastert mit Chateau d'Eaus, und wenn der Turm an einem Flugplatz stand, dann wurde der bestimmt beschossen. Wo soll denn da ne Flak stehen? Dach ab und Vierlingsflak rein?!? Bei dem freien Schussfeld (ist ja alles flach) würde ich mich eher eingraben, als auf so einen weithin sichtbaren Turm setzen! Ich würde den Titel wohl in "File:Republic P-47 attacks tower.jpg" umbenennen und obige Info und die Bedenken in den Text packen. "An 8th U.S. Air Force Republic P-47D Thunderbolt attacks a tower on a German airdrome in occupied France, in 1944. Note: The original caption identifies this tower as a "flak tower". However, it resembles more a normal French water tower. Also no guns are visible."Cobatfor 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gute Recherche. Hast du noch Zeit die entsprechenden Infos in die Datei (File:Republic P-47 attacks flak-tower.jpg) einarbeiten. Deine Vorschläge überzeugen. Im Anschluss verschiebe ich das Ganze nach File:Republic P-47 attacks tower.jpg. Mir erscheint dies als die beste Lösung. --High Contrast (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Gemacht. Cobatfor 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done! Besten Dank! --High Contrast (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quellenangabe[edit]

Hallo!

Folgende Dateien, aus deiner frühen Uploadphase stammend, haben Mängel bzgl. der exakten Quelle zu http://www.defenseimagery.mil/, der Lizenzierung ({{PD-USGov}} statt {{PD-USGov-Military}}) und oftmals stimmt "USN" nicht als Quellen (bzw. ist nicht nachweisbar) vorzuweisen.


Bei diesen beiden Dateien [4] und [5] sind die Probleme schwerwiegender.
Bei dieser Datei fehlt der Beweis (entsprechender Link), dass das Bild tatsächlich von Richard Miller BMCS, USNR Ret. stammt, denn nur dann kan das Bild unter die PD-USGov-Military-Navy-Lizenz fallen. Bei dieser Datei stimmt entweder die VIRIN-Nummer (DN-ST-91-00385) nicht, oder es entstammt nicht dem Medienarchiv http://www.defenseimagery.mil/. Bitte dringenst um Korrektur. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So, ich hoffe es ist alles zu bester Zufriedenheit geregelt. Wenn ich Dateien mit fehlenden Links finde, ändere ich das auch. Die Angabe zum Bild der USS Truckee war richtig. Falls sie aber falsch gewesen wäre, so besteht das alte Problem, dass ich überhaupt nicht mehr auf die Defenseimagery-Seite komme. Ich wäre daher dankbar für Hinweise, wie man die Seite erreicht oder für Hilfe von jemandem, der auf die Seite kommt und das nachrecherchieren könnte. Danke. --Cobatfor (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Naja, wenn es sich schon um eine US Navy Quelle handelt und der Fotograf der US NAVY zugehörig ist, dann bitte statt {{PD-USGov}} diesen Baustein {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} verwenden.
Auf diese Seite (Beispiel [6]) kann nicht mehr zugegriffen werden: verwende stattdessen zur Bildersuche diese Seite: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ . Nur interessehalber, wie konntest du bei diesem Bild die Quellen nachliefern, wenn die Seite nicht (mehr) aufrufbar ist (zumindest die Suchfunktion)? --High Contrast (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Zum Glück, aus irgendwelchen Gründen, liegen die Bilder noch auf der alten Seite http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil. Da komme ich problemlos hin, also mit "DN-ST-91-00385"[7]. Ich habe den Link gespeichert und gebe dann die entsprechenden Änderungen für das jeweilige Bild in die Laufleiste ein. Umständlich, aber anders geht es nicht (bei mir). Gibt man nur http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil ein, wird man zu http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ umgeleitet, aber da kommt bei mir seit Monaten nur "...braucht zu lange, um zu antworten". Ich komme da gar nicht drauf, weder Eingangsseite noch Suchfunktion, gar nix. --Cobatfor (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Das deckt sich mit meinen Erfahrungen. --High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Mist.--Cobatfor (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:FGS Hessen (F-221).jpg[edit]

This story with prefixes again... Same problem with the Greek navy, the prefix HS now is used only in international communications, especially within NATO, while inside Greece they use prefixes according to the type of ship. I shall rename the file, no big deal. Sv1xv (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Verstehe ich das richtig, Cobatfor. Sv1xv hat das Bild nur wegen dem "FGS"-Präfix verschoben? --High Contrast (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Weiß nicht, ich habe ja nur gesagt, dass es die Abkürzung nicht gibt und ich das Bild anders genannt hätte. Ungünstig finde ich z.B. an der obigen Namensgebung, dass die, meiner Meinung nach, zu allgemein war. Bei fünf Bildern von einem Schiff (oder von sonst was) sollte man schon genauer sein, um die Bilder unterscheiden zu können. Ich dachte, er hätte es deshalb umbenannt. Anders übrigens User:BotMultichillT, der scheint's jedes (wenn auch noch so belanglose) Bild der US Navy (maschinell?) hochlädt. Die Titel sind elendlang und die Kategorien rein geografisch und nicht existent. Ein Schiff suche ich ja nicht unter "US Navy images, location Atlantic Ocean", oder ähnlich. Für die Naval Air Station Oceana gab es z.B. fünf verschiedene Kategorien, scheinbar, was der Computer gerade erfasste. So was finde ich wesentlich nerviger, da findet ja keiner was mehr. Grüße --Cobatfor 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Das mit der von mir angesprochenen Verschiebung ist in Ordnung, ich nahm an, dass Sv1xv, quasi dich trietzend, ein Bild wegen "FGS"-Präfix verschob, was überflüssig gewesen wäre. Einerlei, insgesamt egal.
User:BotMultichillT: ja, da läuft irgendetwas gerade nicht rund. Auch existieren die geographischen Kategorien (meist) nicht und die Dateinamen sind wirklich sehr lang. Vielleicht befindet sich dieser Bot noch in der "Aufbauphase"? Gruß zurück, High Contrast (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:MiG I-270.gif‎ und andere[edit]

Hallo Cobatfor, ich nehme an, Du möchtest die Kategorien aufräumen. Das ist sehr löblich, und ich gehe davon aus, dass man meine Kategorisierungen tatsächlich besser machen kann. Es ist dennoch erwünscht, Kommentare anzugeben, wenn man Dinge wesentlich ändert. Ganz ohne Grund Kats nur zu löschen hilft nicht wirklich. Wenn Du einen Vorschlag hast, wie solche Bilder besser kategorisiert werden sollten, werde ich das gerne berücksichtigen. Gruss --JuergenKlueser (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, tut mir leid, aber ich habe da so an die 200 Risszeichnungen kategorisiert, da war mir das zu viel Stress. Ich fand das total unübersichtlich. Normalerweise mache ich auch Kommentare. Grüße -- Cobatfor 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FP Nomination[edit]

CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg
Nomination Notification
G'day! I love File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg, that you've uploaded to Commons, so I've nominated it for Featured Picture status. Its nomination is at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wirklich klasse! BTW, ich habe es auf de:Portal:Luftfahrt/Bildergalerie‎ als Luftfahrtbild der Woche vorgeschlagen. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Navy base?[edit]

File:UW Waterfront Activity Center 02.jpg‎, File:U Wash shell house 02.jpg‎, File:U Wash shell house 01.jpg‎: I'm not at all sure I agree with the change you made from Category:United States Navy installations to Category:United States Navy bases. The building, on a college campus, was intended (but never used) for U.S. Navy floatplanes. I don't see anything there that qualifies as a Navy base. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, though with less confidence, I wonder about using the term "navy base" for this facility: File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 03.jpg‎, File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 02.jpg‎, File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 01.jpg‎. Historically, Fort Lawton was an Army post. Most of the military facilities there are closed, and most of the former fort is now Discovery Park. These houses are being used for a few more years by the navy (with plans to turn them over to the city of Seattle, eventually). Does that really constitute a "base"? I don't think you'd find this facility on any list of Navy bases; it's certainly not at http://www.militaryconnection.com/navybase.asp. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea who put this in the "installations" category (where it was before), as I have no knowledge of this special area. Therefore I would just delete it from the navy base category and just keep it at the local ones. Thanks Cobatfor 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, either: any physical land or shore-based Navy facility is an "installation". I see nothing wrong with the previous category. I see now that the generic Category:United States Navy installations was moved to Category:Facilities of the United States Navy, confirming my view that the terms are synonymous. Any problem with putting these in that rather generic category? I wouldn't want to lose all association of these photos with the U.S. Navy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been several weeks and no reply, so that is what I will do. - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am very sorry, it is probably due to the fact that I am no English native speaker that I did not see a question in your lines, I thought it was rethorical therfore I did not reply. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Thanks Cobatfor 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC

Sichterrechte auch auf Commons[edit]

Hallo Cobatfor!

Wahrscheinlich kennst du das Sichten von Artikeln auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. Das gleiche ist nun auch auf Commons verfügbar: Commons:Patrol. Solltest du Interesse haben, so kannst du diese Funktion hier beantragen. Nach "kurzer" Zeit wird dies Funktion für deinen Account freigeschaltet.

Bei ausreichend zur Verfügung stehender Zeit, bitte kurz darüber nachdenken!

Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Danke, hab's mal versucht. Grüße Cobatfor 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal images[edit]

What is the second reference that you intended to offer as evidence in your request to stop speedy delete of File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk2 1978.jpeg and File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg? The two links you gave are identical, pointing to "page32.htm" of the same site. "Page 50" (page50.htm) at that site has photos of "Officers & Men: Communicators" and a list of personnel names, but I wasn't able to find any relevance to the issue at hand there. Based on what I've already seen at the Ark Royal site you've referenced, I'm leaning heavily toward agreeing with your position.
Sorry about my slow response: I am recovering from a bout of influenza.Quicksilver@ 05:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected the link. when you look here on navsource.org [8] you will also see that by 1986 Nimitz was already equipped with Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow Mk 28 (not Mk 25 anymore Mk 25) and SPS-49 radar on the radar mast, not the large rectangular SPS-43. Also the catapult sponson on the end of the landing deck had been removed, which is still present in the photos in question. HMS Hermes was fitted with a "Ski-jump" ramp for Harrier jets around 1978 and was decommissioned by the Royal Navy in 1984 [9]. Ark Royal was already scrapped then. The Defenseimagery texts are generally trustworthy, BUT, when a date is not really clear, it is always "1 January 19XX". If you take a historic photo, often the propaganda texts form the Second world War or so are still present. I learned to be careful and check. Hope you get better soon. -- Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that the RFD has been removed from both images and the descriptions have been updated, so hopefully the controversy won't come up again. Getting one fact wrong might be excusable, but getting both the ship name wrong and being off by nine years on the date is rather severe.
I added comments and links on the provenance of the images to both of their talk pages. That should answer any questions about the metadata discrepancies in the future. I also submitted corrections to the DefenseImagery.mil site via their contact form, with links to the WikiMedia talk pages so they can examine the evidence themselves. Dunno if pushback will do any good, but it's worth a try. Being run by bureaucrats, they might get around to it in a few months. Quicksilver@ 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mounting motor on a Fairfax B-25 bomber, at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood[edit]

I reverted your edit to File:Mounting motor on a Fairfax B-25 bomber, at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood, Calif.jpg to the documented original description. When you change information, please add your source in the edit summary. You stated that the engine is Wright Cyclone, I am quite sure this model was fitted with a Wright Whirlwind. But since neither of us has a source, let's prevent spreading misinformation, and stick to the documented description. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well I certainly disagree. The description is rather inconclusive, as there is no "Fairfax B-25 bomber". B-25 "Mitchell" bombers were produced at Ingelwood and in Fairfax, Kansas. Either way being powered by two R-2600 Cyclone engines with 14 cylinders arranged in two rows. Each produced some 1.800 hp. The Whirlwind had 800 hp max (and only 8 cylinders) which would have never gotten a B-25 bomber in the air. All photos out of this series show B-25 "Mitchells". Therefore I still see these engines as R-2600. Also note the B-25 engine nancelles. Can you name any aircraft having such nancelles and a Whirlwind engine? Thanks in advance Cobatfor (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You have to help me there, since English is not my native language. What are nancelles? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you know much about this, apparently, and the description of the original image is indeed inconclusive I can only refer to http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b04698/ which shows a black/white image of the situation, saying it is a Wright Whirlwind. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the nancelles are the things in which the motor is mounted. To the LoC description: It CLEARLY says, that these are B-25 bombers with 1.700 hp motors. As I said, the Whirlwind produced only 800 hp and was never used on a B-25. All B-25s were powered by R-2600s. Also, remember that the description is the original "propaganda" description from 1942 - and not always correct (Here it says that this photo was taken in Kansas, the other one says it was taken in Inglewood. Also: a Fairfax B-25 does not exist). Can you give any proof of a Whirlwind engine mounted on a B-25? Also, the photo shows two rows of cylinders on the engine, wheras the Whirlwind had only one. Cobatfor (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course I can not give proof, but in Wikimedia/pedia it is all about sources and documentation. Original research is out of the question. So I gave you sources. I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Whirlwind and you are right, the Whirlwind does not deliver this hp in a single engine, but the models R-1510 and R-1670 were 14-cylinder twin-row radial engines. Why don't you start a discussion on the talkpage of the image. Oke, now for my own bit of original research. This engine shows a oval shaped housing around the central shaft. The Cyclones in the Category:Wright R-1820 all have cone shaped housings. Can you explain that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, File:Woman working on an airplane motor at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Calif.jpg shows a woman working on engines. In the bottom left a specification plate is visible. I looked at it in detail and it says it is a Cyclone 14, but the housing around the shaft is, as I said before, cone shaped. It would be nice if we could find an image of the matter in question where the plate would be readable. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The "Cylcone 14" was the R-2600, see [10]. Also the NAA Fairfax and Inglewood plants produced the B-25 File:Assembling B-25 bombers at North American Aviation, Kansas City, Kansas.jpg, which had R-2600s, and only R-2600. See B-25 versions here [11] or here [12]. Cobatfor (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to read the specification plate in the photograph, but I can't detect what it says. The only thing I see is that the name on the plate is to short to read Whirlwind, and that the name is followed by probably a two digit number. It is therefore possible that it says Cyclone 14. The question remains why the shape of the housing of the propeller shaft differs from the other pictures. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't read it either, not even as a 190MB tif-file. But you still have not accepted that B-25s were only powered by R-2600s? Haven't you? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I have accepted that in general. But shape of the propeller shaft housing bothers me. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I re-inserted your edit, because there is no reasonable doubt about it, I think. Is it ok if I copy this discussion to the talkpage? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. I also added the original description. Cobatfor (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cope Thunder (exercise) zu Category:Cope Thunder (military exercise)[edit]

Hallo Cobatfor!

Ich habe aus Gründen der Konkretisierung folgende Verschiebung angeordnet: Category:Cope Thunder (exercise) zu Category:Cope Thunder (military exercise). Ich hoffe mein Handeln erscheint nachvollziehbar. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, danke, ist besser. Wenn Du mal auf die Seite Category:Military exercises of the United States gehst, sollte man das meiner Meinung nach mit allen Kategorien machen. Auch die (teilweise) Großschreibung finde ich unsinnig. Herzliche Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:MiG-23-red12.jpg[edit]

Hallo Cobatfor!

Kannst du helfen:

Diesem Bild fehlt eine Quelle. Ich habe bereits versucht es bei den gängigen US Militärseiten zu finden, aber die Suche blieb erfolglos. Vielleich hast du mehr Erfolg. Wäre insgesamt schade um das Bildchen, da ich mir eigentlich sicher bin, dass es von einer US-Militärquelle stammt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gesucht, gefunden! Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
KLASSE! Danke! Wie/Wo konntest du das Bild finden bzw. mit welchem Suchwort? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Mit viel Rumprobieren und suchen habe ich diese Seite [13] gefunden. Ist wohl noch von der alten dodmedia.osd.mil-Seite übrig geblieben und funktioniert - meistens. Hoffentlich löscht die niemand! Ist alle Mal besser als die totale Blockade von Defenseimagery. Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Postcards[edit]

Hi, Cobatfor. You uploaded a number of postcards of German WWI-era warships (like File:SMS Kaiserin coloured postcard.jpg) - I was wondering if you have publication dates for these photos? I'd like to use these images in articles on en.wiki, but I need to be able to definitively prove that the images are PD. If we have a pre-1923 date, the images are at very least PD in the US, and due to the anonymous nature of the work, should be PD in Europe as well. I imagine even a postmark date would work too. Thanks for any help you might be able to provide. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I only know that they were published before 1919 during the German Empire, before the High Seas Fleet sunk itself at Scapa Flow. A similar postcard is dated from 1915 [14]. I hope that this information is sufficient. Cobatfor (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File:West Virginia Air National Guard HQ patch.svg[edit]

That isn't really what SVG files on Commons are for. If you have a JPEG and are not going to convert it to vector format, then just upload the JPEG file itself, instead of wrapping it in an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do so in the future, saves time. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

w:User talk:Cobatfor#Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I copied a wrong infromation (sorry, I cannot read Russian). The freigher is most probably the Okhotsk, which left the left the port at Nuevita carrying 12 IL-28 airplanes on 5 December 1962 ; see [15], [16], [17]. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem!! I can't read Russian either, but when comparing the two pictures, the one had a dark hull and the other had a light hull. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

US Navy emblems[edit]

Hi! You remember this: [18]? I'm uploading the files to Commons now. Bot will place them "all around" but once all the files are uploaded (and it will take some time) I plan to move them to Category:Military badges of the United States because it is not just navy related badges/emblems (so Category:United States naval aviation emblems will probably not be the best category). I will only move the files that still have a {{BotMoveToCommons}} so if you or someone else fix the files before I change the category bot will not touch them. That also means that if you fix the category but do not remove the {{BotMoveToCommons}} then the bot will change the category. Please let me know if you can think of a better category. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well, I don't know what you will load up. If there are many emblems from different US military branches, then you'll probably should beam them in the "military badges" category. Maybe you could name the Navy emblems in a similar fashion, so that it will be easy to locate them and move them in the proper categories, later. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The files are in Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 15 April 2011. I will see if there is a way to sort the files in the right categories so we do not have to sort them all manually :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Holy Moses! 2,235 files! You beamed four photos of people with it (a politician, a prince, a mafioso, and an actress), which I moved. I have no idea of bots, but maybe one could move the ones with the same beginning (like "VMFA-..."). There is probably no way to move the VMFA-235 badge into the VMFA-235 category, but one could create a category like "Emblems of US Marine Corps strike fighter squandrons" and move them there. Maybe that would work. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hehe not all the files in Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 15 April 2011 were uploaded by me :-) I rearranged the files so the insignia should be in Category:Military insignia of the United States and the rest should be in Category:Military badges of the United States.
It is possible to move all files that start with "VMFA" to a special category or files that uses {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} to one category and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} to another category etc. However i noticed that we have categories for "Insignia", "Emblems" and "Badges". I'm not sure when it is a badge and when it is an emblem. If you can tell me what to do I can do it with my bot. --MGA73 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am no English native speaker, but the USAF uses the term "shield", whereas the US Navy uses the term "patch". As far as I know, a commercial one would be "logo". However, I did not get all of the above. If I create a special category for all patches starting with a special letter combination, could you move the "whatever they are called" there? Sorry fo my lack of understanding. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also not a native English :-) My point was if the license template is one with "Air Force" then the badge should be a Air Force badge etc. But yes it is also possible to work on files with a letter combination. I can make a list and put them all in Excel if I have to and do the search there. --MGA73 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich wollte...[edit]

..nur mal Danke sagen. Macht immer wieder Spaß deine letzten Uploads durchzusehen. Mit welcher Ausdauer und auch Qualität (also vorallem hinsichtlich Beschreibungen, Kats etc) du für Commons jede verfügbare Bildquelle abgrast ist schon beeindruckend. Gehen dir die nicht langsam aus? ;-) --D.W. (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nöö. Macht halt Spaß. Danke und Grüße (+viele Eier) Cobatfor (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Captured German half track Libya 1941.jpg[edit]

Hi. I'm not 100% sure, but most probably it's SdKfz.6. Pibwl (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Redstone Army Airfield flight line 1960s.jpg[edit]

Great photo. My dad was a pilot there and flew all of those planes in 1967-68. There is one more plane in the picture, a U-21A Ute. The tail is showing in the lower right of the photo. To see what the whole thing looks like:

http://www.wsmr-history.org/airplanevc6a.htm

They call it a VC-6 on that page, and that is what the Army designated it later, but I remember my dad calling it the U-21 and loving to fly it. You might want to add that to the caption. Minutus 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I added it. The Beech King Air is more commonly known as the U-21, just two were designated VC-6A. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File modification[edit]

Hi Cobatfor. Thanks for improving File:This old castle perched on a hilltop above the Moselle River and the town of Cochem, Germany, is headquarters of the... - NARA - 530785.tif I only just noticed when my bot overwrote it. Nothing personal! :-)

In general, I think it is accepted practice to upload modifications under a new name. I have added a notice to that effect to the template for each page. While your change was simply aesthetic, and might normally be acceptable, I think that in the case of these National Archives images, the image description represents this image as an exact copy of the image in the National Archives' catalog, so it is quite confusing (and possibly misleading) to see that they are not identical. We should have at least one image that faithfully represents NARA's document, as well as any modifications listed with the "Other versions=" template parameter. Hopefully this makes sense. Again, thanks! Dominic (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know, why I overwote the tif-file. Normally, I convert it to jpeg and upload it under a new name with the link to the original tif-file. Like with this file File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar, 1941 - NARA - 540147.tif, which is inverted, I added this info, but I left the original tif-file. The original descriptions are also borne out of their time...
Many photos showing U.S. Navy ships during WWII have their radar anntennas removed by a censor, like File:USS PENNSYLVANIA and battleship of COLORADO class followed by three cruisers move in line into Lingayen Gulf... - NARA - 520627.tif, I tried to reconstruct the original photo here: File:US warships entering Lingayen Gulf 1945.jpg. The bot is great, by the way! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly your file?[edit]

Hello - I came across a picture similar to your "US Navy aviators San Diego 1918" except it was of enlisted women from San Diego. I can't recall the filename, or any good, very narrow keywords, to track it down. I was hoping perhaps, since it was so similar in style to your file, that it was also your upload. Might you be able to help? Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't remember such a file. Maybe you can fid it in this Category:Navy Nurse Corps (United States). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
How about this one? LOC-image|id=pan.6a33145
Thanks. Great minds thinking alike! I just earlier went to the LOC and got that image. It's now File:LOC 6a33145r.jpg. Not San Diego after all ;-( but no matter. Thanks for the assist. ...best, JMOprof. JMOprof (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just cut the frame off and used the orginal tif-file. Maybe you could give your next file a more self-explaining title like "US Navy female yeomen in front of White House 1919" or something like that. It makes it easier to identify the photos. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I can do that! Thanks for the tech assist. JMOprof (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You continue to make my upload better. Thank you. May I ask why the PD-1923 tag is not preferred? You know about these things, and I'm but a Wiki-newbie, though learning fast ☺ JMOprof (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The PD-1923 tag always says "This may not apply to Germany and Austria", whereas the PD-USGov just states it as a picture with a free US copyright. It just makes things easier... Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps no more? PD-1923
Well, I still prefer the USGov, otherwise one (might) had to prove in Germany and Austria that the author is already dead for 70 years! Probably, I am more concerned about it than you, because I am German!!! :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cataloging the NARA files?[edit]

Hi Cobatfor-
Could you quickly describe the procedure to catalog a NARA file? I cataloged File:Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith (right) USMC takes jeep tour of Saipan airfield. - NARA - 520968.tif and don't know the steps to make it visible on the scorecard. Things I tried didn't work. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you almost made it right. 1. please remove the "Template:Uncategorized ..." so it will show up as categorized. 2. The only thing you missed was to remove the two "==" above the categories. Double brackets (these -> "{") and "=" mess up everything when not used properly. Use "< br >" (without blank spaces) for a line break (instead of blank lines) and when you make a link to a file in a discussion, just put a ":" in front of "File:..." and it will link without showing the picture (see above when you use "edit").
Categories: I removed the categories "Generals of the United States Marine Corps" and "United States Marine Corps people in World War II" as being redundant. The category "Holland M. Smith" already links to these categories. But I added "Battle of Saipan" and "Willys MB", although the latter is probably not really necessary. There are categories I think as totally useless, as something like "people in cars", "people carrying rifles", "back and white photographs of people stitting in cars". Some are really obscure. On the other hand, I tried for example to categorize the "Pearl Harbor" category, as there are now almost 2,000 pictures in this category. But others my find my categories "useless"... Feel free to ask any questions. Have a nice weekend! Cobatfor (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Radar scope. - NARA - 520692.tif[edit]

Hallo, du hast dort die Kategorien "Ship radars" und "Essex class aircraft carriers" eingetragen. Für mich sieht das eher aus wie eine Glastafel wie bei File:CVA-34 CIC NAN10-63.jpg. Auch interessiert mich wie du auf die Essex-Klasse geschlossen hast.--Avron (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ich hatte vergessen, dass es die anderen Kategorien gibt, ich habe es geändert. Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Soviet M-4 Bison bomber in flight 1982.JPEG[edit]

Hi Cobatfor,
This aircraft is not M-4 Bison, but 3MD 30 Red (ЗМД in Russian). You can easily find the difference here: М4, ЗМД, flickr. Thanks, Sealle (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the pages in Russian could also be in Chinese for me ... As far as I can tell, the 3MD is still the aircraft that was labelled "Bison" by NATO. Therefore, I hope not much harm was done. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. However, there's a correct photo. Rgrds, Sealle (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject[edit]

Silhouette An-124.svg

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Commons' coverage of aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! russavia (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Do I have to do anyting to "join"? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries. If you want to add your name to the list at Commons:WikiProject_Aviation/Members you can do that. There's also a userbox you can use if you want. There is also various discussions also underway at Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation in which editor opinions are wanted/needed on various issues. Feel free to raise any questions, ideas, suggestions, etc there as well. Cheers russavia (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Found your Submarine[edit]

Cobatfor - Doing other work, I found your submarine File:U.S. Pacific submarine on war patrol. Pacific sunlight silvers the sea. - NARA - 520690.tif
It's USS Barb SS-220, Commanding Officer MOH awardee Eugene Fluckey, Gato-class.
Do a Google images search on: USS Barb. At about the page 5/page 6 break is an autographed copy from Fluckey for sale at Snyder Treasures. It's cropped closer, but it's the same picture. Don't go to the website unless you have a superfast connection. They don't understand compressed graphics.
By the way, the defining differences between Gato/Balao/Tench classes are the hull thicknesses. There's no way to tell from a picture without help like hull numbers (or an autograph ☺ ).
A lucky day. JMOprof (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Or do the search: USS Barb Snyder, and it's No. 1 JMOprof (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Reading my last post, I have no idea who Barbara Snyder was, or why she had a ship named after her ☺ Season's cheer.JMOprof (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum uploads[edit]

hi, my message is 2-fold (well, one-and-a-half); 1st, many amongst the pictures you are recently uploading are some of the most beautiful ones i ever saw in my life, and i just want to say that this work is wonderful, and thank you. (i have only since a week noticed that some large scale uploading is in progress, and only since a few days that its not an individual uptake but whatever, still of tremendous value imo). so i dont know if random noobs can just toss barnstars but lets say i wish you one. but ... :S ... 2. i think its a very serious problem and leading to either much duplication of effort, or even worse, of not even noticing ever or just dont giving a shit, is that in 99,9% of the time, your pictures contain some extremely minor alterations, touchups, rotations, contrast/brightness raisings, crops to older version and whatever, and then you upload that changed one. i suspect (from the scale of your and others' activity), that some sort of a bot or automation is involved. in a few times (e.g. the blown-off nosed destroyer) there were even zero changes yet a goddamn huge resave is there in place of the original grab from iwm. i despite being a very beginner, strongly disagree with this. the best would be, is to either A/, 1st upload the originals, maybe with auto-optimization (irfanview has built-in jpegtrans plugin, or one can use the app named 'jpegcrop', this not only resaves losslessly, but as the name says, also can crop and greyscale losslessly, but one alwyays must set the "huffman optimized" and the "progressive coding"-this latter only on images below ca 800kB for being gentle to mediawiki, and if you deal with the matter manually, then also when you see its blackandwhite, to greyscale it. in avarage, one can achieve a 10% filesize reduction of iwm standard jpg-s, which are in turn averagely 50kB in size, they becoming 45 or so, and only after this, upload to the same file a new edited version, with not applying anything to the original ones; or, rather, B/ if you think that a cropped and otherwise edited version is also neccessary, then better provide a new separate instance for that version, or for the original, depending on already-usage on other wikis and personal taste, and cross-reference the 2 pictures in their desc; C/ i'd think the best 'd be though if there were much less mods altogether... . also, your rotates are producing extremely uglily blurred and low-quality-looking images, i think probably a moderate amount of sharpening filter would benefit them, always only so much as to regain the appearance of the original, though i hold a personal grudge against rotations as they are the most destructive and impossible-to-do-very-efficiently-ever bastardizations of a picture. and then there is another thing. most of the iwm pictures are, if im not mistaken, saved at the jpg 85 non-colour-subsample mode. or 75, i dont remember. but whatever, i am bringing up the subject because i have noticed earlier, that if we resave a jpg, the previous saving-quality is a sweet spot where the file size is increasing only 1-5% and the quality decrease is also minimal. OF COURSE this is not true AT ALL if one rotates a picture, because this is i think somehow related to the macroblocking of the format's encode, but you are making many other types too and it is applicable then. obviously if we save below, ugly artifacts appear, and if above, surprise, unless 95% to 100%, then too more of them appear, and file size drastically increases. so what i'm saying is some of the times, the totally agreeable wiki policy of saving highest quality, does not hold verbatimly. when rotating, it does, when not, then best is to resave with the original qlty-setting; but (imo) always provide at least in the uploadhistory of old versions, the base file. and the original q% can be found by experimenting by 5% increases (saving-as in a row from 75 to 100 w different increasing names and then comparing them with snap-to-screen zoom with setting any scaling algorithm OFF and only using plain pixel-ish rescale, i've found this way the best to compare small-size jpg-resave pictures). i might be mistaken in the exact conditions neccessary to be able to utilise this loophole, and alse have nothing to say that all of their photos are saved at the same qlty. i also dont know if one removes a watermark for example and leaves the rest of the pic unchanged whether is it still applying, as i usually dont rape my own pictures (ok ok i know 'policy'...).

ok and then another thought of mine... i think its unneccessary when you r overwriting an old low-def file with the new 800px, to emulate the old shit's crop arrangement just for the 1-to-1 replacability in mind. i dont feel it to be important to make the new one appear exatly, even in its proportions, like the old. and especially not more important, when its removing beautiful detail, like in one of the spitfire formation pics. imo the primary task when someone is involved in such a massive and historically very significant transfer is to provide the pictures themselves, and it can come later if editors of particular wikis want coloradjusted or cropped versions, to make it for themselves a separate file. (and not overwriting it. but a million times worse if there is nothing to overwrite or choose from because already only the edited shockingly huge-kilobyte croprotates are uploaded.

best wishes--Aaa3-other (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. forgot but i've noticed that very rarely (heinkel-pic) your dummy bot even down-transformed the dimension/resolution of the pics!!!!! omg facepalmed, i was like wtf

Hi, that is a lot to read... I did not understand everything, i.e. I have no idea what "omg facepalmed, i was like wtf" means. However, there is no bot included in my uploads, I am all doing this by hand. It is common on Commons to alter the pictures, if the colours are wrong or the levels etc. There is even a link on each page to alter the photo using an external application. If you take the recent U.S. National archives bot, we have all pictures at least twice (tif and jpeg). The jpegs, however, often have a frame or damages etc. See File:USS Barb (SS-220) off Pearl Harbor June 1945.jpg. If you take the orginal IWM photos that were available until recently, you will notice that they all included watermarks "Imperial War Museum" and the photo ID. Some users cut it off or tried to erase them. Now, some photos have frames or black areas, not visible on the photos before. Most photos had a different shade of grey before. Which one is now the original one? The most important thing in my opinion is to give the correct source. If you have noticed, it is now for the first time possible to give the direct link to the IWM photo. I do always include this. Every user can look up the "original". But then there is the problem with the descriptions. Here File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg both the carrier and the year were incorrect. Also often you have wartime descriptions which are more propaganda than everything else. There are also censored pictures, where the radar antennas have been erased, but sometimes the same photo exists, not censored. Some photos are inverted File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar - NARA - 540147.tif. Which one is now the original one? You can see the earlier versions of the photos underneath each photo and now you even have the possiblity to request a rotation of a photo. I think what you propose (if I understood it correctly), it would complicate things unnecessarily - and it would make a lot of work. One could add the template "retouchedpicture" like here File:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard aerial photo 1940.jpg, I think this would be enough. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
okay i was too antiedit yesterday, its fine for me that we have edited versions as well, and i respect the beautification of colours (not so much the mods of blackandwhite images and rotations) you making to many, but i still feel the best to either first upload the uncropped-unaltered ver, and only then overwrite it with the edit, or make 2 versions. with a few of the images i already did it (ul-ing separately the orig.). as for your question, of course the new, 800px ares the original. the old 350px watermarked ones are not only small but already cropped-edited-improved by iwm, this is obvious and explains all your doubts about different grays etc. we shouldnt follow these low-res versions. yes, the source. i agree with you, and even fixed a lot of them today, as (what comes, identified during such an originalversion-upload and crosslinking), that the iwm template has exatly yesterday changed and the old links arent working anymore. and yes we can look up it but its much more a hassle than if it were just 1 click away and here on commons. as for slightly changing descs, i have nothing against! adding template... well that is what i feel too much (useless, as uploadhistory or crosslink it makes clear that it changed) and lot of work. also, doing so little changes then resaving (tripling file size as a side effect) is also a lot of work. examples:
File:HMSEskimoBowTorpedoDamageMay1940.jpg - nothing change (why did you do this?), 3x filesize, lot of work. yes, the original is available, but the noob user dont know or dont care to grab it from there, and we end up such a file on our computer and on wiki server. also it is not so easy to download it as they dont allow righclick on the large size so we have to get it out from 'page's data -> media' window, many extra steps. who will take this just to save an image?
File:Hellcats 1840 NAS in flight 1944.jpg - cropping with no reason, and not using 'jpegcrop' (search for the program in google, really the way to crop jpgs, or in 'irfanview' one can ctrl+shift+j a selection, both are lossless, no need to resave, but in this example, not to crop either)
File:Heinkel He 111 during the Battle of Britain.jpg - this was the downsize i called dummy. as i wrote above, it is such a grand mission and a fortunate possibility that we can have all these images on commons and therefore linkable on wikis. why only transfer a blurred hand-altered (lots of work) version for our use?
File:HMS Indomitable (92) underway 1943.jpg - this and File:HMS Barham in Suda Bay.jpg this: very-very little rotation, not bothering anyone, 'lots of work', yet your image is 2-3x size, and looking very blurred.
File:Supermarinespitfire.JPG - here, that you replace the picture with this is an excellent idea, i love it. but you wanted to make the propertions (x / y) of it to be similar to the old, and shouldnt have been - the new looks VERY beautiful in its full variant, no need for such a sacrifice. (and more work too). it will look a little different but who cares :P
your enhancements of colours and levels on colour photos however, are very useful and nice. (example: First RAF Vampire F1 at Boscombe Down 1945.jpg
i placed many of your new images i liked to other wikis, example File:404 Sqn RCAF Beaufighters Feb 1945.jpg (this too very little unneccessary change, more work, less ideal state for reusers and bandwidth), and i will keep doing in the following days, but it looks so saddening to me to see on the grey photos almost never the original.
and as a last thought, it might be more inspiring to try and less troublesome to other editors who may want to do another change to a pic to work from the original one here on commons and not having to go to the iwm site, in your current way maybe they wont have the idea of using the very useful link you always provide, and will start from your already changed ones. or noobs may think that what you uploaded here is the same as what is foundable on the link. the only thing which alerted me that i saw surprisingly large kilobytes and not the familiar 800px site, but how could they know if they never saw a real recent iwm photo. they will believe your is the real thing. so maybe, -forget template, way too much-, when you are uploading a changed one, dont just say 'iwm photo' but that what did you change, and maybe, crop rarely only, and maybe in the case of not very bad images, where you would do only a very little change, then dont do that, or i dont know... i dont want to discourage you! just think that this way might be better... sorry for writing too long, i tried to in my first post to show other ways of doing cropping and resaving. Cheers :), Aaa3-other (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Rotation: Well, I rotate the pictures normally to get the horizon level, if possible. I also think it is absolutely necessary to provide the IWM link - just for licensing reasons. It is not my picture, easily to find out, since I wasn't even born then. I also think that Commons is no public archive. The IWM is the archive, not Commons. Some users worte "post-work: User:xyz". I don't want to alter the pictures - in a sense of making them historically different, I want to make them better. Take i.e. User:Hohum, who is very proficient in getting the right colours of photos. I think you could have this discussion with hundereds of Commons-users. I would be glad, if you do not re-upload all the IWM photos. There are so many good pictures now, I think we are making unnecessary double work. Cheers to Hungary Cobatfor (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
ok. well i never said not to make the links. i love that you make the links. i only say many will not click and use your versions as a base to making further-edited versions. and of course i reuploaded only a few of them, i used judgement. many of it i left as it was because your edits made them better. but could you tell why yyou did the strange thing to the destroyer and the heinkel? just curious. rotation: i think if difference is below 3°, better not rotate, as it takes away many detail and sharpness for nearly nothing. hundreds of commons-users...: well, many i noticed uploaded the originals, not immediately cropped versions with creating the illusion that it is the same as on iwm. Cheers to Germany too --Aaa3-other (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. it is interesting what you say about commons is not the archive only the iwm... but i dont know.
p.p.s. sorry, i was meaning the „retouched”-template always (one can use the uploadlog for that) when saying „toomuch”, never meant the source-template!
Well, the He 111 photo, I don't know how that went. The destroyer image, well, the IWM images are 24 colour, but mostly I revert them to true grey scale, as sometimes the 24 colour gives them a brownish tint. Nothing else, the photo wasn't changed otherwise. I still stick to the opinion that Commons is no public archive and ho harm is done, when you tell the others what you have done. The source template explains - in my opinion - where the original is to be found. For further information see Commons:Licensing#License_information -> "Acceptable licenses" where it is stated "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
ok:) thanks. then as a last ask, can you tell instead of 'iwm photo', just shortly, some of the main changes when you upload? it'd be informative to anyone viewing it. cheers aaa3, and p.s. to if any1 finds this later, i place a copy of this to the only talkpage i use, on enwiki en:User_talk:Aaa3-other if he want to further commnet to me without disturbing him
p.s. to you, here i give the link [19] this jpegcrop can revert an image to greyscale losslessly and then when you save it it remains smaller size, not bigger (because there is no re-encode, it just deletes color info directly from file). one just clicks the greyscale button and ctrl+s. (set and save „settings” as i wrote above (huffopt+progress). use for cropping color photos too, when no level or rot is done, but that's rare because they really look aged etc
Thanks for the link. I am not sure if I understood what you are meaning by "can you tell instead of 'iwm photo', just shortly, some of the main changes when you upload? it'd be informative to anyone viewing it." Is the information you request the ones I put in the "retouchedpicture" template? -> cropped, levels, noise reduced etc.Cobatfor
i mean, when you are upload, and fill the "description", you dont only write 'iwm photo' evrywhere, (whether if it is a new upload or an overwrite, doesn't matter), but write into that summary the "cropped, levels, noise reduced etc". i do not request that you make a retouched template, because it is bad for you (more work) and not better for anyone (no more info, they can read in "upload-desc." too).--Aaa3-other (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

hi again, sorry for 'harassing' you again, just thought to tell: the new way to link is adding into the source-t, the number is the last part of the real http link. (i only found out after being puzzled why they look broken, when i took a look at the template's page.) this way its easier to link i guess thats why he changed it. if we only add photonumber, maybe its more load on iwm bc they have2 do a search. cheers Aaa3-other (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about the http-links in the photos. At first the picture-ID was not working. I am now deleting the http-link. sok üdvözlet Cobatfor (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
oh no, please don't! thats why i told you how can you now add the link the new way. it is very good to have a link. it is simple, you dont paste the full link to the template, only the last part of it. please read the template's page i linked, or how i also shown it here (you must write "oid=" toobefore the number). (old: {{t|link id|coll}} now: {{t|id|oid=linklast|coll}} ) also i wrote why its bad to not give a link (this way iwm must do a search, and user must click 1 more). mehr grüss --Aaa3-other (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Trier Air Base[edit]

Unfortunatley not. If I get over to the USAF Historical Research Agency I will attempt to find one. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and Cheers! Cobatfor (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:15th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron F-101 56-0042 Davis Monthan AFB,.jpg[edit]

No it's not. It's from the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron (McDonnell RF-101C-60-MC Voodoo 56-0042), which the tail markings are from. I made a typo when I loaded the photo and I don't know how to change the name (It needs to be delted and re-uploaded). Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Making a PD image PD[edit]

Cobatfor - How does one certify a PD image as such when it is not sourced from a US Gov website? For instance, I have a standard US Navy PAO photo of an admiral I like to clean up and upload, but the source website is an auction house. File is here [20]. I have other examples of claimed copyright, where the original source doc gave all rights away (Canal Zone pictures) that I don't know how to handle either. Is there a way? As always, thanks. JMOprof (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that is a very difficult question, as there is no evidence on who took the photo. It would be better, if it is somewhere claimed to be PD. Many users just say "PD-USGov" without any proof and hope that since there are 12 mio photos on Commons, no one will bother. However, even if you have a publication at home where it is written that it is a USN photo, that would be good and you should put it under "source". If there is an inscription that states that it is a USGov photo then you can upload the phot with the inscription, erase it and re-upload the photo without the inscription. I hope this will help you. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Cobatfor - Thanks. So the source may be a journal rather than a website? And If I link to the electronic journal that would be OK? If so, I'd think better to link to the release than the picture. The journal lives on line in the FSU archives. Pictures are retrieved elsewhere. JMOprof (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The journal or book does not have to be online. You can also quote it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we fix...?[edit]

Hi Cobatfor -

My upload :File:LOC 6a33648u.tif did not properly render a preview. How do we/I jumpstart it again?

I keep coming here to learn my way around. ☺

Thanks ... JMOprof (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia is experiencing some problems at the moment, see File:A-6B Intruder VA-95 at NAS Miramar 1974.jpeg. I just waited a while and pressed "F5", normally it worked then. If it is a large tif-file, that may take some time. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
We'll continue at my place ☺ JMOprof (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Cobatfor. You have new messages at JMOprof's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

File:Perhaps a use for an RNZAF Skyhawk is to replace this one - Flickr - PhillipC.jpg[edit]

Hi. After seeing the photo, I am almost sure that is a replica. Sorruno (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Midway[edit]

Thank you for your remark, I changed the B-17 sketch to B-17E. Cheers Kaboldy (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:North American T-28, Flughallenfest Vilshofen a.d. Donau.JPG[edit]

Hallo!

Vor wenigen Wochen habe ich dieses Bild bei einer Air Show aufgenommen. Weißt du mehr über dieses Flugzeug bzw. Flugzeugtyp. Ist dieses Flugzeug noch in US-Besitz? Man beachte die Hoheitszeichen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mojen! Die T-28C BuNo 146246 war wohl ursprünglich mal hier [21] und dann 2010 da [22]. Hier [23] stand sie zum Verkauf, ist aber nicht mehr auf der aktuellen Verkaufsliste [24]. Scheinbar ist sie nun in Mühldorf am Inn stationiert [25], wenn auch die Kennung N2800M immer noch für einen Besitzer aus den USA spricht. Bei der FAA ist sie immer noch in Texas gelistet [26]. Hat das geholfen? Cobatfor (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Nunja. Irgendwie hatte ich diese Detailtreue erwartet. Respekt. Danke! Jedenfalls sprach einer der beiden Piloten Englisch und einer Bayerisch - was zu diesem Eck passt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

USS Boxer LHD-4[edit]

Yes Cobatfor, You are right. 2011. The USS Ronald Reagan Aircraft Carrier and its three support ships arrived in Hong Kong on 13 August 2011, and USS Boxer LHD-4 has arrived in Hong Kong on 31 August 2011. So it was my mistake. Sorry for that. Please change the name. Thank you for pointing out this mistake.--HK Arun (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year[edit]

Center From: Kaboldy (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo!

Tolles Bild! Kannst du eine Version darüberladen ohne Windows-Dateinamenanzeige? Aus unerfindlichen Gründen streikt bei meinem Gerät die pdf-Datei

Ein frohes Neues wünsche ich dir natürlich auch! Viele Grüße, High Contrast (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


Frohe Weihnachten und ein glückliches neues Jahr!  :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:MvRichthofenWreckage.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you overwrote File:MvRichthofenWreckage.jpg. As it seemed to me that the two versions had their own merit, I splitted the file in two, your version being at File:MvRichthofenWreckage (2).jpg. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would have preferred the original Australian image without the writing, but if you prefer... Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I don’t really have a preference ; I merely thought others might have one :)
A second look at the images clearly indicates that I should have left the original Australian image as the default one (and the one with the writing as the alternate version). I thus made the replacement through all the Wikimedia projects.
Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful! Probably the best solution. Thank you and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Moselbruecke_zerstoert_1945.jpg[edit]

mybe the translation to german is incorrect. Did you know the name of the Bridge? From where is the translation? 91.67.16.85 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Na, man kann die Übersetzung ja auch selbst verbessern... Cobatfor (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

F-102[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Fighter_Squadron 16th FIS I believe is the unit you are looking for :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Cobatfor,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

H-2 vs SH-2[edit]

If it is H-2, then you might want to rename the wikipedia page as well as that page uses SH-2. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sadly this is very difficult. The U.S. designation system has clear rules since 1962, if not the U.S. itself would sometimes "bend" it. The Seasprite ist the H-2, the Sea King the H-3, the H-60 is the Black Hawk or Seahawk. Especially the SH-60 derivatives have unofficial-official names like SH-60F "Oceanhawk" of MH-60S "Knighthawk" (officially they are all "Seahawk"s) which found their way on wikipedia. The H-2 was originally (before 1962) designated HU2K. After 10-15 years of its production almost any surviving example was converted for anti-submarine duty and all UH/HH-2A/B/C/D became SH-2D/F. Some were even converted to the SH-2G, again 20-30 years later. However, technically, the type is still called "H-2". This is difficult to communicate to some users, so I just let it be. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand your argument, in fact it is the policy of the aviation/aircraft project on wikipedia to use the base designator, even when it is never used in practice (such as with Japanese navy aircraft only having letter number letter, even when an additional number was always used). Once the base page is established, it can then be broken down to include major subtypes, so SH-60 is broken off H-60, then when it gets big enough the MH-60S can be broken off.
The point of renaming the wikimedia page is that they should match the Wikipedia page names to make finding pages easier, so one or the other should be changed.
The existence of the HH-2, SH-2 and UH-2 clearly argues for the wikipedia page to be changed.NiD.29 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see that discussion happened a while ago - I wonder if the time is ripe to reopen it, especially as the SH-2G was subsequently split off, along with most of the media talk about the type? I would back you up on this one - it isn't a well enough known aircraft for a popular name to override the wikipedia standard naming convention.NiD.29 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you made a new category for the AD Skyraider, R5D etc. I think this is very problematic, as any USN/USMC/USCG aircraft still in service in 1962 was redesignated according to the new tri-service designation system. That was why I made the category "Douglas C-54 Skymaster (United States Navy)". For example, the Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star was the WV-2 with the Navy, and the crews called it "Willy Victor" and not "Constellation". After 18 September 1962 it became the EC-121K, and it is known by this name. The Douglas F4D Skyray soldiered for about 1.5 years as the F-6, but no one calls this aircraft the F-6. Who says McDonnell F4H Phantom II? The F-4 Phantom II category was renamed "McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II", although the company was only McDonnell when the Phantom was designed. I would stick to the designations most commonly used: C-54 for the R5D, C-47 for the R4D, F4D instead of F-6, A-1 instead of AD, F9F instead of F-9, F11F instead of F-11. Everything else leads to ever-lasting confusion and (in my opinion unnecessary) categories. What do you do with the photo of a Navy C-54 in 1962: is it an C-54 or an R5D? It just depends on the exact date the photo was taken, but it is the same aircraft. Take the ships, vor example: The aircraft carrier USS Essex was CV-9, CVA-9 and CVS-9. However, the category is USS Essex (CV-9), as it is the one consistent with USN carriers and the one mostly known. What is your opinion? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for HABS/HAER files.[edit]

Hi, I've been working on categories for these surveys too (primarily in western states) and was hoping we could coordinate to avoid redundant/conflicting effort. My approach has been to move the files for single survey into an existing correct category if there is one, otherwise create one, preferably corresponding to the name of an article on en.wikipedia, and then adding a {{commonscat}} tag to that page. All of the files are in (possibly hidden) HABS/HAER categories already as a built-in function of the templates used on the files, so I'm not sure any categories created should be added to Category:Files from the Historic American Buildings Survey (the category page states not to add to it manually).

The other thing is to remove the files from the place name category that they were first in, once they've been added to a more specific category. It's difficult to do this with available tools right now because of the lack of sorting by filename, so until sort keys have been added I'm using a replace script to move all files matching a survey. If there are particular surveys you'd like me to do this for, you can list them here, and I'll try to get to them promptly. If you think the files really need to be in a HABS/HAER-specific category within the topic category, mention that too. Meanwhile, I'll remove the files from, for instance, Category:Bremerton, Washington that you've added to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey files - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. If the files are left in the place name categories they started in, I (or someone else) might not realize they've already been categorized, and then make a mess doing work that you've already done. Cheers! --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure, if I got what you meant (a language problem on my side). However, I see a problem when there are 1,500 files for one location (like Mare Island Navy Yard or Pearl Harbor). Especially the Pearl Harbor category is totally jammed with whatever file. The other problem is that the files are tif-files which should habe jpg-versions (but: who would convert 300,000+ files...). So, what do we do with the HABS-files that go into the hundreds for one location? How do we differentiate these? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The language problem is half on my side, too. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg I didn't mean to say that you should never put the survey files in their own category, just that it isn't always needed. I agree, in cases like the Puget Sound Navy Yard, it's a good idea. The thing that's most important to me is that files that have been categorized are moved from their original city or county category, and not only added to a more specific category. If not, it's difficult to tell which files still need to be categorized. I understand that this is difficult to do with tools like Cat-a-lot when working with such a large number of files, especially when the file names don't sort them together. This will get better, but for now if there is a large group that you would like moved into a category (maybe one that you've already created), I'll be happy to do the move operation if you mention it here. I hope that makes sense. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as you can see here Category:Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, I put not all files in HABS-bla bla bla-categories. At the Mare Island Navy Yard, someone created a category for almost any building! This would probably be good for the Pearl Harbor HABS-files, but I (sadly) know Pearl Harbor only from a map and have no local knowledge, and, to be honest, that's not my type of work. I actually do not know if the bridge in Chicago (where I have actually been) is called "Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Bridge No. Z-2", but it is easier to just upload 300,000 files than to categorize them. I for my part, think that many of the US Navy-files uploaded via bot are just useless (seaman X shaking hands with seaman Y, etc). The HABS-files at least have some historical value, but who am I to judge the importance of a photo (although having an MA in history...). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, hopefully people with specific or local interest can add more detailed categories when needed. My efforts are mostly towards getting the huge number of files sorted out of the sadly overcrowded city/county categories where they start out - there were over 2,000 in Category:Los Angeles County, California, which is where I started. In cases like the bridge, I usually visit the survey page to see any information that isn't on the file pages, then search on en.wikipedia to see if there's an article (there often will be for historical landmarks). In this case, searching for "Milwaukee Road Bridge" redirected me to Beverly Railroad Bridge, so now, even though I have no local knowledge, I have enough information to create a good category. Fortunately, I enjoy learning about random places and things, or it would probably seem like too much work. Clin And now, looking at the page, it's not the right bridge, so... bad example, sorry! It's this one: Category:Cherry_Avenue_bridge... except some of those pictures are of bridge Z-6, not Z-2... is that confusing enough? Facepalm (yellow).svg --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and about the tiff/jpeg conversion, there's no need to convert the tiff files, since the mediawiki software now does this automatically for any use of the image. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Does it convert it into a new file? I wonder, because many of the tif-files have frames etc. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it just generates jpeg versions any time the file is referenced on-wiki, such as the one that you're looking at when you view the file page. The only way you'll ever see an actual tiff file is by clicking the "Original file" link. As for cropping the frames, that's another problem entirely. It would be nice if there was a working crop-bot for tiff files on the server, since the files are so large... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images[edit]

Hi, did anything go wrong using cat-a-lot? --Wuselig (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously. How do I remove it? Cobatfor (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid the same way you got the images into the category. Only this time use the correct category into which the images should have gone. I imagine it is something like "Category:Pictures and images of whatsoever" and so using cat-a-lot you had just clicked on the first suggestion and not the correct long version. --Wuselig (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons - Photos[edit]

Hello Cobatfor!

I am glad that you like some of the images that I have uploaded to Commons.

I confess to sometimes being unsure as to what category to assign to the images. Following your kindly strictures, I promise to try harder in future! When I slip up, I would appreciate it, and many others would, I'm sure, if you would add to or correct the categories that I created.

I'm afraid that my strength is the old photos that I have - my weakness is the 'clerical' side!!

Best Wishes

RuthAS (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, so I will continue to look on what you load up :-) Thank you for your nice pictures! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation now on Twitter[edit]

Hi, as mentioned here, Commons:WikiProject Aviation is now on Twitter. I will be using the feed to tweet photos from our now extensive repository of aviation imagery, and will also use it for outreach activities. If you have any suggestions on how to get the maximum use out of Twitter feel free to leave suggestions on the Aviation project talk page. You can follow the account at http://www.twitter.com/commonsaviation. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:KB-29J streaking fuel out of boom.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:KB-29J streaking fuel out of boom.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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Petebutt (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Daimler-Benz DB 605[edit]

Hello Cobatfor. I saw in this file history that you twice removed Category:Messerschmitt Bf 109. I wonder why. Maybe the presence of Category:Daimler-Benz DB 605 has lead to the assumption that the Messerschmidt category has become redundant. But the engine has been used in more planes than the Bf 109 only, which means there's not something like a hierarchical relation.
Another reason might be that we see only an engine, not a plane. But this 'visual' argument isn't used for the three 1944 categories, so why should we use it for the Messerschmitt?
I would appreciate your comment. Regards, Apdency (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to keep categories reasonable and not to throw anything into one category. For example: File:A French air force EC-725 Caracal helicopter prepares to land aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), not pictured, during joint operations in the Gulf of Oman Jan. 3, 2014 140103-N-RY581-008.jpg. This photo is in the categories "USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)" and "Operation Enduring Freedom". The first has some 500 files the latter more than 2.000. The ship is not pictured in the photo, wo why put it in the category? I would put it in the "Airbus Helicopters EC725 Super Cougar in the French Air Force" category and probably make one for "French contingent of Operaion Enduring Freedom". As for the Me 109 engine, if there would be more photos of the wreck, I would make one for the wreck, but on this photo there is only a DB605 and no Me 109 shown.Cobatfor (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Every case will have its own considerations. As for the helicopter picture, I think I wouldn't have categorized the ship either. But that would not be so hard to decide, because the helicopter is just a guest to the aircraft carrier, and that doesn't influence its characteristics. The relation between the rusty engine block and the plane that it was part of, is much closer. The fact that we see the object as it is, is completely entangled with the story of a crashed Me. Apdency (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, are there more photos of the wreck? As I understand it was Me 109G-6 (s/n 410210) "Yellow 4" of 6./JG 11 flown by Uffz. Horst Quietzsch [27]. The "Bf" (Bayerische Flugzeugwerke) designation was changed to "Me" (Messerschmitt) in 1938. Cobatfor (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info. No, I don't know about more photos. Apdency (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Title of File:Marlet landing HMS Illustrious NAN2-1-44.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I see you originally uploaded this photo. Caption currently says it's aboard HMS Indomitable, but file name says HMS Illustrious. Is this a case where it's been re-identified as Indomitable ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, this was six years ago... The reasoning was probably the following: The U.S. Naval Aviation News describes the carrier as HMS Illustrious. However, here [28] you find the following: "A Deck Landing Control Officer aboard HMS Illustrious enthusiastically guides an 806 Naval Air Squadron Grumman Martlet (Wildcat) pilot home in wet weather en route to Malta, using the hand-held lighting system. On a grey day like this, the lights would have been a very effective system. Photo: Imperial War Museum". According to English Wikipedia, 806 NAS flew the F4F from Indomitable: "In May 1942, the squadron then split into "A" Flight (with Martlet IIs on HMS Indomitable, fighting in Operation Pedestal) and "B" Flight (with Fulmars on Illustrious). The former was disbanded in the UK when its ship was damaged in Pedestal and returned to the UK, while "B" Flight disembarked at Port Reitz Airport in East Africa in October 1942, only to be disbanded at Tanga in January 1943." Fleetairarmarchive puts 806 NAS on Indomitable until September 1942 and on Illustrious in October 1942. The en:wikipedia information is from the 806 NAS page of Fleetairarmarchive which contradicts the information on the carrier-pages of the same site. Well, I assume that was my reasoning, but we can change it back to Illustrious, because probably nothing is really proven. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)