User talk:Nanobliss

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nanobliss!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Krabbstyrning.jpg[edit]

Hello, please reupload a new version of this image under a new filename if you want it being rotated in one or another direction, see [1]. --:bdk: 23:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting my rotation request anymore (I need the image rotated 270 degrees clockwise for layout purposes; it does NOT change its use or meaning in both linked wikipages).- Nanobliss (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason not to reupload a different version, especially if there's no valid reason to change the original direction of such an illustration. Please stop requestion bot rotation again and again therefore. --:bdk: 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have given you a valid reason and I cannot upload a different version. This old image was rotated recently for similar reasons: [2]. Thank you again for not reverting my rotation request anymore. - Nanobliss (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, everyone can upload different/edited versions of a file. You already uploaded other images … it sounds a bit strange that you "cannot upload a different version" therefore.
It's pretty common to have vehicle layout diagrams in this top–down/front-rear direction, btw, so changing the direction to right-left in such a case is often controversial. Again, it's not ok to rotate an original image simply for article layout reasons on en.wikipedia, at least not if there are objections. And well, we have enough storage space to store different versions of a file here on Commons. --:bdk: 00:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry again, but I cannot upload a different version of this file. If you do not allow me to rotate the image by using rotabot I will have to stop using the image and replace it with one that better suits the article's layout. Layout is extremely important in order to facilitate readers and to make them understand the content more easily. Let me remind you again that the information the image conveys does not change at all when rotated 270 degrees clockwise, as it illustrates crab steering. - Nanobliss (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, why not asking another user for doing this for you then (instead of trying to enforce your view by repeated reverting)? Anyway, I've uploaded File:Krabbstyrning (L).jpg now, so both versions can be used according to specific layout requirements.
Maybe it's helpful to make the relevant point a bit more clear: Basically there are two groups of rotation requests:
1) In most cases rotation is appropriate and/or ok, because the image orientation simply is wrong (due to broken camera/Exif data etc.), or because the orientation could be regarded as unusual at least (like the handbag holder, you gave as an example above), and there are no objections against rotation of the original.
2) In some cases rotation isn't a question of right or wrong, because the image works well in any direction; best appearance depends on circumstances then, not on the image itself. The now rotated crab steering scheme for example would probably look not that well in he.wikipedia or ar.wikipedia articles (languages with a right-to-left writing direction), and a rotated original image could possibly also mix-up layouts of external websites that make use of it via hotlinking (not recommended, but supported by the Stockphoto gadget and widely tolerated if not used excessively), or via InstantCommons – an important, but often forgotten/ignored aspect (Commons is not only Wikipedia's media repository, we also try to create a more and more reliable site for external uses). So imagine someone transcluded the original File:Krabbstyrning.jpg to a certain website eventually in the past and added a caption that refers to image parts like "forklift (top)", and then the image gets rotated in 2012 (without any real chance to noticing it) … the image would probably appear distorted there (landscape format instead of portrait format), the forklift would be on the left then, and the unchanged caption would appear to readers as if the author doesn't know what he writes about ;-)
Well, I usually don't like to point to "written rules", but Commons:Don't be bold#Images and Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files contain some good explanations why Commons is a bit different to Wikipedia. I hope this helps. --:bdk: 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)