Commons talk:Photography critiques

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

Bot or human problem?[edit]

This change below did remove Stadhuis Antwerpen supposedly archiving it to the February 2007 subpage but it does not show up there???

Revision as of 16:20, 27 February 2007 (edit) (undo)
Werdnabot (Talk | contribs)
m (Automated archival of 1 sections to Commons:Photography critiques/February 2007)

Also Commons:Photography critiques/February 2007 shows only one edit, by Werdnabot, so it is not that the entry has been removed after archiving.--Klaus with K 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should talk to the Werdnabot operator. Might be a bug. Unfortunately I don't have time to look into it right now. --Dschwen 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Werdnabot is not functioning, and has not been for a while. Probably time to get another bot on the job. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A how to page.[edit]

There's some sense in Commons:How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons. But it's pretty orphaned now. Anyone care to suggest somewhere to merge it to or is it worth linking to as is? Ben Aveling 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is of stub-start quality. But I think there is room for images to be contributed short of making the bar for Quality Images, so one possibly could expand it (while making sure it is complementary to Commons:Image guidelines and not a duplication).
I was even musing that a similar page Commons:How to take panoramic pictures for Wikimedia Commons would be a more appropriate place for an expanded version of the Stitched images, panoramas section in Commons:Image guidelines. -- Klaus with K 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility Entry[edit]

A photograph has been placed so it is directly behind the Table of Contents so that the items are unreadable. The photographer who posted the picture should be made to relocate it or the administrator should delete it. Please 07:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that there is a problem with your browser? Because no matter what I do with the window in mine, no photograph ever overlaps the TOC. — Yerpo Eh? 12:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Old Roses image[edit]

The Old Rose photo of 'Belle de Crecy' is definitely not the correct rose. 'Belle de Crecy' is NOT a single, five-petaled rose. 'Belle de Crecy' is a very full, many-petalled Gallica rose of a magenta, mauve, and lilac blend, generally aging to a deep pink-grey.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 November 2011‎ (UTC)
You should post that to the talk page of the image in question and put {{Fact disputed}} on its description page, and/or notify the author himself. This talk page is for discussing the photography critiques project in general, not factual issues of specific photos (it's not even clear which photo you refer to). — Yerpo Eh? 11:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


I've created and successfully tested here this new module. --Ricordisamoa 00:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Since for some reason ArchiveBot doesn't seem to work here, I've switched the automatic archives to be done by SpBot as suggested here. Hope that'll make the page look less abandoned and a bit more inviting to add new discussions. --El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Right now it is set up to archive level 3 sections 7 days after they have been marked with {{Section resolved}}. Threads are also moved to the archive if there has been no new comment for 3 months (90 days), unless the section is marked with {{DNAU}} (needs to be subst:ed). That's all open for discussion, of course. I also thought we could abandon the monthly level 2 headers and use level 2 for single files … --El Grafo (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
FTR: Went ahead and switched to level 2 headers a while back. Great to see the page is being used more regularly again, keep 'em coming! --El Grafo (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

i18n of COM:Photography critiques/Header[edit]

Hey, I'm not a good photographer (full of phone-taken photos), and I help community by maintainance work. I found header is un-translateable, so if nobody opposes, I would like to make header translateable. Any objections?  revimsg 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, that would be very much appreciated! Thanks for the offer, just go ahead and do whatever needs to be done. --El Grafo (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot about this.  Doing… — Revi 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
✓  Done — Revi 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)