User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2011

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


you deleted File:De-Darwin_Airline-article.ogg, which was a redirect to File:2.ogg. the redirect was used on de-wp. it would have been better if you had seen that, and would have moved 2.ogg to De-Darwin_Airline-article.ogg. maybe you can fullfill that move now. --Akkakk (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

thx --Akkakk (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Images in book.

I just finished uploading this DjVu book. The text is in the public domain, however I'm not sure about the images. The illustrator is Maurice L. Bower. I don't know his date of death. I realised this just after I had finished uploading the book. Would it be possible for you to delete the file should the images still be in copyright? I apologise about the uploading of a possibly copyrighted novel. I hope this doesn't prevent me from having the chance of uploading more novels to Commons. Next time I'll check the D.O.B. of all authors and/or illustrators involved with the novel before uploading. Thank you. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me do a little research to see if we can determine some life info first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be an American illustrator
Name: Maurice L. Bower
Birth - Death: 1889-1980
Source Citation:
  • Who Was Who in American Art. 400 years of artists in America. Second edition. Three volumes. Edited by Peter Hastings Falk. Madison, CT: Sound View Press, 1999. (WhAmArt 2)
So as American illustrator and published pre 1923. All editions look to be 1915, and the author was living in US 1907-1924 (WP article), so that says we only need to satisfy US copyright law, which is pre-1923. Okay to keep as is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Converted to {{book}} and added most of the detail to the template, though you may wish to update. I have created the two respective {{creator}}s. Book seems well-developed now, and to me it is worthwhile using that rather than {{information}}. Eventually I will have all of mine converted (maybe). At some point we will need to add the link to the book once it is underway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know the {{book}} template existed, but it is definitely really good for DjVu books: provides so much more information.
Commons policy states that files uploaded should be public domain in the source country. Does that mean that the images in The Lost Prince are public domain in the U.K., or is it just the text. Thanks.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The source country in this case would be the US, as that is where she is living.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Uss carl vinson cvn-70.jpg


There's been some troubles with CommonsDelinker recently. The file File:Uss carl vinson cvn-70.jpg couldn't be replaced because File:US Navy 020123-N-6436W-001 USS Vinson (CVN 70) Returns Home.jpg has been deleted by Rehman yesterday. It looks like you've tried to replace these files in the wrong way (or maybe it's because Rehman has deleted the wrong file?). Could you please fix it with Rehman? Thanks! Tachymètre (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not wrong it has been playing up, I issued that command days ago, and it looks like Rehman has reversed the move that was requested. I have created a redirect, and I am pushing the files to match the image. So the temporary fix should work, and we should have the moves done in time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:TNE-Issue 03.pdf

When I look at the page -- -- I read in "description," "Creative Commons license: Attribution 3.0 United States", and in "Licenseurl" "". This makes me think that we are free to use this file here as long as we attribute it to the authors i.e. F.J. Mahoulahan, Carson Cistulli, Eamon Ffitch, Sean Casey, Jason Doctor, Justin Jamail -- the at times called "Shuttlecoque Sporting Club". -- 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As per discussion elsewhere, it is not authoritative without knowing the contributor has the right to apply that licence, and that is not clear for that work. The contributor to Commons has an aligned name with one of the contributors listed, so it should be possible for that person to get/generate the OTRS permission for the work to be hosted. If the work itself had had the licence on it as part of its production then that would have been definitive, without it there is always that uncertainty.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:14th-century ivory

Grazie per lezione di inglese. Ho preso esempio dalle categorie già esistenti:

Ciao. --Albertomos (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

exact or scaled-down duplicate

Hallo Billinghurst, if you really think File:Orujo_de_hierbas-2.jpg is a "exact or scaled-down duplicate" then please consult a doctor. ;) Seriously: Why did you tag my reworked version as dupe and directly sent out delinker to replace it?! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the Delinker now... useless work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Now I see why you had the idea it is a duplicate: User_talk:Valdavia#duplicate_tag However, please be more careful next time and compare and read the description page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi. I disagree with your removal of speedy delete of the file Belárie. The problem is that some time ago, I uploaded some pictures, because my quality level was significantly lower than is today. However, I bought a better camera, learned a bit more to make better pictures and uploaded many of them on commons. The problem is - how to remove the old ones? I can't start Vote for Deletion, because ŠJů, fundamental inclusionist (sometime with several other guys) will vote keep for on everything, and when I try speedy delete, it is reverted. I do not want to delete tens or hundreds of pictures, just about two, three, five of really bad quality, that cannot be used in any article because they simply look bad and I realized it now, not in the very exact time when I uploaded them. So, what can/should I do? I was thinking about removing the licence stating I do not want the picture to be published on Commons any longer, but I think that's quite brutal. Thank you. --Aktron (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are about to get a new copy of the same image from the same spot and of better quality, then you can upload over the old image using the link on the page "Upload a new version of this file", or upload a new version if there is significant level of difference. With regard to voting, it comes down to the administrators to make the decisions based on the criteria against the evidence and the opinions are only part of that decision-making. When I do some of that decision-making, I look at the age of the photograph, contributor, the replacement images, etc. If you are asking for a speedy, there is only a limited criteria for that decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess reconstruction of the shot is much more constructive and usable option. I was thinking about it before, but principally I was against, because it meant that the original data are completely replaced. About the deletions - well that is a point of view. I take pictures and upload them, so I am motivated to archive better and better quality over the time, because I feel I have lot of resources to choose from (practically when I make an "uploading spree" it's about 15 to 25 % of the content made; the percentage is dropping over time) so now I am quite delecionist. However, administrators do always deleting pictures, well that's an argument why to be at least a bit inclusionist. I have to say yes, there are no similar shots to these two I wanted to delete (I thought there were but I overestimated activity of czech Wikipedia photographers). However I think it is still a good reason to delete a picture or two whether the author wants to - but only if thas does not damage commons. I tried to request deletion for about 3-5 pictures few years ago but like now it was rejected. So I am just trying to rid myself of feelings like "once you upload something on commons it cannot be deleted no matter what happens" and trying to find reasons "for what cases" is deletion actually used. --Aktron (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I delete lots of pictures, and I am not against deleting this picture, though not as a speedy at this point in time. If you believe that it should be deleted, then please follow normal procedure. If you think that I am in error in my decision, then please take it to the appropriate administrators' noticeboard and seek alternate opinions. I know that my refusal to delete at this stage is only my opinion based upon my interpretation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

BSicon_uvtSTR.svg, BSicon_uvtSTR-STRl.svg & BSicon_uvtKMW.svg

‎Compare the results of Special:PrefixIndex/File:BSicon uvt (3 icons) with Special:PrefixIndex/File:BSicon utv (37 icons), and you can see that the former group has an incorrect (i.e. misspelled) prefix. Useddenim (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is different, that does not make it misspelt. If there is an an issue or problem with the variations between the two, then say that. I checked several pages where they were being used and they seemed to be displaying properly. Replacing those railway icons is problematic as the automatic script cannot manage it, which means that an admin at Commons has to go to each of those sites where they are used and amend each link manually. Now we can do that if there is a good reason for doing so, though that it upsets someone's sensibilities as it varies due to spelling is not a good reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


You cited Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates when a jpg and png were marked as duplicates of each other (File:Roderik cuellar torres.jpg and File:Firma de Roderik.png). However, the wording on that page talks about a bitmap file being superseded by a vector file. It does not address two bitmap files of different formats. It's not a big deal, but I wanted you to know why I had used the duplicate tag in that case. Additionally, the software is actually stating that they are duplicates of each other if you scroll to the bottom of those files. – Adrignola talk 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The first line says (my underline highlight)
If the file is the same file type and you're sure that it is exactly the same content (colours, quality, etc) tag it with {{duplicate|File:example.jpg}} and give for the parameter (File:example.jpg) the file which can replace this duplicate file.
I just think that they should then go through the normal delete process, and they should fly through.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:GuerrilleroHeroico.jpg broken link

Just to tell you that by deleting this page without relinking to the new File:CheHigh.jpg you erased the picture on all the international wiki articles using it as main picture. Thanks to watch the links to wikipedia page when a picture is massively used and do not forget to redirect if you delete it (I did redirect it but it took me 20 minutes as I am not familiar with commons). all the best, Apollofox (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete it,
10:12, 5 March 2011 Rehman (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:GuerrilleroHeroico.jpg" ‎ (Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:CheHigh.jpg) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)
I just put it through a script to replace this version to another.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Replied on talk page. Regards, Swarm (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Would you mind answering one more question there? It would be appreciated. Swarm (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:B Young.jpg

Can you please explain to me how you came to decided "unlikely to be copyvio due to its age". The copyright age is not determined by the subject, but by the date of creation. There is nothing anywhere that shows that this painting was "MADE" during B.Young life. For all we know (since the Author and date of creation is unknown) this was painted last month. The image was taken from a copyrighted website and, unless the uploader can show it came from a PD source, it is a copyvio.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A little research on the image will show you that it was painted by George M. Ottinger, (1833-1917) and painted in 1872.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I did some research but was unable to find that information. You are correct the image is in the PD. However, that still doesn’t explain how you came to "unlikely to be copyvio due to its age" when you removed the image from copyvio. Until I asked you about, there was no evidence that it was PD due to age. I seems to me that taking an image from a copyrighted website and using since it is "unlikely" to be copyrighted as a justification is a bad way to do things.--ARTEST4ECHO talk
I had done the search. I shouldn't have used the word "unlikely", and simply said that "due to its age ..."  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


\\Paste from bot page\\ Could you please supersede {{Creator:Petrus Adamus}} by {{User:Petrus Adamus/author}} in file descriptions? Thanks, Petrus Adamus (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it is not a registered bot as I keep getting distracted elsewhere, so this has got me off my bum, and into place. It will take a bit longer as I will get the edit rate slow due it not being a designated bot. It is underway. For interested parties, please see Template talk:Creator#Creator templates for Wikimedia users  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have remarked, that on some pages the change is correct but on many others (e. g. [1]) the creator template is not superceded and just =={{int:filedesc}}== was added. Could you please improve it? Petrus Adamus (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, you had an underscore in some. I will run it over the remainder with that addition to the find and replace. billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, now it is OK. Petrus Adamus (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tag on File:Russell Park Mural - - 552646.jpg

Please do not simply remove a speedy deletion tag. If the thing was improperly added, you should at least inform the the editor who did this of their mistake. If the deletion is controversial you should remove the speedy tag and raise a deletion request which you should vote against. Please contribute to the debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russell Park Mural - - 552646.jpg. --Simonxag (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for paying attention to my undeletion request (weather diagrams)! I was losing hope that someone would handle it. Regards! -- Orionisttalk 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we hasten slowly. While they sit there, they are under consideration.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst,

Many thanks for restoring my Commons user talk page.

Regards, Cmglee (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for any inconvenience caused. I deleted that to try to drop this glitch, but forgot to restore it back. Sorry Cmglee, and thanks Billinghurst. :) Rehman 08:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Cooperative effort. All is well.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New DjVu file

I have just finished uploading this Djvu file; however, the pages are not loading, nor does the front cover show up. When I uploaded this file to Wikisource, the front cover wouldn't show up their either, or the pages. I'm not sure if this is because I did something wrong during the uploading process, or whether it takes time for images and pages to show. But I'm sure I did everything right during the uploading process in the same manner as I have done uploading previous DjVu files. Thank you. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File would seem to be corrupted, at least to some point in not complying with whatever standard is needed for djvu. From where did you source the file?  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Internet Archive. I downloaded it from the site in the same way as my other DjVu uploads and uploaded it onto Commons in the same way as I did with the other DjVu's I uploaded. I also tried uploading the file again using the old upload form, but the result turned out in the same way. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Must have been a corruption in the download and save. So I fixed it to find out that someone had already done that. D'oh! Anyway, all should be good.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename a file

Hello billinghurst! According to the direction, File:20090110 8e7b8137617a25d312d0SKa5Lros4CNA.jpg would be better renamed as File: Zhao Erxun.jpg. Could you please do me a favor to rename it? Thank you very much.Sgsg (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

✓  Done If there are any future cases, please utilise {{rename}} to identify the file and a filename, with a reason, and then it will probably get done quicker.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much!Sgsg (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Concordia

Hi, I just answered to you on my Discussion page. --Millot (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | 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 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Battle of the Bulge categories

It looks like while you were adding categories to the images from the Battle of the Bulge publication, your script *also* got the SVGs from the license tag(s), which is incorrect and makes little sense ;-) I corrected File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg but it looks like File:PD-icon.svg was modified, and as that is fully protected I can't fix it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Oops … and I had cleaned out the those images, so I must have had the beasts listed twice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of complimentary coffee for you!

A small cup of coffee.JPG I hereby award you with this complementary cup of coffee for your tireless efforts, and amazing edits and uploads. In addition, I would like to offer you a second cup of free coffee for your commitment to Wikimedia Commons, and your advice and help when users have questions and queries. Angelprincess72 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Creator years of life

Hi, I noticed some of your edits to Creator templates removing years from Birthdate field and adding it to Birthyear. Birth/Deathyear fields should be used only if Birth/Death date is not in ISO 8601 format (for example if {{Other date}} is used) and can not be easily parsed and be added to the top line. For dates in ISO 8601 format only Birth/Deathdate fields should be used. Adding Birth/Deathyear fields does not affect the look of the template but removing data from Birth/Deathdate fields removes it from display in the collapsible part of the template. I will undo some of your edits. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. That was not how I read the instruction, so I have done tweak to (hopefully) add some clarity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Great --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FAI HOR CBranco Vcoast.jpg

Good day Billinghurst. My request to delete File:FAI HOR CBranco Vcoast.jpg is based on a strange error. If you go to the Category:Capelo (Horta) page there are two images titled similarly. One that was recently uploaded, but not using the updated image upload. Would it be possible to either delete both images, so that I can re-upload the valid one, or at least, eliminate the older one. Both were originally uploaded by myself. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Gday Zeorymer. I only see one file with that name, so you might be seeing a temporary glitch. With {{duplicate}} one should add the duplicate filename, eg. {{duplicate|File:Someother filename.jpg}}  — billinghurst sDrewth


What on earth was that?! I have marked File:OEISicon light.svg as a duplicate, and this one should be deleted. Now the delinker is changing names from a short name to a long name. That's completely pointless. Lipedia (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File size and detail; you used {{duplicate}}. Length of name is neither important, nor relevant. Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Filesize and detail? I don't understand. The new file, now deleted, had a shorter and better code. Why did you choose to do the opposite of what I have requested? Lipedia (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If you use duplicate it is likely to happen, different set of checks. If you had used {{bad name}}, then it may have been what you wanted. If you have a better quality copy, just upload over the top.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


I reckon the svg is the original, so Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates would not hold.-- 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where file types differ according to the policy, I don't speedy them, they are usually put through a standard deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Leucoraja circularis

Hello, you refused my speed deletion demand (here). The problem : it's not the same fish : Leucoraja circularis on Google image ; Leucoraja naevus on Google image . The first mistake was made on the source's book (here) but it's a bad idea ( for me) to keep it on Commons. Cordialement - Goudron92 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Next time please don't use {{duplicate}} as it is not the right template for what you are looking to achieve. Probably can look to one of the variations of {{Speedy}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cruikshank


Isaac Cruikshank and Isaac Robert Cruikshank were two separate people (father and son). Churchh (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of your edits are of quite poor quality and do nothing useful - such as
Churchh (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


If I.R. Cruikshank was born in 1789, why did you imagine that he would be able to engrave a plate in 1792? Churchh (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Cruikshank image

One of the few files on this site actually by Isaac Robert Cruikshank is File:1818-English-Ladies-Dandy-Toy-IR-Cruikshank.jpg, and you didn't add the creator template to that one! I've fixed some of the mistakes, but I probably won't get around to finishing the clean-up for a few weeks, so if you want to pitch in, that would be very helpful. Churchh (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like I mistook badly. I will back track through and fix. Good eyes, thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC). Tidied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I should have added that English Wikisource is working on s:Index:English Caricaturists and Graphic Humourists of the nineteenth century.djvu as the Proofread of the Month.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming File:Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_flag.svg

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I've moved the above file to the requested name at File:Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_ensign.svg. I'm letting you know this because you previously declined a move request of that file. The move that I performed was acceptable by policy, specifically COM:RENAME #5 in regards to correcting a factual error in the name. While the distinction might not seem like much to someone who doesn't know much about flags, ensigns and jacks, it is a significant distinction. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are people renaming HMS xyx (19nn) categories to HMS xyz (ship, 19nn) ?

Hi, User:Docu appears to be on a crusade to include (ship) in all ship categories, even when the prefix such as HMS or SMS means it's a ship. I requested some changes to be deleted, such as reverting to the previously perfectly sensible category name Category:HMS Colossus (1910) and requesting the new category Category:HMS Colossus (ship, 1910) to be deleted, which you did. What grounds does this guy have for these changes ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Docu is doing whatever, have you asked them? In this bit, I am just the maid, the reasoning looked okay, to note that I had previously cleaned up those that went the other way. A formal discussion should be taking place on the overarching talk page, a consensus reached, action taken. There seems a big enough community interested in the Royal Navy and it is a cross-WMF thing, so get people talking and reach a decision. Gut feel says that you are correct it is basically tautological, and if we need to separate out landbases, then we can differentiate in the naming of those. It would also be worth looking at what is being done for all navies and having a consistent approach, even if it is tautological or otherwise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes of SDrewthbot

your bot edits like this one are a mistake. Template:Examples of parity relations shows the description of all these files. Now there is only the template name instead of the template. I hope this happened just because at this moment the template didn't already exist. This is my usual way to include the descriptions when I have many similar files. (Compare e.g. File:Fanoperm376.svg.) And I'm not going to always use the language specification, which is pointless when there is only one description in English. Lipedia (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You may disagree with what I have done, but it is not a mistake, it was a deliberate action. Empty templates without explanation that sit empty for many months are unhelpful, and clearly not self-evident. On a shared site we need to develop a discipline to make our intention more evident, and to do our maintenance more regularly. If you make the template, I am happy to run the bot through to reinvigorate the pages.

The template, at that example, could also be developed in a means to better achieve what you are looking to achieve, and I think in a way to make it easier to do your templates so they don't sit empty. I have had a play with Template:Fano plane collineations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well ... it would have been more efficient to notify me before, instead of running the bot two times for many files. I forgot to make the description template, and possibly there are still some red links left. I don't see the point in your change of Template:Fano plane collineations. If we keep it, your bot has to change 168 files to remove the "English:", which the stupid UploadWizard forced me to put there. The only advantage is that someone could add a description in another language in the template. (I'd prefer not to show the "English:" until a second language is added.) Lipedia (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an expectation that with every red-linked template that the author is contacted? I think that your expectations are too high and you are seemingly unaware of the number of red-linked templates. IMNSHO If a template is left red and there is no indication of who/where/what and it has been many months then it is just asking to be either removed or converted to something else. Having the bot change files is a less tedious, then manual, collation is usually easier. Re the UploadWizard, if you have a preloaded {{information}} template, fall back to the basic upload form  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst,

Thank you for the renameing my pictures. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Charlotte Orleans Lorraine 1676 1744 children.png

Hi, could you please delete "File:Elisabeth Charlotte Orleans Lorraine 1676 1744 children.png" speedily? Another editor requested for it to be renamed as the title of the painting identified the sitters wrongly, but I was unable to do so as the file, a JPEG, had been given the wrong extension. I therefore re-uploaded the file with the correct name and a .JPG extension. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It needed to be moved by old means of "Move" though first it needed to have the links renamed manually, due to the filetype error. ✓  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you explain again how the renaming could have been done? What do you mean by renaming the "links" manually? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Links changed manually = following the global links and changing them on the respective wikis, one at a time <gasp>. Re move, use the old fashioned _/Move\_ tab (pure grunt and like moving at WP), rather than the _/move & replace\_ which is an ajax scripty thing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right. I see what you mean. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

was in the hospital.

Just got out today. Thanks for reminding me. I guess I have a few missing templates. I will work on them. Thanks again. --Tarawneh (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

{my computer} -> {own})

Hallo Billinghurst, please revert all your {{my computer}} -> {{own}} changes or point out why this is correct. my computer is tooootallly different from own. My computer could also be "I have downloaded it from the web". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I had replaced the transclusion of non-existent template to an existing template that seemed appropriate to the works. As per your request I have converted the edits to say "my computer". While your statement is correct about the possible abuse of the tag, my reflection after undoing the source is that they are claiming the work as their own and within our explanation of the words, it would be feasible call though always challengable. I have seen more egregious abuse of the {{own}} tag than that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not simply leave the non-existing tag like it is? Do not fix what is not broken please - although you intended to improve of course. The nice red template indicates to me on the first sight that the image was uploaded by someone not really understanding what he does - although that isn't intended by the uploader. One could then ask the uploader on his talk page for details on the image. If you replace this wikitext this simple present is gone. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I added the last message to Siebrand as i found his name on the page of the bot. I know the great job that CommonsDelinker does across wikis, but our new policies imposes that the bot manager should request bot flag (especially when it makes a lot of edits). Don't be worry, i will unblock it as soon as it has bot flag. Your request is correct and no problems with it. Sorry for any nuisance.--M.Gedawy Talk 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

While you may be correct about your policy being what it is, at the same time the policy would either seem short-sighted, or your interpretation is too tight. We are talking about a bot that operates across 600+ wikis, has for many years by two programmers, who conduct a service to your wiki, and have primarily moved to other tasks though still continue to maintain the bot as a service to Wikimedia. That your wiki, through your administrators and bureaucrats, could not work this out for yourselves is disappointing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Locomotives of Britain

Category:Preserved industrial steam locomotives of Britain

Poor call, IMHO (and this same point has been discussed before). The UK comprises both GB & NI. Northern Ireland, in railway terms, is a different gauge from GB and has far more in common with southern Ireland, not the UK mainland. Changing railway categories from GB to UK is not merely a rename, it's also a non-obvious merge across two domains that ought to be kept separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your voice on the New Jersey Turnpike Seal. I would also appreciate your voice on the following unDR if you have the time. Fry1989 eh? 23:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have recieved a reply relevant to the DR for the Irish Presidential Seal, if you would like to instruct me on what now needs to be done, the DR can be closed as a keep. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be dealt with through the [[Commons:OTRS|OTRS}} process. Find a member of the group who undertakes that process.

File size

Hi, Billinghurst. I have a DjVu file I would really like to upload; however the file size is too big (117 MB), and Commons won't accept it. Would it be OK to sort of split the book into page bundles; e.g. 1–100, 101–200 etc. and upload it in separate parts like that? Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In ye olden days of enWS, that was how we needed to operate, so the answer is yes. I would more look to have logical breaks rather than at round-off points. Don't think that they need to be equal sizes, and the max. is 100MB. The alternate is that when files are over 100MB, we can ask via bugzilla: for someone to upload it by different means.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Billinghurst. Upon taking your suggestion, I've decided to split the novel into 2 un-equal parts, and they're both within the 100MB limit. Thanks again.