TUSC token: 364a8706895df1c9a2646a9e29319e7a
I am the proud owner of a TUSC account!
Categorization with of Category:Titan IV 4B-33 and Category:Cassini-Huygens
Request for deletion
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that a user uploaded a copyrighted version of this file on July 23, 2018. I had no idea how to nominate a previous version of a file for deletion, thus I decided to ask an administrator for help. Keivan.fTalk 04:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keivan.f, deleted. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
BFR (rocket) images
The mess has started. Someone quickly posted this image. 
Not sure it'll pass muster; or maybe it will. But I'm pretty sure that a bunch of the description is incorrect cause it used text I wrote a few months after all the image adds and image deletions to that article after Musk's Sep 2017 talk, when I finally added a fair use image, and added comments about all the fights over the images. That is, clearly, not the case now. So I know that the description is bogus. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- N2e, if you can rationalize why it's invalid or otherwise pass muster, please do nominate it. I don't quite remember the rest of it. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
But the several BFR images on commons now could use a bit of your help; and the claim is that (I guess) they have the proper license.
I didn't check; so figure that'll sort itself in a few days or weeks. Categorization for sure (they are all in just the SpaceX meta cat), and I think you sorted a lot of categorization of those in the past.
But the more important part is this, and I think it's a nuanced question that you will probably know about. FACT: BFR2018 is quite different, especially in the 2nd stage/spaceship external appearance, than BFR2017 (but also different lengths of both of the two stages of the LV). Even though ALL BFR2017 images WERE NOT released with CC licenses by SpaceX, it appears (per the claim of the new uploader) that the BFR2018 images are all CC and license copacetic. This is cool! Glad SpaceX is doing that again.
QUESTION: Since the BFR2018 is quite diff from BFR2017, and even though none of the 2017 BFR images can be on Wikimedia, they are all over the internet in new articles and what not. Do you think it would be acceptable to MOVE the images to include in the file name ... (2018)..., just to "make the implicit, explicit"? I do; but then I'm really quite an image noob and don't know what passes for normal on Wikimedia, and assume I know very little about acceptable policy here.
- N2e, I think we should easily be able to have a different category for ITS images and BFR images, since they are unique infrastructures. Speaking personally, I really do not like renaming files for the sake of renaming them, as this falls into a grey area of Commons:File renaming (renaming just for the sake of clarifying a point). I think clarifying the dates and details in the description pages is enough. That said, if you want to, I won't object. It's just not something I feel comfortable doing myself given the current wording of our guidelines. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for closing the loop on that, Huntster. I have changed just the two (now, most unclear) names of the images that were of the older 2017 design, and would have been quite confusing to viewers/users of our Wikimedia images otherwise. As always, feel free to review, fix, etc. N2e (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- N2e, let me ask you though about File:BFR (2017).png. Something doesn't feel right about it. It looks like it's a crop/cutout of another image, but I don't know what that other image might be. I strongly suspect the uploader has no rights to it. For that matter, look at the other uploads by Ceggindeggar and tell me something isn't amiss... — Huntster (t @ c) 19:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)