User talk:Huntster

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

File:European Data Relay System laser communication terminal.jpg[edit]

Hi! I was looking at File:European Data Relay System laser communication terminal.jpg and I'm not sure it's OK to have it on Commons. Not all DLR pictures are CC-BY, only those explicitely shared as it. This one comes from ESA website with a "copyright DLR/TESAT" statement. vip (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Don-vip, that's curious. Since it is not stated on the site, and I can no longer find any evidence of it being released, I'm fine with it being deleted. I'll send it through speedy. Huntster (t @ c) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks! vip (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

„Ingenuity”’s Base Station[edit]

Hi, Huntster! Just noticed your GR of the File:Ingenuity Helicopter Base Station on Perseverance Rover.jpg, commented by you as „Exact or scaled-down duplicate” of the File:PIA23968-MarsPerseveranceRover-HelicopterBase-20210120.jpg. Last month I worked with both files: they illustrate the article I'm improving. I don't remember whether they were of different size (it matters less), but I remember more firmly that they had different decription, and the that comments in the version you've deleted were extended.

Seeking for the old text, I went to the file you converted to the redirect, I found no history of its edits! It has only one record:

   curprev 13:14, 26 September 2021‎ Huntster talk contribs‎ 77 bytes +77‎ Redirecting to duplicate file thank Tag: New redirect

meaning that you created the file with this name today. How can it be? For 11+ years on wiki I merged dozens of pairs, converting one of files into redirect, but in all these cases each newly created redirect kept its old history. Please help me to restore the access to the real File:Ingenuity Helicopter Base Station on Perseverance Rover.jpg with all its history of edits. Thank you in advance. Cherurbino (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, the descriptions on both files were exactly the same.
Sorry, it is not true, (1) see here the comment about the place holder and (2) category that you did not restore. Cherurbino (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The only thing different between the texts is that the deleted file (which was only 1,024 × 1,365) linked to JPL feeder pages, whereas the kept file links straight to the JPL Photojournal. As for the second part, the smaller photo was deleted and replaced with a redirect so that the filename will still function for sister wikis. Huntster (t @ c) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
At your request, I've restore the description history (here), but understand this is not part of a normal deletion process. I'm not sure what you mean by "For 11+ years on wiki I merged dozens of pairs, converting one of files into redirect, but in all these cases each newly created redirect kept its old history." This is not normally done. Huntster (t @ c) 18:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Normally merging files supposes merging the history of their edits. Some years ago I won the sue in ru-wiki when the article I started was converted to redirect, then redirect was deleted, and after that its contents was restored as a contribution of editor who started 'his' article at the same name.
The history of file edits may disappear in a single legal case: when the file is legally deleted after the necessary public procedures. The uploader of that file is not me, it is @Chinakpradhan, and I don't see necessary warnings at his talk page. Does in mean that his contribution was deleted bypassing warning him about it? Cherurbino (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, I'm also curious why you restored a lower resolution version of the exact same image at File:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg. Do you for some reason dislike high resolution images? I don't understand. Huntster (t @ c) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Is your curiosity based on some regulations of Wikipedia, or this is a private interest? I'm more concerned with the fact that as a result of such actions I lost some my contributions, including the edits I consider necessary for this illustration. Anyway, I'll satisfy your curiosity: the answer is NO, size and resolution are not in the first place among my criteria for selecting illustrations for articles.
Thank you for restoring these edits, and I regret that your 'merging' of the contents was not full. You did not restore my improvements; actually, you deleted them from the description, while the 'watchlist' option which could attract my attention to it disappeared because the entire file was deleted. Cherurbino (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, let me address the two issues in turn:
1) The file that was deleted was an identical lower-resolution copy of the remaining file. Its deletion is a procedural housekeeping issue. There is no "merging" of files happening here. The duplicate file is deleted in favour of the higher resolution file, and any data worth transferring is done manually. You may be thinking of history merging that happens sometimes on Wikipedia, but that rarely happens on Commons. I also do not know what you mean by "You did not restore my improvements", as I do not see any significant differences between the two description pages aside from the URLs (which are redundant to the Photojournal page). No data that has any bearing on the image was lost, but of course you may edit the remaining description page as you wish, just as anyone can. Further, you make mention of "sue" and "legal case", which is concerning, because none of this is a legal issue.
sorry, English is not my native language. I rely upon the consultations of NASA specialists before writing critically important comments in Wiki - just like I did recently. I explain them my requests: "I write for Wikipedia, where people wait for exact words - and they help. Of course, I did not mean courts and barristers. I meant a synonym, a broad sence of 'appeal/complaint' posted in the 'questions to administrators.' Cherurbino (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
2) Regarding File:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg, my curiosity stems simply from the fact that you reverted a higher resolution copy (3,456 × 4,608) to the original lower resolution image (1,201 × 1,602), which doesn't make sense to me. It is not incorrect or based on some "regulation", but it is certainly not a good practice to use something other than the best resolution image available. Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the prompt reply. Now I shall tell you more upon my motives of concern about this illustration.
If instead of sizing/resolution you asked me in more direct way: 'What picture of these two you prefer and why?', then I would answer: NONE. Both deserve a speed deletion, because they misguide readers of Wikipedia. They tell lie, they point at the empty place saying 'here is the station'.
It's a long history. Read the words 'the upper, gold-colored box in 'the 'official description' and look at the picture. The yellow box is below (lie No.1)! And this box is a module of the RIMFAX underground laser, not of the radio station! (lie No.2)
NASA received much complaints about it. But instead of uploading the photo of this board (see how it looks; the AIAA license does not allow me to upload it here) they drew the 'blue circle' and attached is as the supplementary photo for this PIA catalog number. Here goes lie No. 3, because instead of 'Base Station' everybody sees unmated cables above a piece of scratched cardboard (see another external illustration of mine No.1, no.2 and no.3).
Attempts to urge NASA for replacement of the picture that I took this summer, were in vain. Thus, the only thing remaining for me is to add comments, that the photo shows a placeholder for the station, not the station itself. These were the motives of my complaints, not the 'count of edits'))). Best regards, Cherurbino (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

UPD: Re: 2) Regarding [[:File:Locati…… you reverted a higher resolution copy' - some hi-res images contain a lot of unnecessary secondary details. If you consider my reasons wrong - of course, you may revert back. BTW (just noticed that), the Talk page of another image, converted to the redirect to this file contained my full description of the story of the missing 'base station'. Maybe I must repeat it in the 'new' file, or better make and upload a crop showing only the hollow in the best resolution. Cherurbino (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, sorry for the delay in responding, had to take care of some real life stuff. Starting top to bottom:
1) A *caption*. Captions are an absolute pain because they are fairly hidden in the interface. So, I apologize for that. As for the category, Category:Technical components, devices and mechanisms of Ingenuity was renamed in mid-August to Category:Components of the Ingenuity helicopter. Different name, but same category.
2) "English is not my native language." I completely understand, as well as your explanation of "appeal/complaint". I appreciate it.
3) "then I would answer: NONE." Yes, I understand. It is painfully not ideal, and I only wish a better representative photograph was available. Going back to the caption issue, I would recommend using annotations instead, as they will be more widely visible to users and require less explanation since they are overlaid on the image itself. If you'd like, I'll add one to the cardboard area stating "Placeholder for the Ingenuity telecommunications station". I would add one to the gold box as well, but I have questions. According to the documentation at https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/mars-electra-lite-uhf-transceiver, the Electra-Lite UHF is the communications link to the Mars orbiters. How does it play a part for RIMFAX? This graphic suggests that the RIMFAX electronics are on the opposite side of the MMRTG from our photo.
Thank you for your comments and investigations! You are right that RIMFAX has only one 'warm box', where the picture you brought shows. The www address on the two identical metallic-color boxes is read WWW.JMCSD.COM, presently redirecting to the matthey.com. Batteries are among the products of this diversified business. If this guess is true, then the role of these small boxes is to heat two identical blocks, each storing the Electra-Lite UHF, that you victorously attributed )). Conclusions: both RIMFAX and the Base Station are merely the 'upper neighbours' of the abovenamed equipment, each in its hollows - one in the left and another in the right hollow. Conceptually radar and radio have no relation to each other. Cherurbino (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, yes, I agree with your conclusion. I've gone ahead an added basic annotations to the main image here, so please check and adjust them as you see fit. I love digging in to 'mysteries' like this one. Thanks for the pleasant collaboration; I enjoy working with folks on anything space related. :) Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
4) "some hi-res images contain a lot of unnecessary secondary details." I understand, and I have no stake in this issue. I was just curious as to your rationale for the revert. I personally disagree, but I will not undo your decision there.
On my side - I just undid my yesterday's revert myself. I prepared a new image instead (from two crops, one for each side), but just now I'm short of time for the new uploads. Cherurbino (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
5) "the Talk page of another image..." I see that it is located at File talk:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg. You could certainly copy the explanation to File talk:PIA23968-MarsPerseveranceRover-HelicopterBase-20210120.jpg if you wanted. Huntster (t @ c) 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, Huntster! Sorry for disappearing without notice. These days I was extremely overloaded with my two (!) nominations to good articles. Yesterday one of them (Jezero crater) was adopted while the second (Ingenuity) is still pending and hanging. I see that you are fully aware of all the specifics of the 'Base Station' issue, thus if the time matters I fully trust you to perform all the actions that you deem necessary in connection with the restoration of comments on the affected articles. If not, then I shall do it myself after my nomination shall be resolved.

At this time I have another question to you which arose suddenly yesterday. In the midday I prepared three files for upload to Commons. The procedure passed two steps - files were physically uploaded, the preliminary source / licensing data was filled and I was on the third step fillng the names, descriptions etc. when the electricity lockdown occured with the subsequent loss of the sectors on HDD which contained the browser cache. So, 3-4 hours later, after restoring access to the Internet and to my browser, I could not resume the upload from the middle and had to start it again.

Now all my three new uploads are OK

Before uploading it took me 1,5 hours in the morning to prepare the first two files: I took the largest resolution in the JPL storage and cleared its seemingly white background from the artifacts. It helped to decrease the size of cropped version from 5.7 Mb to 5.429.

However, a few hours later on the en-wiki page of 'Ingenuity' I found that Drbogdan uploaded the 468 × 468 thumbnail of my 2,880 × 2,880 file

Question: what is your deletion policy in the case of such duplicates? Presumably, the Commons upload engine did not allow Drbogdan to use the hi-res picture because it was already uploaded by me. However for the abovementioned reasons I finished my upload with the 3-hour delay, and his thumbnail has the earlier timestamp. Cherurbino (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, congrats on the present (and, I'm certain, near future) GAs! Yes, looks like Drbogdan simply managed to upload that image while you were working on yours. The Mediawiki system only detects duplicate uploads that are the exact same (aka, they have the same MD5 hash), so that's why there was no warning regardless of who was first. Whenever you come across exact or lower resolution duplicates, just tag them with {{Duplicate}} and the appropriate parameters and an admin will come along and handle it. That said, these are technically not exact duplicates, since the labels and lettering are different between each. To keep it simple, I would write a note on Doc's talk page asking if he'd mind his image being deleted in favour of your larger version. I've worked with Drbogdan on Commons for a long time now, and he is always amenable to such requests. Once he's agreed, let me know and I'll take the necessary actions. Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Huntster, thank you for good and encouraging words about GA articles, and let me share with you the idea with my cropped file #2. Is there somebody at Commons who can clone the <imagemap> syntax (used, for example with the File:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg) to propose this image as a universal template, allowing everybody to display the translations of A, B, C and D? Three years ago I could certainly clone this template myself (only four polygons, and it shall work!), but today the charge of by batteries is too low for that (((. Cherurbino (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, as far as I'm aware, the annotations do not use the internationalisation system. That said, users can either add translations to the image description page with their language template (ie {{Fr}}, {{De}}, etc), or to the Wiki articles themselves since the image simply has letters. One option you may want to consider (but is of course entirely optional) is changing the letters to numbers, which would be more universally useful to users of cyrillic, middle eastern, asian, etc languages. Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see a bifurcation somewhere in the middle of the dialogue: you mean the annotations within the main template for the image while I statred speaking about the contents of the Talk page of the image. Since I really have no time for finishing this case, I propose to make the pause in this thread. Cherurbino (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is this free or non free imaging camera[edit]

Is this soyuz camera that took this image provides only non free images or like nasa's pd notice free images Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, no, images by Roscosmos are not freely licensed and are not compatible with Commons unless specifically noted. Huntster (t @ c) 14:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

unruly things done to the Contributions i made to wikipedia[edit]

Huntster, i am fed up with the unruly things going on in wikipedia. why am i not notified on changes like deletion on wikipedia. take this example, i have worked so much on this article. many a times i have got deletion request which i have opposed and won but this time i havent got any deletion noted after i have left the page on mission completion. today i came back due to crs 23 on inspiration4 page to find the image being deleted. all my contributions got lost and the current crew image is facing deletion discussion. if this one is who will be responsible for leaving the inspiration4 page without the crew image. my image cannot be blamed as it persisted on that page for a long time. this faulty free image destroyed the game. can you tell why this is happening and suggest a solution as i cannot go on checking the images i uploaded to wikipedia or wikimedia from the day i joined wikipedia without any notification. and can you be good enough to recover the image through undeletion process as i dont have courage to try the undeletion process myself as i have lost all the resources for undeletion with the deletion of my image. i will be grateful to you. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

please reply, Huntster sir. Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, sorry for the delay, but I do have work outside of Wiki. Regarding this issue, the deletion of the crew photo was proper because under Fair Use rules, we cannot host images which could potentially be replaced by free equivalents. While it may be difficult to arrange for a crew photo to be created, it is not impossible that someone could. Take a look at Non-free content criteria if you haven't already. This particular case is #1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
I understand the frustration of having your images removed, but please remember that we're working with legal issues when it comes to image licenses. While it is always nice to have illustrated Wiki articles, images are not required at all. On top of that, for any Wiki article there should be a maximum of one Fair Use image on the page, and then only if the image contributes to the discussion of the article.
To another point, I do not know what you are referring to by "faulty free image". Can you link to it?
Remember, I'm happy to help you where I can, but we have rules for a reason, and in this case it is to protect us from legal consequences. Huntster (t @ c) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Huntster sir, faulty free image is this one where you are also involved in it's deletion nomination page. Anyway but i have stopped getting notified of deletion, that i was asking mainly.Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, understood. Calling it "free" is what confused me, because it isn't free at all. Huntster (t @ c) 02:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ya faulty free I meant a upload of non free one in the name of free lisence. Anwyay Huntster I asked that like if you have seen these days i am busy in making pages related to soyuz programme but since for this reason I never have time to go about my previous uploads. I go back to my previous uploads only once I am notified of an issue related to it. So how I will know of a deletion tag applied on my uploads if I haven't been summoned about it and I also have Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Not being notified after it's deletion please tell why it's happening. the main topic i wanted to ask was not getting notified of changes in my articles. see i wrote take this example not talk on this example, that is, on the faulty or my non free deleted image.Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, I admit I'm having difficulty understanding your words. Without knowing the exact image that was deleted, it is difficult to guess why something was deleted. However, it may have been a housekeeping issue. If a file is being deleted because of a questionable copyright or some other issue that would result in the subject being removed entirely, you would normally be notified. If it is a housekeeping issue, like a duplicate image, you usually will not be notified since that image is being replaced by...the same image. Again, I don't know exactly what you're referring to, so I'm just making an educated guess. Huntster (t @ c) 04:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

thats what i was telling which you said If a file is being deleted because of a questionable copyright or some other issue that would result in the subject being removed entirely, you would normally be notified. i was telling that i was neither notified about its deletion nomination nor after the deletion and thats the topic unruly things done to the Contributions i made to wikipedia and the latest example i gave was this. thats what i have asked you, being done wrong to me. Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, you will have to ask Explicit why they deleted the file without notification. I cannot read their mind. That said, while perhaps you should have been notified, I agree with its deletion as it unambiguously fails Speedy Criteria F7. Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Huntster, like Cherubino discussed with you in september about similar images of ingenuity rotor assembly in commons one uploaded by him and another by Drbogdan, i am also in a conflict on wikipedia for two fair use images. it is on insignia of shenzhou 13 mission. my one is File:Shenzhou 13.jpg and another by [1] is File:Shenzhou 13 insignia.png just difference is that he is using a different name from me, he is using from cnsa website and i from collectspace he is with no backgroung and my one with black background. rest is same. i uploaded it 3 days earlier. if he is using for omitting black background, then its violating rules that a image is used for not description by decoration. moreover instead of publishing new one as just the background for my image can be removed easily. molly brown once did something of this kind with one fair use image of mine. i dont want both of them to be deleted by i insist that you please think and please remove only one of them. one thing i prefer is de;leting his one and removing background from mine. please help me in this.Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, if you feel one of them should be deleted, then take it to en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion rather than asking an admin to unilaterally delete the one you disagree with. The community can decide. Personally, I think his should remain since it would be the simplest solution and is technically superior. The artwork isn't yours, so don't be attached to it. Huntster (t @ c) 09:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

“Image credit” vs “author”[edit]

First, let me thank you for correcting some entries im my recent upload!

As you may have noticed, in all my uploads of images, which have a 'recommended' (not obligatory) caption from NASA I follow this patern:

  1. write simply “NASA” in the 'author' field of the upload tmplate;
  2. copy the “Image credit: NASA / x / y / z…” line from NASA’s caption as the last line of the 'Description field'.

Your corrections mean, that this way of attribution was wrong. Of course I shall follow your pattern in my future uploads. However I must ask you to help me with filling these gaps in my understanding of the 'legal English' (same case as with the 'sues' and 'appeals').

My treatment was that as the governmental institution and the lender of funds to educational, scientific and other private or mixed institutions like CalTech, ASU etc., NASA is the only 'author'. While the others (CalTech, ASU etc) are the 'co-authors' which must certainly be 'credited' (mentioned) in the comments.

My understanding of the 'legal' grounds for this 'pattern of thanks' was formed upon the comments of the charming Emily Lakdawalla that she wrote 10 years ago at the forum of w:the Planetary Society. Being aware of all Emily's occupations in the Society and the mass media, I always wondered where she took time to run this forum - for >10 years she hold its keys as one of its plenipotentiary Admins.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT

The question of copyright comes up frequently, which is why I posted a page about it. The page includes suggested credit lines for all spacecraft cameras I could think of.

The short version: All NASA mission images are in public domain and copyright free. It is not required by law, but is considered proper and polite, to give credit to NASA, the NASA Center, and any academic institutions involved in managing the instrument. Once someone else has made a derivative work that substantially modifies the original (such as a mosaic), that person DOES hold copyright, and their permission must be sought for reuse.

Was she right in her treatment of copyright of those who perform the derivative work (e.g. mosaics or panneau from several images)? Cherurbino (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The reason of this question are the maps like this which are published on the forum of Emily. They are the derivate work from NASA's/ASU HiRISE maps. May I upload them to Commons on the condition of mentioning the cartographer (Phil Stooke) in the line 'Image credit'? Cherurbino (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, thanks for asking about this, I'll try to break it down as best I can.
NASA formats credit lines in specific ways. They usually take the form of "NASA/project/PI agency/author" or "NASA/contract agency", such as NASA/CXC/UC Berkley, NASA/JPL, NASA/JHUAPL, NASA/MSSS, etc. It is understood that 'agency' is working under contact with NASA, where the contract provides that NASA's governmental public domain applies to their work. Now, nuances abound of course. This format primarily applies to works created as part of a specific science mission, so when you see photographs of the SLS, for example, they may be credited to just "The Boeing Company". While the rocket is being produced as part of a contract, in this case it is a product being purchased, so photographs made by Boeing employees are not public domain. Copyright is absurdly complicated, and there are a ton of edge case scenarios that simply require experience to try and figure out. Remember, if there is doubt, then follow our precautionary principle and either ask or just don't upload.
As to the main question, Emily is absolutely correct in her statements. If you make a creative work based on a NASA image, you can claim copyright over that specific work. The underlying NASA material will still be public domain, but anything you've added to it is protected. So no, derivative works like the HiRISE modification you mentioned may not be uploaded to Commons unless they themselves have been released under a free license.
The "author" parameter is just a simplified method to accommodate a wide variety of situations we may face here. It works fine when the work is by a single artist, but it can become more confusing in situations like with NASA. Just keep things simple and use whatever attribution NASA supplies. Sorry for being so long-winded here, hopefully it makes sense. Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for spending a lot of time for this extended, comprehensive explanation!
Now I continue with my trivial work. Thank you very much again!
P.S. FYI: Last October Emiy resigned from all her public activities. The reason is more than respectable - planets are good but chidren are always closer. Two figures in red coats and blue NASA's caps at her small avatar are her two daughters. They are growing up (around 11 and 14 now), so Emily decided to dedicate herself to their upbringing at the important pre-universitary stage. A brilliant teacher, lecturer and pedagog herself, Emily understands that distant learning must be supported with the eye-to-eye contact and personal presence. Of course, elder colleagues like me shall be missing her virtual support. But were I her father (I belong to the generation of her parents) I should be always proud with such a daughter )) Cherurbino (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, yes, she is an inspirational individual! She really loves her kids. Though, I wonder if when they're old enough if she'll jump on the next tourism flight into space? :) Huntster (t @ c) 12:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC) []
))))
And I'm proud to report that I've improved the file which some time ago you, in your turn, improved after DrBogdan:File:USGS-PlanetMars-TopographicalMap.png. What is strange from the technical p.o.v., is that you got larger PNG size in bytes for a smaller picture in pixels in the same 256-color indexed mode.
Tomorrow I intend to make a crop out of it, with no titles around (grades only) for using it as a background for the special map for the climate zones and the landing sites ony for those landers, which performed the functions of meteostations. Cherurbino (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Very nice. Regarding the file sizes, I can see the visual differences between the two images when I zoom in. It's been so long that I don't know precisely what I used, but it's a less strict colour palette. I can see the speckling effect in mine versus the uniform colour stepping in yours. Doesn't really matter though, so long as it gets the job done. Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, Huntster! Could you comment the license status of this nice image?

  • pro’s: credits to 'NASA/JPL/ASU' are explicitly written in the right bottom corner.
  • contra’s: it's not me who cropped it out of this big-big file mentioned in the opposite corner at the bottom. Of course, I could do that using the ASU viewing utility (this summer I've downloaded here the images extracted with this tool). The version ESP_071077_1985 here is another crop which covers less terrain. But the main obstacles are the inscriptions 'Perseverance' and 'Ingenuity' with arrows: their 'author' is the one who posted the file at USF.

Is it enough to mention only the link to the USF in the field 'source of the file'?

Cherurbino, while I do not believe simply adding text to the public domain work would be enough to create a new copyright, there's also factors like framing to consider. Yes, it would probably still be considered PD-NASA because there's little creativity involved, but it would be safer to contact the poster and confirm they are releasing their copyright. Making assumptions is bad form, especially with regard to copyright. I'm personally of the mind to recreate it with the RGB Color Non-Map version, since it offers better colors than the IGB version they used. If you wish, I can take care of it this evening when I'm home from work (since I cannot installed HiView there). Huntster (t @ c) 12:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. The color. I'm also the adherent of strict color schemes in mapping. That's why I praise Phil Stooke’s maps in 256 gray and hate the schizophrenic coloring of early MOLA maps (happily USGS has better taste). But this image is a different case. After I converted it into b/w, Perceverance disappeared ((, and even thick arrows cannot help to find it. => I shall not download the raw b/w versions instead. (question: what is the "IGB version"? I'm not so experienced)
  2. Writing the USF member who uploaded. It's a very good idea, and it could be even better if I manage to convince him to register at Wiki and upload the image himself. I think that I shall do that later in the evening, promisinh him to 'catch' his upload to correct mistakes in filling the required fields.

So, thank you for the offer of spending your evening time )) - lets begin from my end. I shall first write him this evening, and wait for his answer. The case of this photo is not so urgent in the sence that an extra week does not matter Cherurbino (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, I'm dumb and meant the Merged RGB JP2 Extra file rather than IGB, located at https://www.uahirise.org/ESP_071077_1985. It's a simple export from HiView and then a pass through an image editor to fix orientation and add labelling. It's your project, so I'll follow your lead. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Huntster (t @ c) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, Huntster, for the inspiration! I did it myself! (Luckily, I was too tired when writing a PM to a guy from USF, and sent the letter to myself)))). This is my version, without explicit inscriptions. Only arrows: File:Perseverance and Ingenuity wait out the solar conjunction.png. On October 7 the new article of the Perseverance / Jezero think tank was published in the "Science", so I am sinking in the Jezero lake article. Lot of things to be corrected and even written anew… - Cherurbino (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino, please forgive me, but I thought Ingenuity was the dot to the northwest of your indicator? See https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/ and select helicopter waypoints in layers. Good luck with the Jezero article...things change so rapidly with these missions I'd be hopelessly lost trying to keep up. Huntster (t @ c) 00:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi, Huntster. Today was a very hard day for me an my family - the 75-th anniversary of my youngest aunt, the last sister of my mother who unexpectedly passed this January. Sudden heart attack, nothig more. The helicopter was one of the topics I was telling her about each day I visited her... so Ingenuity was a actually a sort of a long family history: my stepfather "worked for cosmos" all his life - so, for me this "project" (Ingenuity+Jezero) is a sort of memorial I build for my elder relatives (another aunt+uncle were geologists that's why geologic terms are also not alien for me. I feel this shall be my last big work in Wikipedia; I'm not so healthy as I wanted to be, yet I hurry to do a maximum.
As for Ingenuity placement. This morning I compiled a larger map from HiRise and understood that the guy from USF was mistaken. The shade in a form of the cross is not Ingenuitty, so by October 14th I shall upload another picture wot correct arows. I also prepared a combo mosaic using HighView whether both Perseverance and its parachute are shown. But all that only on 14th. — Cherurbino (talk)
Cherurbino, I'm sorry for your loss, but at the same time, remember and cherish the time spent and the memories formed. I'm glad you were able to bond over the sciences, and remember them through your work. I understand the difficulty in working on articles at times, I'm dealing with health issues as well. It's honestly why I find it easier on me, and a bit more fulfilling, to work on Wikidata, because it can be done a little bit at a time. I just like the process of finding the information.
As for the image, I look forward to seeing it. And as offered before, if I can help with anything, please let me know. Huntster (t @ c) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, Huntster! October 14 has come, and both illustrations are already uploaded:

UPD: another good news is this edit. I invited an expeienced specialist from USF to review the errata to the French source that I printed in the description, and asked him to correct everything he finds improper. As the only thing he corrected was my English syntax )), I consider it as the verification of the correctness of my errata statement )). Cherurbino (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, nicely done, they look great! Huntster (t @ c) 16:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Marsquake!!! )))) File:Jezero sol 0089 Mastcam-Z 229°-231° 16-13 LMST.gif. Another way to make people feel the 3-D. Now I have the full set of 3 interlinked photos to be used later (not now!) in explanations, how the team of Perseverance catches the objects for future examination from the panoramic series. — Cherurbino (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, that's great! I thought I'd add to the fun and created a red-cyan anaglyph and a cross-eyed stereogram. Found a program called 3Dcombine which automates the process, really neat. Let me know how those two work for you. Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Huntster, above the aesthethics I have to thank you for the new entry in my glossary, that is the cross-eyed stereogram. Now I know how to call it properly, and know the template to place on these kind of images. Also thank you for the 3D-processing link - now I know where is the mint at which colleagues from USF coin out their anaglyphs )). In reward let me share with you a bit of my 'guild secrets')) of my processing images from Perseverance.
1. Not only the 'black frame' has to be cropped, but, in addition, no less than 8 pixels at the left, right and top borders within this frame. They contain the color noise.
2. Never use JPG in the intermediate savings. Swich to BMP from the very first step: this format is simple and transparent for all image-processing software.
3. For paired (and longer series) of images which you intend to use in the GIF animation. Do nothing only if you are sure that the raw is originally 256 grays (like in standard 640x480 NAV frames from NASA). In all other cases help the animation software with the conversion in 256-bit: the algorithm they use is not ideal. For my color animations I do the following: put all the frames together, one after another, into one big file to be converted to 256 colors. Only in this case I may be sure that the program shall use the same solution for the slightly different pixels from two frames. After cutting this 'sausage' back to the separate images (<=256 clrs each) I may be sure that proceeding to frame #2 the animation soft shall not correct the matrix it creates from the first frame.
Specifically for Perseverance panorama sets. The optics of left and right Mastcam cameras is set at a slightly different distance from the object. When I concatenate a set of images into a single panorama, the frames are positiones as the staircase (4-16 pixels each step). Moreover, the horizon may have the inclination. If you disregard these factors, you may get wiggling in all directions - see sample 1 from USF.
What helped to achieve the really professional result in their sample 2? My answer: the pre-procession aimed at restoring of the horizon level. "Sample 1" wiggles around the point at the center of the frame, while on "sample 2" the whole horizon is steady.
In the case of specific pair I worked with, the roll of horizon between the frames was 0.5 degrees. Rolling the picture is always the loss of original pixel colors. I know that the calculation of the value of the new color involves the averaging with the color values of the adjacent pixels. My two last secrets for today:
4. Always enlarge the image before rotation. Use only the integer ratios for enlargement: 2x, 4x etc.
5. Divide the inevitable pixel correction between two image frames. In my case, I divided 0.5 degrees in two halves)) and rotated one image 0.25 CW, and another 0.25 CCW
6. Crop the white triangles that appear in the corners after rotation, leaving no half-colored pixels.
7. Before diminishing the image to original size ensure, that both H and W may be divided to 4 leaving no remainder. Crop the excess 1-3 pixels from any side of the picture: it also helps the algorithm of size decreasing, otherwise it has to deal with the empty row(s)/column(s) on the edges of its inner matrix.
Thank you again for your help to my project! Cherurbino (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

confused on my en-wiki page name[edit]

Huntster, i made this The Challenge (2022film) page on wikipedia. but i am confused after seeing posts of anatoly zak. on his website, he posted an article on Soyuz MS-19. This article confused me a lot as he said, Around the same time, Roskosmos and the Russian television Channel I were discussing the idea of sending an actress to the ISS with Soyuz MS-19 to shoot scenes for a sci-fi movie with the working title Vyzov (which in Russian language has a double meaning like "challenge" and "doctor's house call.") .

My article is named by the first meaning. Should i Change the name of my page or not. changing the page name will create complexity as several pages not only use this page link but also have translation of the word Vyzov in several places.

Moreover, though all other websites except russian space web are saying this film as either vyzov or the challenge, i cannot choose what other say unanimously as the other meaning is also significant since the lead actress Yulia Pereslid is playing the role of a doctor sent in space to conduct heart surgery of an astronaut, thereby some use of the meaning.

Actually i first blindfoldedly followed Roscosmos website saying the two soyuz ms-19 spaceflight participants, Yulia Pereslid and KLim Shipenko as expedition 66 crew, which was 100 percent conceptual, 0 percent reality. i made several changes at the end i got they are not a single day spending in Expedition 66 but they were at iss during expedition 65. this confused the page of expedition 66. ultimately i found after large observation that they were only space tourists. now it is said by anatoly zak sir too. i reverted all my edits on different pages with dissapointment. i dont want that mistake happen again. so please tell the correct one, Huntster.Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

No, your article is at the correct title. I've only seen reputable sources use "Challenge" or "The Challenge", and I'm led to understand that Вызов more accurately translates to the latter. Regarding their positions, they are nothing more than spaceflight participants, not crew. Huntster (t @ c) 19:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

on file deletion policy in english wikipedia[edit]

Huntster, i didnt understand the deletion policy in english wikipedia.

i uploaded the imagesFile:Soyuz MS-19 Official Crew Potrait.jpg and File:Soyuz MS-19 Crew Qualification Exams.jpg that were listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. this is thediscussion for first image and this is for second image. i participated in discussion and last comment was given by me for both the images. after the last one i visited the pages everyday to check for new comments in the discussion. suddenly today i saw the image deleted. (i dont want to discuss that i wasnt summoned for deletion after discussion. i just got a notification for discussion not about the discussion's outcome)

i wanted to dicuss that how can the image be deleted without any new comments against keeping the images. no one had replied to the last comment i made and it was deleted. if a comment was made i would have voiced at it. please help me in getting this clear at what terms the deletion happened.Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Huntster , Can you tell if this image is a free one or not Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, one at a time:
1) It appears you were notified of the deletion, I can see the notifications on your talk page. Aside from that, both are non-free images can can be replaced by a freely licensed image. It does not matter that such an image may be difficult to obtain, only that it is possible. Thus, both images fail the English Wikipedia Fair Use policy. Please try to remember that images only support an article, and are not required for any article. It also does not matter how many "keeps" an image gets if it fails policy. A clear violation is a clear violation, and no amount of argument can change that.
2) No, it is not a free image. It does not matter that it is posted on the NASA website, it was still created by Roscosmos. Huntster (t @ c) 12:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Chinakpradhan, you won't be notified of the results of the discussions. It has never been done on en.wiki (or on Commons, for that matter), nor will it ever be, because the cost in time and effort is simply not worth it. We're all volunteers here. Also, when responding to talk page messages, please do not modify your existing text to answer, as you just did here. Place the answer below the last reply. Otherwise, it is difficult for people to follow the conversation. Huntster (t @ c) 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
sorry sir i wil keep this in mind.Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's simple enough: Fastily deletes everything.
Now, if crew photos aren't a justification of NFC in an article, why do any of our mission articles have them? Especially when on this mission, one of the crew is there precisely because of their looks (and no doubt their other acting talent). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Irrelevant who deletes it, Andy, though I agree that using NFCC 8 as a rationale is shaky. It's still a violation of NFCC #1. Huntster (t @ c) 15:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Most other admins (but not all) they'll think about it, might keep it, might delete it. Not this one.
And where is the equivalent mission crew photograph for NFCC#1 going to come from? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No, I...don't disagree on your first point, lol. As for having an equivalent, that is not required for NFCC 1. Merely the possibility that it could be replaced by a free alternative, regardless of difficulty. Yes, en.wiki is much stricter in its implementation of Fair Use than is actually required by law. Huntster (t @ c) 15:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
ah Huntster, i have a question that is NASA TV different from NASA in terms of copyright policies. like i saw the image of welcome ceremony of soyuz ms 18 in the gallery of the soyuz ms 18 page, it is in non free version. please clarify this or if the copyright policies are same i propose to replace the image the commons image uploaded by me on which debate is started by this, instead of deleting it by croping the nasa blog image using wikitech's croptool.Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Chinakpradhan, that photograph was taken in the Zvezda module, so NASA is just rebroadcasting the Roscosmos video feed. No, it is not public domain. Huntster (t @ c) 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

But someone did this being on Russian wiki Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, uploaded the photograph? That's up to the Russian Wikipedia to either allow or disallow. Each wiki is allowed to make their own policies, and the English Wikipedia does not allow it. There is no single Fair Use policy (or much of anything) that's universal amongst all the Wikis. Huntster (t @ c) 04:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I meant see Erick Soares3 published a commons image of the one I asked you being seen on nasa tv File:10 crew members in the ISS.jpg Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Chinakpradhan, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have nominated for deletion as a violation of Roscosmos copyright. Huntster (t @ c) 07:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Welcome back Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Huntster I don't want to say anything thing for or against the deletion but I saw in the welcome ceremony that oleg novitsky a cosmonaut not an astronaut was setting the camera, so maybe it mean what you said above being a roscosmos video feed as I don't see a us segment person using his camera for this live feed Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

So it may be rossian cameras only Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

btw, Huntster are all cameras in russian segment russian or can pictures taken from russian segment by nasa cameras, if any of the americans bring them to russian side to take a picture like this one is surely from russian side of iss taken by a american.Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, that's correct. Rights are determined by who takes the photograph, not the equipment that is used. U.S. astronauts take photographs from the Russian side all the time, and vice versa. Regarding the image you refer to, I can find no evidence that it was taken by anyone other than Mark Vande Hei, so it should be fine. I'll note that there is no EXIF data because Twitter scrubs it out, so it's possible reality may change. Huntster (t @ c) 12:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Crew Dragon C210[edit]

The new name for Crew Dragon is called Endurance. Is it exciting! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:D559:8D00:A8D8:B70E:95FE:C241 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ah Huntster can you make a link like {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endeavour}} as it is there for crew dragon endeavor and Resilience. the c210 or endurance as you know is the new entrant and does not have such a link and I don't use wikidata where I can make this. So please make this. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ah, {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endurance}} writing my request again as it didn't appear in comment correctly. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I wrote for wrong one in first comment Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Currently it is showing just Cargo dragon written on writing {{ComV|Dragon 2|Endurance}} Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And please comment on this one. Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, huh? No such template exists, so I have no idea what you're wanting. I also cannot comment on that talk page as I have zero knowledge of the issue. Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

this is the template Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I want an iteration of that for Endurance you can see there is one for Endeavour in example section Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, done. Please make sure you specify if you're referring to something at another project next time, else I'll assume it's something on Commons. Huntster (t @ c) 04:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok thanks sir Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-3 thanks for helping this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And can you tell how to do this so next time I will do it myself Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, take a look at the edits I made, here. You can see the first two rows of changes account for making the template read "Crew Dragon" rather than "Cargo Dragon", and the changes at the bottom actually tell the template what to display for a specific capsule. I added C209 as well, since it wasn't already added for some reason. Now, these changes are just for when a new Crew Dragon capsule is added; if it were a Cargo Dragon, only a new entry at the bottom would be added, since the template assumes by default that we're referring to Cargo Dragon. It's not complicated when you understand templates, but it may be difficult to grasp if you're new to it. Huntster (t @ c) 09:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Duplicate file[edit]

Hi, Huntster! Came across this pair in different formats

  1. File:PIA21500-Mars-GaleCrater-LakeStratification.png - Dr.Bogdan, earlier, used
  2. File:PIA21500 - Diagram of Lake Stratification on Mars.jpg - PhilipTerryGraham, 1 day later, no usage except somebody's register.

If one name shall be used for the image, my opinion is in favour of Dr.Bogdan's variant (without 'Gale Crater', and much better, if also without the catalog code PIA). I've arleady enhanced Dr.Bogdan's upload (plan to use it in my 'Jezero crater'). Cherurbino (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, because these two files are of different file types (png vs. jpg), they are not considered duplicates. It was decided long ago, unfortunately, that such files would not be considered for speedy deletion and must go through the full nomination and discussion process. In general, we just let them exist together, often tagging the inferior one with {{Superseded}}. I've gone ahead and done this to the JPG. Good work, regardless. Huntster (t @ c) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Addendum: regarding the NASA identifier, I would strongly suggest using them in filenames (though I prefer to use them in parentheticals at the end of the filename, rather than the beginning) because they help guarantee a unique and easily searchable term; i.e., natural disambiguation. Just something to consider, and no one is required to use (or not use) them. Huntster (t @ c) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

unable to determine the copyright holder of this image. please help[edit]

can you help me in determining the owner of this image Huntster, please. i was waiting for it to be published on flickr and getting EXIF data as i see max 3 cosmonauts out of 5+1 astronauts(+1 for thomas pesquet) in each image. so i can neither predict the owner nor the cameraman without exif data which is not published yet. i am not also sure of this being a case of non free nasa tv element due to roscosmos broadcast.

i cannot risk again as i already uploaded wrong images to both wikipedia or wikimedia commons over these days (i.e. File:Soyuz MS-19 Official Crew Potrait.jpg, File:Soyuz MS-19 Crew Qualification Exams.jpg, File:Yulia Pereslid in Space.jpg, File:Soyuz MS-19 Official Crew Potrait.webp, File:Expedition 65 inflight crew portrait (2) with visitors Anton.jpg, File:Expedition 65 inflight crew portrait (2) with visitors from Soyuz MS-19 crew.jpg). so please help.Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinakpradhan, while it seems likely that Vande Hei took the photo, without direct confirmation from himself or NASA there is no way to prove who took it. I'm sorry. I'd like you to strongly consider not seeking images on Twitter in the future for this exact reason. It's simply too easy for a person to repost what someone else created. Huntster (t @ c) 18:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Changed SDC coordinates[edit]

Hi Huntster! I just wanted you to know that I changed the coordinates you identified on some of the ISS images such as File:ISS047-E-51596 - View of Earth.jpg from coordinates of point of view (P1259) to coordinates of depicted place (P9149), since "point of view" would be the spacecraft, and "depicted place" is the location you found. Great job at locating the images. Have a pleasant day. --Askeuhd (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Askeuhd, sorry about that, wasn't thinking terminology. Yeah, happened to be looking at the Wikimap tool and noticed clusters of these in areas that didn't correspond to the actual photos. Unfortunately there are vastly more of these types of ISS photos than I could possibly process, just in my general area. Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes it's a shame that most of images are lacking this useful information. Sadly NASA only located a small number of the images in the catalogue. I am working on a piece of software, that should help us using image recognition, but progress is slow. I am pretty optismistic regarding urban areas though, since images of such have lots of distinctive features. --Askeuhd (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Askeuhd, that would be absolutely amazing. Please let me know how you progress with that, it's a great concept. Huntster (t @ c) 21:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the support, and believe me, you will be the first the know, if I manage to materialize a working concept. --Askeuhd (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Page of Emily[edit]

Hi, Hunster! At last I found the time to open the page for Emily in ru-wiki and of course want it to be better than existing ones )). As usually, license problems arise...

  1. This nice photo is explicitely protected at this page in favour of WB. From your experience at Commons: did anybody try to obtain the permission from Warner Brothers )) I understand that the perspectives are misty, but anyway?
  2. I've already extracted Emily's signature to be placed in her infobox. The source is from her Twitter. Is it legal to do it provided I write this link as the source and write Emily as the author?

Thank you in advance! Cherurbino (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino:
1) I have no knowledge of anyone seeking permission from Warner Brothers.
2) For signatures, see Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. There's some exceptions, but signatures generally fall under {{PD-signature}}. However, are we sure that's her signature, or just how she prints her name? Don't want to be misleading to users. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, had outpatient surgery today. Huntster (t @ c) 05:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Huntster:
  1. It's a pity, but I expected it. I have printed a link to this photo in the ru-wiki article as the "external image"; hope this tool does not conflict with the rules.
    1. Re: are we sure that's her signature, or just how she prints her name — Highly likely: a) the inscription on the photo that Emily just printed on the office color printer is a type of standard signed dedication inscribed on the personal photos presented to somebody: short wish («AMA») +date +signature. The arrow replaces 'this is me', and the addressées of her souvenir are all subscribers of her twitter. b) elakdawalla is a signature with the 1st letter of her name (e), not a mere name like lakdawalla.
    2. Re: had outpatient surgery today — it's great! Now I know whom to call to heal me after our colleagues from en-wiki shall some time stab me with their steely knives for my annoying boredom. However today my perseverance (in lowercase) has brought a positive result in the tech section of the 'Village Pump': after the week of discussions the untrivial solution was found! I am happy)) and have already introduced the hack I obtained there in one of my articles.
Cherurbino (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Cherurbino:
1) Yes, I think that way of linking will work nicely. One or two of those in an article is fine so long as the link isn't providing copyright violations, but try to keep uses reasonably minimal.
2a) If you feel it is an actual signature, then there should be no issue.
2b) That's good to see, coordinates can be highly tricky to implement properly. As Primehunter stated, different projects implement coordinates in different ways, which can be utterly frustrating. Glad you found a solution to your problem. But should you need healing in the future, I shall pull out the admin mop and cast healing word on you! Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
)))))))))))))
See my request below. I continue to widen the scope of media uploaded to Commons). You can't beleive, but this action was also 'inspired' by Emily )). Cherurbino (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Improving exisiting DPLA images[edit]

Hello Huntster. The DPLA bot uploaded thousands of interesting, but poorly processed NASA-images such as this one File:STS040-203-032 - STS-040 - DPLA - 49925768f368e19097c280607cbdbb20.jpg. I can re-process these pretty quickly to significant improvement, as it was simply improperly done during the initial digitization. What would be best practice for uploading this improved image? Should I replace this image uploaded by the DPLA bot, or should I upload a separate image to keep the DPLA image intact? The content of the image would not be changed; lightning, colors, contrast would be improved and borders would be cropped. Thank you for your input. --Askeuhd (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Askeuhd, as much as I hate unnecessary duplication, it is requested that a copy be uploaded under a different filename since the enhancements would be rather non-trivial. Just link the original and new images together with {{Otherversion}}. Huntster (t @ c) 02:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your reply. I will do so. --Askeuhd (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pronunciation sample[edit]

Here it is: File:En-us-Jezero.ogg. I wrote about the circumstances of appearance of this sample on the description page, disclosing two links, this and this.

  1. License. I took the same cc-by-sa-3.0, as was provided by uploader (somebody Khamar) for Emily's voice File:Emily Lakdawalla Voice.ogg. If I was wrong I kindly ask you to help me in finding proper tag.
  2. Cropping. This is a raw file; I shall not use it anywhere until somebody shall crop out only whe word 'Jezero'. It is pronounced 6 times, so it's a job for the native speaker to choose the best version)). I kindly ask you to help me in finding such a collaborator who shall reload the cropped version.
  3. Category renaming. Whether the sample for Jezero shall live at Commons, or not, I consider necessary - for the future - to rename the category "English pronunciation of the names of planets" to something like "English pronunciation of the names of astronomic objects"

With best regards, Cherurbino (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Today at Village pump I placed - at first the proposal, and some time later converted it into the request to add missing fields to the 'crater' infobox template (including the field for the pronunciation sample). By Sunday evening nobody showed any reaction - may be I had to go directly to techicians instead? Cherurbino (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Cherurbino, I'm so sorry for the delay in responding...I had opened my talk page at work, then got caught up in actual work, so the notification reminder disappeared. Anyway:
  1. I'm quite concerned about applying a license to something based on something else that has no relation. To be blunt, since the voice is not Emily's, and neither she nor Katherine Sredl explicitly released the recording under any kind of free license, I simply do not see any way this file can exist on Commons.
  2. The above notwithstanding, I would suggest the second instance of her saying "Jezero" would be the best instance. I can crop and lightly edit sound files as easily as image files, so if a freely licensed recording can be obtained, I can work on it (if needed). As for speakers, perhaps the best avenue would be to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia for a volunteer to record something. You could also potentially look in Category:Croatian Wikipedians for active users to ask personally. Worst comes to worst, I could potentially record something, but it would be Croatian with an American accent, lol.
  3. I would not rename that particular category, since it is part of an existing structure. Instead, the file would best be placed in Pronunciation of words relating to astronomy.
  4. I see the request was moved to Template talk:Infobox crater, which I agree is the best place for it. If there are no objections in a week (let's give people time to react, if any are watching), please remind me and I can work on implementing the changes. Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]