User talk:Marc Lacoste

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Marc Lacoste!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please upload cropped files as a new file[edit]

Can you please not overwrite files which you are cropping, but rather upload them as a new file. The reason for this are numerous, including:

  1. Uploaders/authors may upload photos with a specific resolution for a reason. A common reason is to allow the aircraft to breathe in the frame. Tight cropping is preferred some sites but not all photographers like to do this.
  2. The original uploaded version is available for usage if one desires to use it
  3. External reusers may hotlink to the images (which is allowed) and they may specify the size in their HTML. By overwriting you could be affecting the display of images on external sites.
  4. There is plenty of server space available and overwriting a file doesn't free up that space

CropTool has the option available to upload as a new file (instead of overwriting), so you should use that. All necessary information is included in both versions.

An example is File:AW139 (14630958499).jpg which is the full image as provided by the photographer. File:Travira Air AgustaWestland AW139.jpg is a cropped version of the original. If someone else desires to crop the original in another resolution they are free to do so and upload that image as a new file too.

Thanks for your understanding. PK-LMN (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I cropped those per COM:CROP as highlighted in the edit summary. As an example you have this File:Miyasaka Hakuryu II - Tigress with Two Cubs - Walters 71909.jpg. The original have mostly grey, useless background. The tighter crop is nearly four times smaller, but it enhances the image which is more meaningful. Observe the thumbnail compared to the preserved original : do you prefer the cropped or uncropped in en:Sculpture? As for your bullet points, we can argue:
  1. there is no change in resolution : e.g. the sculpture was ~1000px wide and still is. When there is en:negative space to let the subject breathe, it is already cropped by a meaningful photographer, either when shooting or in post before uploading. I correct those absence of post and leave breathing space. Especially for an aircraft which is often thin in the middle and already have most of the top and bottom of the frame empty. Note that I leave the aspect ratio between 3:2 and 2:3, thinner are unnatural.
  2. the original is still available in the file history
  3. external reusers benefit from a better frame! if they want a specific composition, they shouldn't rely on hotlinking but even if they dislike the change they can still hotlink to the file history.
  4. I don't want to economise server space but user time : if pictures are duplicated, the time users spent on image manipulation (category, contrast, etc.) doubles and this ressource is certainly not unlimited
I understand your concern, but cropping empty sky enhances pictures! if you find some of my crops too tight, don't hesitate to revert and replace it by a less tight crop. The guideline is "DO overwrite [...] where the essential composition is not altered", and "cropping much closer to the object was considered a minor crop". Its limit is when the background isn't empty. If you disagree, I suggest a more interesting discussion would be in Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
See Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files/Archive_1#RFC --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Cropping empty sky doesn't necessarily enhance photos. It's really a subjective thing. Take File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 at Sydney Airport.jpg for example which was nominated for FP. That wasn't successful but File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 at Sydney Airport room added.jpg was. One photo you cropped (File:RSAF G550-AEW.jpg) has had its composition changed dramatically. At the end of the day, I think the concerns I mention are valid, and you do understand them, so could you possibly just agree not to overwrite files when being cropped and simply upload them as a new file. Then you have a situation where people who want the original can use them, and people who want to use your crop can use them, and then everyone is happy :) PK-LMN (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree in File:RSAF G550-AEW.jpg I cropped also a bit of land and not only sky. I leave it as it is then. But when there is empty sky, my position still stands, and and I don't want to add complexity in commons. If you think it is too much I propose to discuss it over Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point here. Someone is objecting to the crops, and has presented very clear rationale for those objections. That is reason enough to upload as a new file. Is it really that difficult to use CropTool, as an example, on File:Gulfstream V - XA-RGB (7082398313).jpg to create File:Gulfstream V - XA-RGB (cropped).jpg? I am asking you, again, to please upload crops as a new file. And this will stop complex discussions and everyone will be happy. :) PK-LMN (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I observe the guideline. If you disagree with it, please talk of it there. I'm not against revising guidelines, but my talk page isn't appropriate. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And please stop reverting my edits unless you disuss the guideline in the guideline talk page.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gulfstream V from below.jpg is yet another file where the crop has changed the image in a fundamental way. File:Gulfstream V from below (cropped).jpg fixes the issue, and now provides the original for use and your version. I am seriously unable to understand why you insist on keep going. I am only going to revert all of your crops where necessary, and will re-upload your crop as a new file. Talk about creation of additional work/waste of time, geez man. :) PK-LMN (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to change every link while the crop is within the guideline. Please discuss in the appropriate guideline talk page. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You even understand the guideline since you applied it in [1] !--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
In that file, we are talking of an inanimate objects. Let's use the Gulfstream file directly above (which I have reverted, because it exists as a new file, and I've changed all the links for you!), aircraft belong in the sky, not in a box. Your crop, which I am guessing you have done in order to focus on the underbelly, still makes the aircraft look like it is in a box, not in the sky. Can you understand what I am trying to say to you here? PK-LMN (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I cropped more tightly to better show the aircraft in the picture, that's all. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That's absolutely OK. You've cropped the photo to suit the purpose for which you personally wanted it for. But you need to realise that others may want the original. At the end of the day, I think Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Controversial_or_contested_changes is also quite relevant.
Keep up the good work you're doing with the galleries and such, it's about time someone has put time into them, but please, please, please just upload crops in future as a new file.
If you can agree to do that in future, I will help to go back over the files you've cropped so far and upload them as new files and fix the usage in galleries, etc where necessary. Is that a deal? PK-LMN (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, je me me permets d'interjecter.

PK-LMN a raison : les proportions des images et des zones de ciel, voire des applat noirs, sont dictées par des règles de composition qui remontent à la Renaissance et à l'Antiquité. Elles reflètent des processus neuro-cognitifs de lecture des images que j'essaye de synthétiser à User:Rama/Composition de photographies, mais que vous trouverez sous différentes formes dans n'importe quel livre d'art.

Par ailleurs, pour ce qui est de la stricte procédure sur Commons, il est d'usage de ne pas remplacer les images, mais de publier les versions dérivées sous des noms différents. Il peut arriver que l'on écrase l'image d'origine, mais cela n'arrive que lorsque la version suivante est évidemment et consensuellement meilleure que la précédent (par exemple la même image avec une meilleure résolution), ce qui n'est pas le cas en l'espèce.

Merci pour votre compréhension et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Il vaudrait mieux poursuivre en anglais. Ce n'est pas une histoire de composition, je l'améliore plutôt que d'avoir un grand vide inutile, mais de procédure. C'est prévu et c'est tant mieux, c'est une amélioration mineure qui justifie un remplacement. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Cropping reviaited[edit]

please stop overwriting files with cropped image, instead upload under a new name. It is against policy.--KTo288 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

USCG AC C37A Flight[edit]

I also notice that you overwrote File:USCG AC C37A Flight.jpg with another photo. These are actually two different photos. I've uploaded the other photo to File:United States Coast Guard C-37A.jpg in case you want to use this elsewhere. Please ensure you do not overwrite files with images which are different. PK-LMN (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks, it was because the original didn't have a source and I found this one. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate files[edit]

Hi again, I notice that you have nominated for deletion some duplicate photos. Instead of putting them up for deletion, can you use {{duplicate}} on the file instead? For example. This is to ensure that any external users are not affected by a deletion. Cheers, PK-LMN (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing watermarks[edit]

When removing watermarks that contain copyright information, it is quite important to add {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}}. Thanks. Reventtalk 15:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

File:E190e.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:E190e.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Dura-Ace (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop overwriting files[edit]

Please stop overwriting files that have been around for a while, or that are in use at WP, with your preferred crop or rotation composition. I am referring to File:Boeing 737-8 MAX N8704Q (27946580010) (rotated).jpg yesterday but you have done this many other times also. If it’s not a minor fix, upload a derivative instead. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Again: please stop. Upload derivatives as new files. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

File:SeatCostTripCost.png[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Stratolaunch comparison.svg[edit]

Hi Marc, I've declined your request to rename the above mentioned file because of it's ambiguous nature. Many articles and a quick google search show similar design features for both of them. Can you provide additional references to prove otherwise so that we can move the image? Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for verifying. I don't remember my precise message, but File:Stratolaunch comparison.svg in its summary states "Stratolaunch Systems' carrier aircraft, which is intended to use the planform of the File:White_Knight_Two_planform.png and have a wingspan of 117m..." but the actual aircraft is very different, see its diagram, showed on the current website: 6-engines instead of 4, a deeper wing chord but slimmer fuselages, a longer payload interface, normal cockpit windows and not rutan-style circles...--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)