User talk:Miesianiacal

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Miesianiacal!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | 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 | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Miesianiacal!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Images from Library and Archives Canada[edit]

Thanks for recently uploading a bunch of historic Canadian images. We have so many holes in the collection of Canadian images here on the Commons, so I'm happy to see you helping out these past few months. Just a note: the reproduction reference number for LAC images is not the DAPDCAP number. The reproduction reference number (used to order prints) usually starts with a PA, C, RD (or even sometimes an e). DAPDCAP is a database that dates back to the old Documentary Art and Photography (DAP) division of the National Archives in the 1980s, and isn't as helpful a reference to use. Hope that helps. --skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


File:Star-GCStJ.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Star-GCStJ.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in 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 | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Kwekubo (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Consistent sizing[edit]

May I ask what consistency your are looking for with the change in ribbon size to 106px (vice 100px)? I only ask because the consistent size I had used when creating all of the images that I have done (which is quite a few) is to go for 100px. Why the change to 106? Is there a discussion page you can refer me to? PalawanOz (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a discussion where 100px was decided on? As I observed it, in editing Wikipedia, there was no consistency to ribbon bar sizing, varying between 106px, 100px, 72px, 218px, etc. From my survey, 106px seemed the most used, so I brought the others in line with that in order to get consistency on pages such as en:Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis#Honours. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't undo the consistent sizing of ribbon bars. It causes havoc across a number of Wikipedia articles, such as [1], [2], [3]. Insert a new name. I greet and thank. Wiki Romi (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There has actually been quite a bit of discussion on ribbon disply - see here. I would tend to agree with the previous comment though - if you wish to have a different size available, then I'd suggest you go with a newly named pic, rather than upload a different version of the current. I have a concern that a simple upsizing to 106px could result in distortion to the image, which in the case of the ribbons I created I know I have tried to get correct to the pixel. PalawanOz (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm here to add my voice to the chorus saying: "Please don't change the shape of existing files."
By-all-means, create 106x30px if you want to, but give them new filenames.
People like me have gone to the effort of creating 100x30px versions, so that they can use them to create consistent outcomes. Your addition of 6% to the length causes our nicely formatted outcomes to suddenly look like, errrrr, "rubbish".
As you mention, lots of people use lots of different length x bredth ratios. (BTW: You missed 96x30px) Please have a look at W:User talk:Pdfpdf/Ribbons. As you can see, I'm working towards a complete set of 100x30px. (Yes, progress is slow!) Having you come along and turn them into 106x30px is, for me, "not helpful".
Changing subject: You say: "Is there a discussion where 100px was decided on?" - That's not the point. The point is that, without impacting on anyone else, PalawanOz, and to a lesser extent, others (including me), have been creating an independent set of 100x30px. Similarly and independently, others have been creating an independent set of .svg files that are 218x60px. I'm fairly confident that they wouldn't be too happy if you changed their contributions to 106x30px.
I repeat: By-all-means create a set which is 106x30px if you want to, but give them new filenames.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, all, but where exactly did I say I wanted 106x30? To repeat myself: I was going for consistency, and 106x30 was the most frequently used size, regardless of any other decisions to make 100x60, 210,000x8, or whatever sized ribbon images. Therefore, it made more sense to bring the lesser used dimensions in line with the more widely employed, rather than the other way around. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to create that consistent set at 106x30 if you feel like it, if you could go with a new file, rather than modifying existing, then that would be appreciated. As you can see, whilst it may not have appeared to be a contentious issue, it did have some unintended ramifications. PalawanOz (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

<od>Did you not read what I wrote?
There is NO wikipedia-wide universal consistency - different sets of different people set up their own sets of files which are consistent within themselves, but not necessarily consistent with others.
These consistent-within-themselves sets include

  • 72x30px
  • 1000x275px
  • 96x30px
  • 100x30px
  • 106x30px
  • 218x60px

and numerous others.
By changing the size-ratio of a ribbon you are moving it out of the consistent-within-themselves class it was in, and into a different consistent-within-themselves class. I think you will find that in many cases a ribbon of that size-ratio already exists.
For example: File:QEII Coronation Medal ribbon.png was created 106x30px (by you). So we had:
UK Queen EII Coronation Medal ribbon.svg
File:UK Queen EII Coronation Medal ribbon.svg 218x60px
QEII Coronation Medal ribbon.png
File:QEII Coronation Medal ribbon.png 106x30px
ElizabethIICoronationRibbon.png
File:ElizabethIICoronationRibbon.png 100x30px
Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal ribbon.gif
File:Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal ribbon.gif 96x30px
You then decided to make is "consistent" with 100x30px.
So now we have TWO versions 100x30px, and NO version 106x30px.
By-the-way, many Canadian pages use 106x30px, many Australian pages use 100x30px, many American pages use 218x60px, and many Russian and Polish pages use a variety which includes 72x30px.

So, in short, please DO NOT change the size-ratios of existing files; it is not only "not helpful", it messes up the work of many people why rely on those files to remain at the given size-ratio. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More on ribbons[edit]

Hi again. You created: Order of the British Empire ribbon.png 100x30 File:Order of the British Empire ribbon.png I was wondering why? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Civil

Military

and

File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg[edit]

Hi, File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg has been nominated for deletion because, per the information from LAC, it is not free. (More details about the images from LAC can be found on the page Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada.) -- Asclepias (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Massey-Diefenbaker-1958.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sreejith K (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Canadian Volunteer Service Medal.png[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Volunteer Service Medal.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 11:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Diefenbaker-sm.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Diefenbaker-sm.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Trudeau 1972[edit]

[4] : Well, why do you think it's not where the source says it is, and what other building do you think it is, then? This is one photo in the series from the session with Norah Michener, Margaret Trudeau and Pat Nixon, probably on the morning of April 14, after Richard Nixon left Rideau Hall for the Parliament at about 9:30 and before he came back to Rideau Hall at about 12:30, according to his diary. Indeed, Rideau Hall seems the likely place. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I think it's not Rideau Hall; I know it's not. For one, I've worked extensively on the Rideau Hall article and know the layout. There's no room that has a view through to an wide foyer with a stair. I suspected the photo's actually taken inside 24 Sussex and, after two minutes of research, determined that is indeed the case; it's in the living room of that house. Regard the fireplace surround in the photo on commons and compare it to the fireplace surround in the first picture in the second row of the gallery of images here. You'll see they're exactly the same. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
That looks very plausible. Then should we categorize it in Category:24 Sussex Drive and modify the description? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)