User talk:Ruff tuff cream puff

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ruff tuff cream puff!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Érico (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Decreasing resolution on crops/uncrops[edit]

Hi, I've picked out the two examples above to illustrate a problem with your recent crops and uncrops of some of my uploads. You appear to be going to the Internet Archive, downloading the page and re-upoading, but in the process decreasing the image resolution. If you want to uncrop or rotate any of the IA images, please see User:Fæ/Project_list/Internet_Archive#Un-cropping for how you can use categories to get Faebot to do it for you, ensuring the largest possible image uploaded. In both the above cases I have used the uncrop category, let Faebot load the full image, then used the standard Commons CropTool to trim the image down. This results in an image several times larger than your versions.

By the way, I noticed you removed some of my user upload categories after doing a crop, I'd rather you left them in so I can keep more accurate reports for the original batch upload projects.

If Faebot fails to act on a file for a day, leave a note about it on my talk page and I'll check out the issue. Thanks -- (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't overwrite files[edit]

This is related to the above I've reverted your overwrite of File:Foggy sunset in Coronado.jpg, if you make substatial changes to a file, upload under a new name, e.g.File:Foggy sunset in Coronado-flipped.jpg do not overwrite the existing file with the new one. See Commons:Overwriting existing files.--KTo288 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I overwrote the file because the file as-is is incorrect. public-domain-images files are often reversed in orientation; this is especially noticeable in photos of skylines and such; I live in this city and I recognize the file as an incorrect representation of reality, and I confirmed it by viewing similar images just to make sure. This change is allowed under the guideline that you cite except in cases where another editor contests the change; I am not sure why you would contest changing a backwards picture. But so I don't get any more annoying messages about the file I will upload another version. Please, no more "do not do this" messages. Thank you. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi, please don't blank pages (see policy)! If you want a page (category or other) to be deleted add a {{speedy}} tag in case of speedy deletion, or start a deletion request, or tag a category for discussion if that might be necessary. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
I keep seeing your username pop up on my watchlist making helpful categorization edits. Thanks! :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm actually having fun categorizing, I find it very satisfying, and there are hundreds of thousands of images that need cats so I'll be keeping busy for a while Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

IA uncrop failures[edit]

Some of the images you have marked will be replaced by the next or previous page in the document. This is because the link given in the text has the wrong (absolute) page number. You can either revert and consider doing these by hand, or you can fix the link (the page is given in the link like "n197" for page 197) and re-add to the uncrop category. This error is consistent in a document, so if a page is one less than it should be in the link, it will be the same fix for any other pages from that document or journal. Thanks -- (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Anders Fager portrait[edit]

Hey there! Anders Fager sent me his portrait ( and asked me to put it in the article about him because he wasn't happy with the previous one. I thus have written permission by the man in the picture, but not by his friend who took the photo. Please advise. Mrund (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello, thanks for following up. Unfortunately, the author of the photo is the only person who can choose a license for it. The Commons treats even simple snapshots as work that belongs to the person who made it. So, in order to license the photo, you would need to send an email or message from the photographer to the address in the tag that I put on the photo. This is how the Commons protects the rights of photographers, such as those who take professional photos of famous people; the photographer owns his work, and the famous person actually has no rights to it unless the photographer gives explicit permission. This is how we keep stolen work off the site. Obviously you mean well and I'm sorry for the hassle! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mary Duffy.jpg[edit]

Hello, I recently sent a message to OTRS about the permissions regarding the image and the person who replied declined to accept the text of the message do to a misunderstaning on my part regarding the permissions. In the original email I included a copy of an email that Ms. Duffy had sent to me releasing the image for use on Wikimedia Commons under a CCA-SA 3.0 Unported license, but the respondent refused it because the wording was not exactly in line with the documentation Wikimedia required. How long do I have to get the proper worded document in? Does the deletion become permanent after a certain time?

Thank you --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 23:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Hi, thank you for your cooperation, you seem to be doing everything correctly. I am not sure why the file was deleted if you sent a copy of the email; The wording shouldn't matter, all they need is evidence that the photographer is okay with his photo having the license you gave it. The only problem might be that the email is from Ms Duffy rather than the person who created the photo, or that the photographer's wishes aren't clear enough. At any rate, it is not deleted permanently. In the tag on your talk page there is a link for undeletion, so you can nominate it and explain the problem. You might have to do the OTRS process again. I'm really sorry for the hassle. Because I'm the one who started this I'll try to help out if I can. If they decline to un-delete it they need to explain more clearly what you can do. Thanks, and sorry again. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios[edit]

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences to enable them, tab "Gadget", section "Maintenance tools" : "AjaxQuickDelete" and "Quick delete". These add links in the left column (or right column for Hebrew, Arabic, etc., language interface). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Any interest? You've got the credentials and we need new admins. Let me know. lNeverCry 20:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, I've asked three people today and this is my second no. I hope I don't strike out... lNeverCry 04:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to ask again, we always need admins! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Giudicati (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of bot generated categories[edit]

If there are several now useless categories generated by my batch upload, best would be to give me a short note and a list of these categories such that I can remove them. I guess there is no need for a discussion... All the best --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free[edit]

Please feel free to nominate the other group of photos from, I have deleted the first batch. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle[edit]

How can Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle as a whole be in Category:National Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming categories[edit]

Please use the "Move" tab when renaming categories, rather than just copy and pasting. Helps to have any linked pages/data (WikiData), along with the history to be moved to the correct place. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing pictures of men[edit]

Hi Ruff tuff cream puff!

When you are categorizing pictures of men, which are already categorized as "Men", please only delete the category "Men", if your new category is a subcategory of the category "Men"! Otherwise you are deleting the information, that this person is a man. E.g. File:Senpetekelly.png: The Category:State senators of Alaska doesn't any more contain an information about the sex of a person; there are men and women in this category. Senator Pete Kelly is not only a senator but also a man, and this wants to express the Category:Men.

Regards, fcm. --Frank C. Müller (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • If you feel that adding such categories is helpful, please go ahead. I choose not to unless there is something obviously man-related about the photo, such as particular men's clothing or men doing an activity. There are several million photographs of men on Commons, mostly poor in quality, and they do not all need to be in man-cats. This is especially true for uploaders' personal photos, unless they are high in quality or distinctive. But if you want to categorize images a certain way, feel free. Leave me out of it. Have fun, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fak related categories[edit]

Hi. I find the pictures I propose for deletion looking for uncategorized images, which I try to categorize -generally-. I doubt I will go into the cats you informed me of their presence. I will prefer to ignore them. Be well. --E4024 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Moses Stone[edit]

I have seen that you removed File:Moses Stone.jpg from Category:Moses Stone. The person on the image is in my opinion indeed Moses Stone. See here, a link in the article on the English WP. So I added the category again. Regards, Wouter (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that is the correct person, I was just adding categories. I was considering moving the image to more general categories while cleaning up musicians cats, because there is only one image of the person and it doesn't require an entire category of its own yet. But the person has an article and you are interested in keeping it how it is, so I'll leave it and let you deal with it. Cheers, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Drug Education For Youth[edit]

Category:Drug Education for Youth is actually a US Navy program. It did not refer to drug education in general. I re-created the category, and I put it as a child of Category:Drug education. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia deletion[edit]

Hello! Thank you for reporting me on the rules to be respected to upload files to wikimedia commons. I appreciate it means that wikipedia is an affable and watchful verapia. However, I'm sorry that I've been assured of the right clauses in the wiki upload form and there are no acts of copyright infringement since all the files I uploaded are owned by the artist Ernesttico. Authorized public photos taken by me and people who work for him. Anyway, I remain available for any clarification or if I have to correct some cataloging in the upload. Thanks and compliments for your work.

Fish related categories[edit]

Hi. I am not an expert on fishes. Therefore I could not understand why you placed what we call "palamut" in Turkish and what they call "bonito" in Spanish under "mackerel", what we call "uskumru" in Turkish and what they call caballa or jurel in Spanish... --E4024 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States – Results![edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2017}} to your userpage!
Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States - Logo (text under).svg

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,400 people (the most of any nation this year) contribute over 8,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate pages on various Wikimedia projects.

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States! These photos are recognized for their photographic quality, artistic merit, and their encyclopedic value as illustrations of unique historical sites. We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret only being able to formally recognize the top 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other national contests, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 winners.

If you would like to view all the photos submitted for the U.S. this year, you may do so here.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all U.S. participants to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

A quick thank you to our national jury, as well as Commons editors who have helped categorize and place photos for the event. And finally, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments and helping to preserve our history through photography - we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events!

~Kevin Payravi & Nikikana, from Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States (16:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Is there a reason for moving species illustrations back into the main directory?[edit]

Hi! I really like the illustrations, videos, and audio files of a species be located in a subdirectory. This actually works well with the existing category structure. I am unable to determine a reason, good or otherwise to not do that. So I am here, asking what a good reason might be? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. It is early in my day here. I was responding to this move
I thought about these photographs that were in magazines. I decided to call them illustrations because they are illustrating an article, printed in a book (compared to photographs which are printed on their own), and a scan of a printed material (not a scan of a photograph). Even better printing of photographs in books or journals suffer compared to how a photograph is printed.
The same with the taxidermy photographs that were printed into books or journals. Illustrating an article and much about the printing techniques. Another example of this is newspapers and school yearbooks. The photographs used are often sold after they are published.
I also ramble early in the day, so sorry. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It's really great, actually, that you are getting rid of those "in art" categories. Also, I should never spam anyones talk page until the local afternoon. Sorry.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi, thanks, I don't mind a little ranting, hope it helped. Here is the thing: I'm going through all the animalia cats and creating cats for zoological illustrations; it is a huge project, so it requires a lot of reformatting of the category system, and I expected many people would be annoyed by a wholesale change. But it is a change that is needed because there is not enough organization and uniformity of these categories. I have almost finished with the fish, and the categories are easier to use now, in my opinion.

Yes I thought about moving black-and-white photos from (illustrations) into the main species cat, whether this would be controversial. As I am going through I am separating photos from illustrations or "art" or whatever we call it, and I have noticed some categories have a (historical images) subcategory. This might be useful for low-quality b&w photos from ancient books. On the other hand, if you think these photos work better in the (illustrations) categories, feel free to move them back. I am making such large-scale moves (thousands of files) that I cannot be concerned with where individual files go. Plus, my main focus is zoological illustrations (i.e. scientific drawings and paintings meant to illustrate organisms), other types of files might get moved inadvertantly; just move them back. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The primordial soup which is the tree of life[edit]

I am ranting now. Not at you, more of a this is not my first dive into the muck which is the TOL steam release.

A tree of life can be outlined for digital images also. The steps they go through have a lot to do with what sort of species they are now.

I am already in a bad mood here because of the flickr bot bot, fae, which picks up a different bots image poop and puts it here instead of getting its own food, processing it, and making its own perfect for the commons poop. What would be great would be all the links to all of the same issue of the same journal put it in the description on the image page of the commons own little poop drop of the image.

The difference between "art" and "illustrations". They cross purposes. There is an art tree and there is a scientific illustration tree and they cross. A little sculpture which is a species of birds. So, this is not a rant, just keep your eye out for something that is art of a species. The European Goldfinch is the worst for this that I have seen yet. So, the art category would fall under illustrations because those journal photographs of stuffed birds is a different kind of art which should be sectioned off into taxidermy also; for the lovers of that art. Sports crosses purposes here also, in the birds more than in the plants with hunting and fly-tieing.

Some of the articles that have been uploaded here for the old journals have been recorded at librivox. While making your own bot poop from IA, you could also pick up oggs there.

One last big rant which is not about you but about that french stupid bot bot which stupidified the botany categories I made. I had three of their maps outlined there -- for each of the major cycles of books and their attempts for a century to work that crap out. Homeopaths, gardeners, botanists, foodees, farmers, medicines -- they all have a book bulge with one or other of the trees. The french bot bot was removing all of that and replacing it with this years one stupid for other reasons model!! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes I left a reply in your previous note. Not sure what the point of this one is, or what problem needs to be fixed. The changes I am making aren't actually a new invention of mine, but expanding on a category system that was already put in place. As I noted above, my focus is zoological illustrations, so I am creating new categories using the pattern already in place, and trying to be consistent with it. I am not doing anything new here. If I move a picture of a taxidermied bird from (illustrations) into the main species cat, it is part of a large-scale move and if it doesn't work for you, just move it back. I agree that part of the mess was caused by bots, this is one reason a human needs to do the formatting. If I revert a useful change made by another human, just move it back. No need to visit my talk page to discuss it, I have no emotional investment in these changes and I'm not nitpicking. I am just making the category system that is already in place uniform throughout the zoological categories. It is not useful the way it is now. Thanks, have fun. -Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

reason for +[edit]

Hello Ruff tuff,
About your revert:
Like you I usualy don't like fancy sortkey (We globally agreed on " ", "?" and "†" which are very clear).
In the case of Category:Actiniaria, you can see that I provided 3 {{Taxa}} to list the suborders.
There is a note wich says "Plus familiae Actinoscyphiidae, Capneidae, Iosactiidae, Metridiidae and genera Stauractis".
That is why those 5 families have a sortkey +: to avoid mixing them with surorders placed in Category:Actiniaria.
It also allows in one glance to check the listed sub-orders, the listed famillies and the taxon placed there by errors (Currently the case for Category:Petalactis).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Water supply infrastructure in Seattle redux[edit]

You moved this last July from Category:Seattle water infrastructure. Thinking about it again: are you sure of this wording? Most of this is not in Seattle, it's in watersheds outside of Seattle, owned by the city. - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The wording I am sure of: I moved the cat from "Seattle water infrastructure" to "water supply infrastructure in Seattle" to align with other "water supply infrastructure in (city)" cats. I have no idea what is actually in the category, including any subcategories. I just moved the whole mess along with the title, which already featured the word "Seattle". The contents of the category might need to be sorted out and recategorized. I agree that infrastructure that is not actually in Seattle does not belong in that category. Thanks -Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • But it is all the water infrastructure of Seattle, hence the original name. It is just that most of that infrastructure is not in Seattle. It is in the river valleys of the Seattle hinterland. - 06:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Possibly Category:Seattle water supply system, analogous to what we do for New York City? (I still prefer the original "infrastructure" because it included sewerage as well as supply, but we could split that out. - 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


I notice you've been renaming various categories from along the lines of "Category:Animal illustrations" to "Category: Animal (illustrations)". Since the "Animal illustrations" is intuitive and perfectly correct grammatically it seems unnecessary. I understand that in some cases using a parenthetical specifier at the end can save time sorting or finding categories but in this case the two are so similar that I think we should just keep naming them in plain English. Is there a good reason for the parentheses that I don't know about? Abyssal (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, I don't like the parentheses either, but that is the format that has been set up for the mammals, so I am changing them all to match. I would rather have them without the parentheses, like the fish illustration categories are (such as Category:Salvelinus fontinalis illustrations), but I didn't start the trend. Same problem with the bird categories. Someday if I have a ton of extra time I'll do a complete overhaul and take out the parentheses but for now they need to all be formatted the same to make searching easier. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Could we rename them all at once with a bot? Abyssal (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That would be great, if you know someone who can do it. Thanks Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello my friend,
I saw you excellent contributions.
You could use WikipediaBioReferences a free tool that I created for our kind of contributions:
You put the taxon name, it returns wikicommons syntax that you can copy/paste in wikicommons.
Mostly references and subtaxon list.
It is very simple to install and I will help you of course.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will read about it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you try WBR?
About this change of sortkey.
It is a sad situation were contributors create one subfamily but not the other.
Hopefully it is always a temporary problem.
So your change of sortkey is really needed to move the subfamilly out the bunch of genera.
The question is what sortkey should we use ?
  • space is used for non taxonomic categories (see Category:Mantodea). Sometimes there are many of those.
  • . is used for automatic categories (see Category:Thespidae). But there are not many of those. So we could use it.
  • * could be used
What do you think ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes I really don't know how to use it. I am just trying to organize categories, but there should be a way to do it so that anyone can do it without using tools or complicated code schemes; this system is supposed to be accessible and usable by anyone. A category should make it easy to find files. I modify a category and it looks correct, but apparently messes up the codes and links somehow? So if I make a change like that perhaps you could fix it for me. Thanks for your help Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reflections of people[edit]

I removed your categorization. First, your User: and User_talk: pages don’t indicate explicitly that you are proficient with English and I spent an extra minute to ensure you have to be. As a presumably native speaker, you should know that “Reflection” has several meanings. One of them is Reflection (geometry) that would be appropriate, but Reflections of people is a subcategory of Reflections of objects which, in turn, pertains to Reflections – from interwiki links and subcategories you easily could infer that it is about an optical phenomenon, not photoshopping. Please, think better next time before removing {{uncategorized}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much! I will certainly think better next time! I will also review my vocabulary more thoroughly in my future categorization pursuits! I appreciate the advice and welcome future suggestions. Best regards, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Please revert your merger with Concord, you are quite wrong to do this. Eddaido (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • You're going to have to explain what you mean. Also, you may want to fix the problem yourself so it is done correctly. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Why did you do your merger? Eddaido (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • If you could place a note on each category explaining what it contains, this would help people put their images in the correct category. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • If you could consider what you are about to do and perhaps contact the editor concerned that made the category before demolishing it that would be nice. Please fix it, I am sure it will be beyond simple little me.
        • Please have a look at what I was doing when you made your edit and finally, why did you make the edits I'm complaining about? (again) Eddaido (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg[edit]

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 10:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.jpg[edit]

File:Geobacter sulfurreducens 2.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations vs. Photographs[edit]

I spent some time considering the difference between a photograph and an illustration when it comes to photographs that were printed in a book or journal and then scanned. I decided that they were illustrations. I might be wrong about this but I would like to share my reasoning.

The form they appear in is so far removed from an actual photograph. Their usefulness as a "photograph" is limited at best. Also, they went through the secondary (and destructive) printing so that they might "illustrate" an article or book chapter.

Do you know if there are any commons guidelines about this? (example: ) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The animal illustrations, if you go up the categories from species to family and so on, are in Category:Zoological illustrations. We also have Category:Botanical illustrations for plants. These are technical illustrations (i.e. artwork) that is meant to be scientifically accurate and describe the subject; there is an article at en:Biological illustration. These are things like Audubon illustrations. We have a massive collection of these, so they need a category system of their own, and the zoological illustrations categories don't include photographs. I don't think we need a Commons guideline defining what a zoological illustration is, it is a specific topic and a specific form of art.
An existing Commons guideline would negate any discussion of it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't find it useful to separate book photos from photos taken by Commons users and other sources. It is not a tool that people need to find the images they are looking for. Also I don't see how we would agree on whether or not a photo was used to "illustrate" something at one point; any photo can be used to illustrate something.
Origin. Method of printing. How format changes between camera and digital image. By your definition, video would also be photographs and in many ways a video is more like a photograph than a scan of a printing of a photograph in a book or journal.--RaboKarbakian (talk)

For the old black and white photos from old books, some people like to put them in "historical images" categories such as the ones in Category:Historical images of birds. I am removing photographs from the zoological and "illustrations" categories because they are not zoological illustrations. Thanks for your help. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of terra-cotta or ceramic likenesses are also not "zoological illustrations". I have not helped here but I do think that I have thought about this more than you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think I really deserve that. I am actually very clearly explaining what a zoological illustration is, and some other options for old photographs. I also would not put a photograph of a sculpture into a zoological illustration category. The peacock has Category:Pavo cristatus in art. This can contain artwork that is not meant to be an accurate scientific illustration of a species, such as sculptures and paintings. You can put the terra-cotta sculptures there. Category:Pavo cristatus (illustrations) is a subcategory of that, because a zoological illustration is a specific kind of art. I don't think a 100-year old book photo would go in either of those categories. I am not sure how else to explain this. I have built hundreds of biological illustrations categories, from tapeworms to mammals, and there are no photographs. Maybe it is the birds that you are most concerned with; if so, you might want to look at the other taxa to see how those illustration categories are built. Nobody gets emotional about the tapeworm illustrations, and I'm just starting with those. You might also look at Category:Botanical illustrations for scientific illustrations of plants. Commons is a file repository, and categories are meant to direct people to the files they need. People looking for zoological and botanical illustrations are not looking for photos. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
By deserving, it might be me that needs the thinking re-adjusted. More like "By Collaboration" as it is easy and even fun to just revert the edits of others. I know this first hand as I watched things I have done be reverted by others. They are so un-usable as photographs which is all that should be found in that upper category. In other lives here I have categorized plants and places and video and audio. They are as different of a format from the actual photographs as they are from audio or video. As illustrations, they point to additional information. I always found the commons to be the very best research tool available. The serving images to wikipedias is the easy thing. Being as good of a research tool as wikipedias is the purpose for the categories and the galleries; etc. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Help upload this photo [1]. Thank you. 02:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Kersti (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Benedict Wells © Dirk Skiba.jpg.[edit]

Hello! I'm writing you because of your message about this foto. I'm not sure what to do now and I hope you can help me. I'm Benedict Wells myself and I have asked Dirk Skiba, the photographer, if I can use his foto for the English Wikipedia site. (It's from this series: He said yes, so I uploaded it last year. What shall I do now? Best whishes and thank you.

  • Hello, sorry about the hassle, but Wikimedia Commons requires the actual photographer to give evidence of permission that their photo is avaiable under a usable license. This is so we can prevent violations of copyright and release of photographers' work without their consent. So in order to release the photo you can use the Commons:OTRS system; it involves getting the photographer's written permission and emailing it to Commons, the details are located at that link. Thanks for your help, Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, thank you for your quick reply. I try to do my best and I hope I understood everything right in English. So what I have to do is to ask the photographer to send an e-mail to "", saying that wikipedia can use this foto - right? Best wishes!

Some questions[edit]

I have a mindset about this collection of media, the set of files which is the commons. It might be wrong, however. You have a completely different mindset and I would like to know it.

I see this collection as being the greatest repository of media for any person needing such media. Videos about bugs or photographs of pollen or street locations, svg of penguins, etc, etc. Perhaps an elementary school teacher who has spent as much time learning the language of the kinder as they have learning math, science, literature combined. How can they find the media they need?

They misuse the word "Engraving". They use the word calligraphy to describe a style of font and not a skill of very very skilled artisans. At what point does the common language get an entry point? Oh sure, we used to call that language "vulgare" and if we are not using the word engraving correctly, and it is an issue here, should we change the name from commons to precise language onlys?

A child I worked with uploaded a video to fb. Math teacher. Special ed also. College grad, homeowner, younger than me. She had changed the camera from profile to landscape and back again. How much education should be required to find stuff here. She is not stupid, but I cannot help but try to imagine her finding something to aide her in her job at the public schools where I live.

Thumbnails are a problem. My crappy scans of a faded printing (a collection of dots rather than a chemical smear) are now showing in categories first and common people looking for photographs will think that the commons is a terrible place to find photographs.

Paintings started life as minerals. Should all paintings be categorized as the minerals their paints contained?

Please, tell me what you think people, common people, will be here for, looking for and how will it be easiest for them to find it? Are you planning on manning a helpdesk here?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Language is already complicated enough. Foroa was minding the froms and toos and tos. Branches and branches of proper connective phrases which helped with translations. It was beautiful. On the inside, you should think about the people on the outside.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

my mistake in species categories[edit]

When you encounter a species category, and it has the {{VN}} template on it, move it up to the beginning. That was one of my big mistakes. And if there is a script writer, it would be a good thing to keep an eye on the number of common names that occur in one language. Official common names are rude. But every location has a sting weed and a picker bush.  :Category:Picker bushes in New York with nettles. Or better a gallery, but the category is a great way to collect the images.

The common names have been published in books like the scientific name has. We don't have {{needs citation}} here, but if we did, common names would be more defined that the scientific names are.--RaboKarbakian (talk)