User talk:Tony Wills/Archive010

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

File:Tui foot 01.jpg[edit]

Nobody thinks, that this photo is illustratin a birds leg, but bird foot is now only a category redirect and therefore shouldn't contain pictures. --Kersti (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, the error is that strange move and redirect done without disscussion and without real benifit. Now pictures of birds legs will all fall into the category branch that contains animal feet - obviously an illogical situation that will be fixed. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There was no objection, so I reverted the corruption of the tree structure back to seperate legs and feet categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk archives[edit]

I'm not "mucking up" talk pages by making non-material changes to templates transcluded into moribund discussions. I'd happily change the template to not add non-file pages to the category but I'm not about to go learn template syntax in order to do that. It doesn't make any sense to revert non-material changes that obviously improve the view of categories. Where my edits have actually impacted discussion then I'm happy to revert them myself but I don't think the correct stance is to assume that absolute integrity of archives comes first in the list of priorities. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the categories are distressing compromised by having random talk pages listed. I agree it is a pain to have such pages included in the category, but not exactly a priority to remove them. I also think the template in question is one of a number of ingenious templates which are unmaintainable by the average user here (and part of the claimed rationale for creating such things is to make maintenance easier by combining various similar templates!). I do think the integrity of talk pages is important, and more important than a messy category caused by poor template writing. An alternative is to "subst" the template (which perhaps it should have been at the time anyway, else if the template is changed later the sense of the discussion may become nonsense), and hack out the offending categories. I tried the latter idea but because of the nested nature of the template, I would have had to recursively "subst" other templates too, but didn't have time to pursue that at the time - so I just reverted your changes instead ;-). I'll go and see if anyone is familiar enough with the template to fix it, and solve both our problems :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

CFD on cat:Pictures_and_images and similar[edit]

As someone who has edited Category:Pictures and images a few times in the past, please see the (non-) discussion (not) going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02#Category:Pictures and images (and the 9 nominations following that one), if you haven't already, and comment there if you wish. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but you may wish you hadn't asked ;-). Most category names are ambiguous, that is that nature of trying to define something in the English language in a couple of words. There is little way to ensure that people can guess the exact purpose of a category by looking at the name! The main thing is that the purpose of the category be made clear, by it's position in the category tree hierarchies and by a description on its category page. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Assessments}} tweek[edit]

I created the template. You need a redesign? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The template was modified to add categories for featured pictures etc, then modified again to include categories for "formerly featured" pictures as well. The problem is that discussion pages that display examples of the template and its usage are included in those categories. Of course those pages do not belong in those categories, so of course it would be best to only add the category for pages in "File:" namespace. It is fairly simple to do this, but the originally straight foward code of the template is starting to look very cluttered (need to put a test around every instance of "[[ category:"). It would have been cleaner before the "formerly featured" categories were added because prior to that the categories were added in a seperate section at the bottom of the template, and so could have been excluded with one surrounding test condition. There are also categories added by other sub-pages as well (eg POTY winners). So rather than hacking at the code, I thought it would maybe a good time to look at the structure to see if it could be done more elegantly. I think maintainability of the code is more important than compactness or efficiency unless the template is for use on a huge number of files. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The issue can be addressed with a few clever If/Elses for the relevant conditions. Could you link me to a few of the files/categories involved? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The pages which started this request are Commons_talk:Quality_images and Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 2. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you demonstrate the problem if possible? Where does the template not work properly. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
It adds categories to non file pages, eg for Commons talk:Quality images, there is Category:Former quality images, and hidden categories:
  • Featured picture of the year (finalist)
  • Quality images
  • Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons
  • Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds
Which are the right categories if it was an image in "file:" namespace, but not ok for other pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see. You want a namespace check if it is in file namespace or not. I will work for this end now. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe what you wanted is now coded in. I am thinking of simplifying this templates code by moving content to sub pages as auto-translate is rather difficult to follow in code. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work :-). But there are still further categories that the template adds, eg for page Commons_talk:Quality_images there are "Former quality images, Featured picture of the year (finalist), Quality images, Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons, Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds". Most of these are hidden categories and are added by code on sub-pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that too. I do not immediately see where the category is in the template. I will look though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Found it. I am unable to edit Template:Assessments/temp though. Some prick protected the page. :( -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added an {{edit request}} to unprotect the page as I don't see why it is protected and other sub-pages of the template are not. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It is because I protected all of them due to heavy use. They should remain semi-ed IMHO. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Assessments/temp}} is now semi-protected, so maintenance can resume :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be OK now I think. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 10:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and persistance in getting it fixed, much appreciated :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting redirects: A little help request[edit]

Hi, I've partly (75%) understood what you mean. So, I'll use no more "dupe" for redirects of moved file, but "speedy" (only when necessary). About the file redirect "piazza di nouro", moved by me after an user request. I've noted another mistake: "nouro" instead of Nuoro. I've orphanized its only usage (at he.wp) so, I've tagged (now) it with "speedy" (if it's wrong you can revert). I'm really sorry for the eventual technical problem but: is it correct to tag of speedy deletion the "old file names" (transformed into redirects) of moved files if (and only if) they are meaningless, misleading, wrong (unplausible typos) or too much ambiguous (and, of couse, orphanized)? I've seen the template:universally replaced but i've read also the note for users below... I'm a bit, ehm, lost in translation. When I move a file, I control author, reason, gallery, description and global usage. If the old redir is too redundant (the criteria listed above) and has few global links, I provide to move their links into the wikipedias, then i tag them for deletion. If all the redirects (of old files) doesn't need a deletion, it is simplest to me to make a simple "click" (proceed) and anything else. Sorry for my technical confusion, thanks for attention :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 04:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On commons the concept of orphaned redirects really only applies to articles. With images it is not relevant whether they are no longer linked from any wiki. I have given a longer explanation on your talk page :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Kurma Avatar of Vishnu. ca 1870.jpg[edit]

It is a "scaled-down version". It is low resolution and blurry. The source of both images is same, namely V&A museum. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad rename[edit]

My apologies for this bad renaming. I'll be more careful in the future. --M0tty (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


I would suggest email as a better venue to discuss your concerns if that is alright with you. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I usually only use off wiki communication to have personal conversations or discuss removing private info from the wiki etc. But you are welcome to email me if you think it would help (although I will be off computer for a few hours, so it will be a while before I can reply :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much![edit]

You do not need to try to resolve every issue with the {{Assessments}} at the same time. Feel free to post more but I cannot resolve so many issues at once. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry :-), I'm not expecting all questions posed to be resolved immediately. And others also work on that template, maybe leave somethings for them? The translation bar thing especially I think needs a longer discussion as I expect it will be important to someone, which was why I started discussion on VP. We of course could change {{Assessments}} without that wider discussion, but there are other templates that have the same thing, might as well have a broader discussion from the start. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am doing my best to resolve issues as quickly as possible. I am unable to resolve the language link problem as I am unsure how these are supposed to work. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Category relationship[edit]

How can Category:Kansas City Missouri Temple be in Category:Building construction sites in the United States? Presumably it will be (or has been) finished, and this category should apply specifically to photos of it under construction, not to the building itself. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a building which is under going construction can quite happily have all its images in that category, and I suppose that at the time I added the category there were only construction images (I don't actually remember). I seem to have moved it from Category:Proposed or planned buildings and structures in the United States, a category that was perhaps appropriate before construction took off. If there are now images of it completed maybe it can be moved again - feel free to move it to where-ever it now belongs :-). I suppose that because there are a number of construction images we can create a subcategory Category:Kansas City Missouri Temple during construction (or whatever the standard naming scheme is) and put that category under Category:Building construction sites in the United States and Category:Kansas City Missouri Temple. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for help understanding of galleries[edit]

Hello, Tony Wills,

I was unclear about this relationship between galleries and categories. I think, I now understood and have linked most of my uploaded fotos to the categorie Udaipur:subcategory. To find out, what is the use of galleries I will go to the indicated page. ArishG (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad I was of some help :-). Galleries have the advantage that you can arrange the pictures in a meaningful order and add headings and descriptions. For many subjects there are far too many pictures to put on a gallery page, so people usually select a collection of the best or most useful pictures to add there. But the galleries are often not maintained very well (not enough people to keep them up to date). All pictures should have at least one category. Categories are often added during the upload process, so people often just add a category then and do not bother with the gallery. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Leila Lopes[edit]

Thank you for fixing my naming mistake - much appreciated. --David Shankbone (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but it was someone else who actually noted the error and requested the rename :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Information template optional parameters[edit]

I do not see why you are opposing the addition of optional parameters (for location for example) to this template. Can we discuss this on talk pages as village pump is a bit cumbersome for me. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the village pump is a good place for such a widely used template as few will have the template page on their watchlist. If the community agrees that it is worth while modifying the template, then the details can be thrashed out on the templates talk page. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No one will agree to that unless details are determined. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that by modifying the template at all means that the page cache for every single image page that uses it will be invalidated? And this has nothing to do with the actual number of edits to pages containing {{location}}, {{LargeImage}} etc (each of those edits will be on top of the load caused by just editing {{information}}). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a problem. As devs always say, let devs worry about performance. Code can be throughly tested on Template:Information/sandbox first, can be then proposed and rolled in if approved. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Village pump image[edit]

Could I ask you to add something like 51 more images to this? :) I think more randomness would be nicer. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Accelerating history, originally there was no image on the VP page then in 2004 User:Bdk added a picture of a hot pool in Iceland, that sort of looks like a well [1]
December 2004
(It looks as though it was originally a slightly larger image on the Icelandic wiki and was cropped slightly, the author was given as "Jón Jónsson" which google translates as "John Doe" ... but the only versions of the original file that I've found on the internet are smaller and later than our original upload, eg [2]).
Then in 2009 I finally found a good image on Commons of an actual village pump that also looks like a meeting place [3]
March 2009

That started something and we got
Then you gave us 6 images that can change every minute (I think it can only change if the VP has been edited and the template reloaded), now you want 60! ;-). This is a very steep expotential curve, where will it end!
I see there is now a whole category Category:Village pumps. I really liked File:Aylsham.JPGThatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk.jpg because it looked like a meeting place in the village (which is the whole idea), and I thought File:Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpgBalga, February 2010, Women around the water pump cropped.jpg, was an excellent illustration. I suppose rather than more literal water pumps (which get a bit boring ;-) we could start adding other allusions to the same idea - eg people around a water cooler etc? What do you think? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The idea is I want to have more than 6 "random" images which will get old quickly. The thing is if we have more than 24 of them they would rotate over time slowly so that they do not become boring again.
The files (should) update every hour (I just fixed this) even if the village pump isn't edited much like the main page & POTD. I do like the concept of "village pump" as a gathering place rather than a display of rusty relics. That said it could be nice to have one machine pump if we decide to have a lot of images. I like Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg better since it has people but do not really object to any of the pumps presented here.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 00:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
"Gathering place" or rather "meeting and chatting place" is the whole idea behind calling it "Village pump" (ie people lined up to collect their daily supply of water run into other people in a slightly random way and chat while waiting their turn), but I think that metaphor is somewhat lost, and most people don't know why it's called village pump. Someone started a Commons:Beer parlour at about the same time as VP, but they were quickly merged.
I found a bunch of images of people meeting and chatting, but most aren't around water. But those images around water supplies like File:Water cooler of Via Pomeria.jpg and File:Vatican-water-fountain-6591.jpg and File:Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump cropped.jpg (see gallery), don't really give the impression that people are talking to each other, just standing in line (perhaps the metaphor is a myth ;-). The only one where we have two people obviously talking is in the full view File:Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg, maybe we should do another crop that includes both the conversationalists.
The purpose of the picture is not just to decorate the page, but to illustrate the page's purpose so I would actually be quite happy with a single good image, but a variety is nice :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
new version - emphasise conversation & pump, now we just need 59 more ;-)
Human brain ignores repetition after a while. This is why a new image would remind people of the purpose of village pump. The image is inherently decorative as the page would function without it. But that is fine! We are an image repository, demonstrating our images is what we do best. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Images useage for educational product[edit]

Hi Tony, I am interested in using some of your images in a digital resource i am develop[ing for Primary Schools in New Zealand. The resource includes audio, photographs, video and text. We are also developing a set of teacher resources to support the teacher in the classroom. We are planning a bilingual resource in Maori and English.

The resource focuses on animals you can find in an every-day New Zealand garden and is intended as a research science based teaching and learning solution for ages 5-12 kids.

Please contact me if you are interested in being involved.

Regards Ratu Mataira Pearson NZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratu rahiri (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I have replied by email. --Tony Wills (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Domesticated pigeons[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Domesticated pigeons has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

-- 19:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stitched Images[edit]

This is largely dredged from memory, but I think it is accurate. I suspect that you know more about the subject than I (I really admire File:NZ Falcon - Karearea 08.PNG), but if we discuss it, I may learn something, and maybe you will, too.

You probably know everything in it, but a look at User:Jameslwoodward/Architectural photography might be helpful.

If you have a wide enough lens, you can take a single image of the front of a rectangular building, with the film plane parallel to the facade. You can also take two or more images from the same location, rotating the camera in either or both planes after each shot. You can then use one of several software packages to stitch them together, see File:Alcazar of Toledo - Toledo, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg for a wonderful example. Or, you can stitch them by hand in Photoshop or Photo-Paint, as I did with File:Wick harbor scotland.jpg because I was unaware of the free software then.

If the principal subject is a building, particularly a rectangular building, this produces significant distortion because the center of the image is closer and therefore larger than the two ends.

Thus my comment that taking a number of photographs from evenly spaced points on a line parallel to the front of the building might be the best way to image Penn Station Baltimore. It would be best if the camera were as high as possible -- I carry a folding stepladder that gets me ten feet above the roof of my car. You could certainly stitch these by hand and AFAIK use one of the software packages. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments re the Karearea, unfortunately that camera has since died, so no more of that fun stuff :-). Yes I am familiar with stitching images together all taken from a single point, one is effectively just simulating a very wide angled lense. And the stitching software (I use Hugin) looks after correcting for lense and other distortions quite well. It was the idea of taking a number of photographs at evenly spaced points on a line parallel to the object that interests me. If the building, for instance, has a projecting alcove on the front, then one photo will be able to see the front and left side (albeit on an angle), another the front and right side so when you stitch them you will see a strange construction where your brain would have to interpret the alcove as having sloped sides (as you would see the left, front and right sides together. I don't think I described that very well ;-). So you couldn't get away with just taking a few photos as you do when you just rotate the camera from a single point. You want lots of closely spaced images, all looking almost straight on (so you can't see outer edges of things) - perhaps you use a slit with most of the lense obscured or just use the centre of each frame. One method is apparently to use a movie camera (rolled along a track in front of the object) and just use a vertical line of pixels from the centre of each frame (the rest of the frame is used in aligning the images, but doesn't contribute pixels to the actual image). I found we do have a category Category:Linear panoramics and eventually discovered a wikipedia article w:Route panorama - It has been fun finding this stuff since your comment :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You explained your concern perfectly and it is entirely valid if the building's front is not essentially flat. The Lincoln Memorial would be very problematic, but most buildings would be OK, particularly if you were careful to have the cut lines on the main plane, not in the alcoves. The Indianapolis example at Route panorama is pretty good at the plane of the buildings, but terrible for things in the foreground -- the short cars -- and not so good for the distance.
I think the problem I describe is inherient when using images that have a perspective view (ie all images that span across a field greater than zero degress :-), the narrower the field the better, but it will always be there unless the subject is flat. When I mentioned alcoves, I actually meant alcoves as viewed from inside the building - ie projections from the building, things that have two outer edges that you can't see at the same time. Examples are few and far between because we have so few linear panoramas, but I think I can see one in File:Kralja Milana street panorama Beograd.jpg
linear panorama example
. Directly above the first "3nata" awning, high up on the wall, to the left of the window, there is a sign sticking straight out from the wall. In this pano it appears as though it is a sign that is wider at its base (against the wall) than at the edge nearest us (hence we see two faces of the sign). As far as I can see from other photos, eg [4] it is actually a perfectly normal sign. I think this is must always occur when stitching "parallel" images and to try and remove it would create worse problems. Perhaps in itself it is not a problem, we just have to accept that it is a weird, "impossible" projection that shows us more than we could see. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
In the case of the sign you could mask off the sign in one of the overlapping frames, so that the stitched image would just contain one or other side, you could even do this manually with all objects or walls that protrude towards the camera and choose to show only the left or right side of things - might be difficult to automate. I think the result would be a sort of w:Oblique projection. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, in two senses:
  • I don't see it the way you do. I see only the left (our left, not the sign's left) side of the sign -- a very little bit of it -- because it is not quite perpendicular to the film plane.
  • Are we looking at the same sign? When I said the first awning, that is reading the picture from left to right, so above the (our) left most "3nata" awning - yes there is of course very little of the sides to see (because of the angle), but there appears to be 3 lines of writing on both sides. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Even given that your view of it is correct, I don't think it is a problem. Almost all images have artifacts that result from projecting a 3D object on a plane. The possibility that we might see both sides of a sign is a small price to pay for getting a good image of the whole street. I wish I had it at File:Harriswood Crescent Boston MA 01.jpg -- the whole street is on the National Register and it would have been nice to have them all in a row. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • With most image manipulations we can end up with a smooth representation of the scene, sometimes with obvious distortions that we accept, but discontinuities will jolt us. I think the technique of stitching together normal width images like this will always look like a badly stitched image, not because of a strange "projection", but because of the inherient problem of joining images of the same thing from different angles. If you think of a panorama as like rolling out a cylinder so that you can see the inside on a flat plane, with this technique it will always look as though the cylinder material doesn't want to be straightened and we end up with a flatish surface but with regular creases upwards :-). But yes, for some scenes it will be the only way, taking sufficiently narrow strip images (eg mainly overlapping images) should produce something useful without having to resort to a single vertical row of pixels per image (I suppose if you have a lens that only accepts light rays perpendicular to it then your camera can take a whole sensors width of the scene at a time, not sure whether that is much better though ;-).
  • Just been doing some more searching, this is probably the technique that you want [5], but a lot of cleaver stuff going on, the system is having to analyse the 3d depth of the scene and even then still needs user input. But it does address the problem of things in the foreground being shortened (eg cars), but there are still some strange aborations.
  • Where I really want to use this technique is in photographing the outside of an object. That is, for example, a 360 degree view of a building by moving all the way around the exterior :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting thought. Many buildings aren't visible on all four sides, but it would be an interesting presentation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you are interested in this kind of image, I ask a question that has been bothering me ever since I uploaded the Wick panorama. Why does Commons use "panoramics" instead of "panoramas" for all of these? "Panoramic" is an adjective, so "panoramics" is not English. WP:EN gets it right, but Commons does not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any discussion about it here, have a vague idea that I did see it discussed once. I expect it is the usual thing - ignorance ;-), someone creates "panoramics", everyone else assumes they must know what they're talking about. Best thing to do is propose a rename and see if anyone can defend "panoramics" :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. In my spare time. ;-) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)