This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Greetings. I've been adding captions and categories to Apollo 9 photos and I see you have been reverting the category "Astronaut photography of the earth" that I added by cat-a-lot. Just curious why (because it clearly is astronaut photography of the earth). If all Apollo 9 photography is categorized that way in the heirarchy, it probably should not be, because Earth is not the subject of every Apollo 9 photo. I just don't want us to keep reverting each other. Jstuby (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, I will leave you to that. Adding captions from mission documents is more important to me anyway. By the way, in case you are reverting cloud type categories, the ones I am adding are from mission documents too. Jstuby (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Done! Please do not hesitate contact me in the future if you wish to colloborate on any other spaceflight related files, I am really motivated by making the enourmous amount of media useful and locatable en masse. I have been coding some simple tools specifically taylored to batch maintaining spaceflight files from easily recognizable patterns (such as the NASA-ids). Askeuhd (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a problem with these Apollo 9 files - the dates are all wrong. They are all 2015 or 2016, the upload date or transfer to commons date, when obviously they should all be 1969. I tried that tool that allows batch processing but I could not get the hang of it. The mission document I have lists the exact date for a lot of them but probably "March 1969" is good enough to apply to all of them. If you are good at that sort of thing I recommend it. Jstuby (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed the same. It appears to be generally true for all Flickr imports, which have been dated with their import date. I am working on a script to correct NASA-related flickr imports, currently just tweaking some parsing logic to ensure that I do not overwrite a date that is potentially more accurate than for instance "March 1969". Could you by any chance produce a link to this list of exact dates? If the list includes the primary JSC NASA-id for the Apollo missions ("ASxx-xx(x)-xxxxx(x)") I can build a JSON array from this list and batch process all the files with their exact date pretty quickly. Askeuhd (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately the document I have is a scan of something produced on a typewriter (1969!) and even though I ran text recognition on it, it still doesn't recognize more than about half the text correctly. It is probably easier to email if you want it. The original was a large report and I cut a lot of it to just use the photo log appendix. Jstuby (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that most of the photos are presumably captured over a span of relatively few days, it only needs to be human readable so that I can correct the list I use as input. I will send you my e-mail adress directly to avoid posting it publicly. Thanks. Askeuhd (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Astronaut photography sorting
Hi there, saw you have been sorting photographs from STS missions into Earth photography subcats. Please be careful of situations like File:TriDAR on STS-128 (iss020e035665).jpg where the photographer was not part of STS-114, but part of the ISS crew. To be honest, I'm not sure I understand sorting photographs where the shuttle or other orbital object is the focus into a category structure where Earth is supposed to be the focus. Can you explain that rationale? — Huntster (t@c)14:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hunster. Thank you very much for bringing that error to my attention, it had slipped my mind that the STS-*** cats might include ISS-*** photos. I will go over my all my moves as soon as possible to sort out any mistakes. As for the rationale regarding photos were other objects than the Earth is in focus I have been following precedent set for this category in the parent category Category:Astronaut photography of Earth which has included many such images (and was very crowded until recently). But I completely agree with you that it is not very helpful for images that does not feature much of the Earth. My first instinct is that I might sort these images in to categories relating to the spacecrafts that are the subject of the image, but for instance Category:Space Shuttle Discovery is a parent category of Category:STS-128 and thus hierarchically the pictures would end up in the Category:STS-128 again. I was trying to avoid crowding this general category, but it might be the best solution we have right now. Askeuhd (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a while a have the following hierarchical suggestion to use from now on:
Category:Orbital photography from STS-128 <-- This category would include all on-orbit photography that does not have the moon or Earth in primary focus, such as photographs primarily featuring ISS, Hubble, the cockpit of the Shuttle etc. This category would also have Category:STS-128 as it's parent.
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan. I hate that it causes extra work for you, but it does properly filter down images from the parent categories. My only concern is "Orbital photography from STS-128" (or perhaps "Astronaut photography from STS-128" or just "Photography from STS-128"? Actually, "from" should probably be "during", since STS-128 is the mission rather than the physical object, but that may be overly picky) may become too broad and fall outside just "Earth photography from the Space Shuttle". I kind of wish a top-level structure like this had already existed:
That makes a lot of sense - "Astronaut photography" is probably the best wording if we were to clearly separate images that were actually taken during the missions and not include accidentally launch photos, press photos and so on. I think your suggested structure is a great idea, and I am going to plan out an approach for implementation and see if I can't get most of done over the weekend. I was planning to upload a lot more photographs to the Shuttle categories, and this structure would make these files a lot more accessible. "During" would be better than "from", agreed, but perhaps the following structure might be the simplest? This would also make the categories more directly accessible when people search for them in the UploadWizard or similar:
I think that would be pretty efficient and easily expandable should any of the categories need to be diluted further. Also thanks a lot for your concern regarding the extra work, but I believe this effort would be well worth it. To me the files have little value if they are not easily accessible, and that is very motivating. Askeuhd (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree wrt the motivation. As for the proposed category names, the issue is that the expected naming structure on Commons is "topic article subject", like "Restaurants in New York", "Photographs by Bill Ingalls", "Components of spacecraft", "Aircraft at airports in Australia", etc. Sticking with that format not only presents an easily guessable structure but also provides a unified appearance. There are still a lot of them that don't conform yet, but they are slowly being converted as folks find them and have the time.
Also, if you don't care for "during", "of" would also work. I will do what I can to assist in this work, but I've damaged the radial nerve in my left arm and now am limited to typing with one hand, so I'm extremely slow! — Huntster (t@c)16:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, well conforming to the naming convention, I prefer "during". Thanks for the help - I am happy to take on the bulk of this task, this comment and input from you today has been extremely valuable. Askeuhd (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry, you were right to fix that error on the spot, it must have been caused my slip op of the finger using Cat-a-lot, resulting in a move instead of just adding it to the mission category. I apologize, thanks for fixing it. Askeuhd (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
First phase completed for all the STS missions - man what a blast to browse through 30 years of photos. Not all "Earth photography during ..." categories have been created yet because I did not identify any photos belonging there, but I will. I was planning on implementing this scheme on Mercury, Gemini, Skylab, ASTP and eventually ISS missions as well - do you see any reason why the scheme should not be implemented on these missions, or any modification we should apply to the procedure/scheme? Askeuhd (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You uploaded *so many photos*, lol. I'm impressed! The earlier programs obviously will have less dedicated Earth photography, but there's no reason I can immediately think of that this scheme wouldn't still work. — Huntster (t@c)01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it makes me happy that these files are now easily available for everyone and not partly hidden on semi-obscure NASA websites. Thanks for the feed back on the other missions, I will look into them down the road. And thanks again for your assistance, and do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any other spaceflight related efforts we should team up on. Askeuhd (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! The data is gathered and uploaded using a program I wrote myself in Go. Upload occurs using POST requests via the Wikimedia API. Askeuhd (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi again - Respectfully, the program is not for distribution as I really only wrote it for myself; this is not because I want to keep to myself, rather that it might cause a lot of damage if used impromperly and I do not want to be the cause of that. It would require a lot of work to make it somewhat user friendly and stable for other than myself to use. The program is overall pretty simple, so I would urge you to either write your own program based on the API (the examples and descriptions are quite good), or use one of the publicly available ones for commons and adapt it to your purpose. Askeuhd (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to offer my assistance, especially with the data gathering, I have spent quite some time getting to know NASAs websites, and their data structures. So if you want to spar about your project feel free to share some details :-) Askeuhd (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Askeuhd, i've seen with worry that you are flooded the category above with more than 67.300 files and counting. So the cat becomes useless, nobody can see the files at the end or he/she has to click hundreds times! If you are want to flood the other categories here with ten thousands of files, can you create a sub cat like ISS Expedition ?? Crew Earth Observations (dump) or similar? Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy to be of service. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any spaceflight related efforts you would like to collaborate on. Askeuhd (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Askeuhd, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
You're welcome. Honestly, I dislike HotCat because I prefer arrange categories by relevance (country, province, county, etc), put technical cats on top, and so on. Twelve years ago on local Wiki I was suggested to use HotCat, but still nothing. :) However, if you insist, in future I'll put summaries for satellite photos.
Also, if you need help of identifying similar Iran-related images, feel free to contact me, and when I get time I'll try to help. I believe I'm pretty good, for example eight years ago Iran launched monkey in space and published video online. A rotating footage of low resolution (upper right), location in the middle of nowhere, huge Dasht-e Kavir desert of similar landscape. But I still found precise location. Who found it first, me or CIA, remains an open question. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Orijentolog, thank you, I really appreciate the summaries. Well done with the identification, and yes it would be very helpful if you could identify some of the images. Would you find it helpful if I compiled a list of images that were likely to have been taken in Iran, but has yet to be identified as such? Askeuhd (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Orijentolog - I will get back to you once I have clear idea of my approach. I would not feel comfortable with adding images to Category:Satellite pictures of Iran without being sure that they actually depict Iran - but I might make a subpage to my userpage with a list of potential images. I will let you know! Askeuhd (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: I was unable to find a good way of detecting potential images of Iran without getting a very large number of false positives. So I am putting this task on the back burner for now, but I will get back to it if I get a bright idea. Askeuhd (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Kaldari, NASA has an unfortunate history of images becoming difficult to impossible to find, since there is no "the" central repository for NASA-produced media. While some or even many of the images may be of limited obvious value right now, so long as they are kept within these clearly marked categories and not randomly mixed with other, more curated images, there's no harm in them being here. Commons has had plenty of similar bulk uploads in the past, such as the ongoing efforts to import all released DoD images, or the huge collections of historic images from USDA and Farm Administration, etc etc, some of which are of seriously dubious quality. No reason to single these ISS images out as unworthy. Just my opinion, of course. — Huntster (t@c)06:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Kaldari. Thank you for message. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my motivations for uploading these image dumps.
1. Firstly, a small number of entirely black frames such as File:ISS055-E-261 - View of Earth.jpg has been uploaded. I agree that they serve no useful purpose and should be deleted. I will nominate them myself as I happen upon them, and I invite anyone else who should stumble upon them to do the same.
2. Secondly, I believe that the seemingly very similar images are useful and educational. Similar images in the dumps usually falls in to two categories;
a. either 2-10 images taken of the same subject to ensure a good exposure,
b. or 500-5,000 images taken as a “pan set” where a camera is capturing images at a set interval with a fixed viewing angle.
While I might agree with you that in select cases the first category of images could be reduced to the most useful version of the image, in some instances the content differs more than it would seem to at first, because while the images look the same the spacecraft has moved quite bit in the few seconds between each exposure, and that actually makes the images quite different depending on the context you wish to study them in. Regarding the second category, the pan sets, I believe that they should be kept intact and complete, due to their educational usefulness as a complete set in for instance meteorology or oceanology.
Over time I want to break down these dumps into useful subcategories, but I also do not want to do it mindlessly, and I am still pondering the best practice for it (I gladly welcome any input) but first up on my list are the easy targets, the pan sets, which would quickly make a large portion of the images a lot more accessible.
3. Thirdly, as an extension of my view that this content has enduring educational value, it has been historically unwise to rely on NASA to host anything for long. This is particularly evident on Commons, if you look up any random NASA file that has been here for 8-10+ years, the source link is probably dead. Because in addition to what Huntster mentioned, that NASA does not have a reliable central repository for images, the individual media hosting schemes offered by the space centers also do not endure for long. Both Kennedy and Johnson have switched media hosting schemes twice or more since Commons came into existence.
Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for deleting the entirely black photos. I didn't realize that NASA was unreliable at archiving their own images. That's quite unfortunate. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It really is kind of remarkable how unresponsive NASA is to such requests for material, considering how many millions they receive each year for education and public outreach. I used to do the same, but honestly just gave up because of the stone wall they have in place. — Huntster (t@c)18:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Huntster: Agreed, I was really surprised at first, not even getting a generic response. At this point I hope that the effort will eventually lead to me reaching an actual person. Askeuhd (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pieceofmetalwork: Thank you for message. The coordinates indicated in the geotags are defined as stated by NASA in the source material. Their accuracy is within ±0.1° latitude and longtitude. I believe the coordinates are very useful as a tool to determine the location of the photographer, and in all circumstances I have worked with them, they have proven quite accurate. The coordinates are absolutely crucial when trying to identify the subject of the images. The problem is the altitude - at an average of 400 km, taking an image just 3 degrees of nadir (which while technically an oblique shot, would hardly be noticeable) the ground distance between the point of the observer and the point they observe would be about 21 km. Whether it is useful to geotag these coordinates, well I would say that would that depends on the purpose. I agree that the case of wikimap.toolforge.org might be less than ideal. I welcome any input as to how the coordinates by be otherwise stored in a useful fashion than the current geotagging. Askeuhd (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pieceofmetalwork: If you open a suggestion at Phabricator or Wikitech I would be happy to offer my support for it and further explanation. I am perfectly fine with batch updating the files I have uploaded if this would become necessary to make them more useful. Perhaps "altitude" could be included as parameter for geotagging - if so I could easily update the files to include this, and wikimap could easily be filtered by the end-user for ground-level photography (0-8.848 km above sea level), aerial/above ground photography (8.848 km - 100 km) or orbital/satellite photography (100 km+) (off the top of my head). Askeuhd (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I really like this idea with altitude. Could you add it as SDC no matter if Wikimap is improved as discussed or not?--So9q (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: I would love to add SDC altitude to the files. I have wanted to look into it for a while, but I got away from it. You seem more seasoned than me concerning wikidata - currently I use coordinates of the point of view (P1259) for declaring the coordinates of the space station as the image was captured - now P1259 does not allow altitude as qualifier. Should we attempt to change this fact or should altitude be added as a separate statement for each file, and if so what property would be most appropriate? I know elevation above sea level (P2044) exists but it does not seem appropriate. Should a new property along the lines of 'altitude of the point of view' be proposed? It seems excessive compared to allowing the P1259 to have altitude as a qualifier. Thanks in advance. Askeuhd (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
@So9q: I think it is an interesting project. My personal thoughts are this:
I do not think that uploading the patents as single-page TIFFs is useful. They should be wrapped in a container (I prefer PDF, others prefer Djvu) and uploaded as a single file pr. patent. If a raw-text version of the patent exists I believe this should be included in the container as well to aid projects such as Wikisource, who, of the top off my head, might be one of the projects most interested in such an upload. Have you checked whether the USPTO already has PDFs of the patents available for import? Great effort should be taken into ensuring that file descriptions and SDC is as descriptive as humanely possible for an upload this size. All statements found here should be included and properly filled.
Due to the public nature of patents one of the main arguments against uploading them all to Commons might be, that it is simply not necessary for Commons to host these files, as I would think they are unlikely to become publicly unavailable, and thus it could be reasoned that any import should be limited to the files that the projects actually need. I think you should consider posing this question on Commons:Village Pump and hear their thoughts, especially concerning necessity.
I hope this is useful - If you end up going through with your project, and you need any help with the technical and practical aspect of uploading the patents I would be happy to collaborate on the effort. Great care should be taken on an upload this size as to not risk wasting the effort. Askeuhd (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Big thanks for the thorough response. I'll start a discussion on the village pump.
I would like all patents to be in Wikidata also so they are readily available if an editor of say Wikipedia need them, but some are skeptic whether WD is the right place for 11 mio patents.
Do you have an idea of how to find out whether a certain patent is used/mentioned in any of the wikimedia projects say Wikipedia?
See e.g. Elias Howe where there is a link to Googles hosting of the patent data. Note that there are multiple pages missing from that PDF (compare with these TIFFs) for some reason, which begs the question whether this information is really already readily available from a reliable source on the internet.
If Google had done a proper job, I would more easily be persuaded that we don't have to have a copy of this data. Since that does not seem the case (I have not checked other patents for completeness) and this image for example is nowhere to be found on the whole internet (beside in the 10 GB dump from uspto and this mislabeled Amazon product which is so bad resolution you can't make out any details) I think we should import them all in the way you suggested.
Also it might be worth considering contacting the uspto and ask them to share the data in a way we can easily link to (like a well OCR-ed and complete PDF/Djvu)--So9q (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: Interesting that Google has handled it so poorly, that makes it a really interesting project, if you consider easy access to the patents as a motivation - which I personally would. USPTO search is abysmal - and if Google screwed it up when importing the patent into their sort of functional system I think importing the patents is a great idea. It will be interesting to hear what everybody else thinks.
Regarding finding our where the patents are mentioned today, a few lines of code iterating over the Wikipedia pages and checking for links to USPTO or Google Patents should not be that hard to write, and should take 2-3 weeks to run I would guess. Potentially that could indicate were there patents are used as references or external links which I would guess would be the most likely way they would be integrated into the projects.
Contacting the USPTO might be cumbersome but the payoff could be huge. I would be surprised if plain-text versions of the patents do not already exists due to their legal nature. And thus making OCR unnecessary. Askeuhd (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
elevation above sea level (P2044) -> 224 nm. Should be part of the coordinate but I don't think altitude was ever implemented so this is currently the best option. Please enter in the original unit, Wikibase should take care of the conversion to SI when queried
I'm not sure setting creator (P170) to NASA is the best way forward. Usually we try to put a person in, but that data doesn't seem to be available so I guess this has to do. I noticed that we don't seem to have the identifier "ISS062-E-97" in the structured data yet. I would store this in catalog code (P528) qualified with catalog (P972) -> "media catalogue of the Johnson Space Center". What do you think? Multichill (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: - thank you very much. Just what I needed, this is extremely helpful. @So9q: this renders my question to you moot.
I will implement the following later to day as per your suggestion:
significant event (P793) -> Expedition 62 (Q56036512) perfect. I have witnessed a significant number of contributors has been adding the mission under depicts (P180) for the files after I have uploaded them, it always felt wrong, at least when the images did not actually depict any mission-specific activity only Earth observation. I will implement this shortly.
creator (P170) will be removed going forward, and I will removed it from exisiting files when work through them to update the other statements.
I will implement your suggested structure for catalog code (P528) and catalog (P972) but yes, I have realized the it was missing too, and it is a shame. If you have any experience putting up proposals for property I would be happy to take your suggestions or support your motion. The first part of the identifier is [mission] (which on the EOL website is usually always mentioned as "ISS062" or "STS107" but is also interchangeably indicate as "iss62" and even worse for shuttle "sts107" or "s107" - the second part of the identifier is the roll number, which since the early 2000's has always been 'E' to indicate Electronic. The last number is a sequential frame number. In older imagery when they still used film stock, the sequential frame number would often reset when they started a new roll, but this scheme was not strictly enforced at all. So it might be beneficial to structure the three parts of the identifier separately somehow. What I have just described also only applies to JSC imagery. It is completely different for the other centers.
Regarding significant event (P793). We discussed this some time ago. Take for example a music festival or some conference. Here you want to indicate that a photo is related. This seemed to be the most suitable option.
Regarding a property proposal. {{NASA-image}} contains a warning about NASA changing things. If we just record in the structured data what we have in the template (id and center) than we keep this flexibility. {{NASA-image}} can be updated to look into the structured data to provide the same result. I don't think an new property on Wikidata is going to help us here.
Regarding significant event (P793) I absolutely agree that this is the best option. Maybe I should look into removing the mission from depicts (P180) where it appears if I am going over the files anyway?
Regarding creator (P170) I will implement according to your suggestion, because I think we both agree that while it may not be the way that we would ideally want this data to be structured, it adds more value than setting it to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Q23548) or not setting it all.
Thanks for the heads up on the property proposal. I will not push that agenda any further, but I hope you will let me know if you hear anything useful. It's too bad that NASA did not stick with their NIX-plan - that would more or less have solved everyone's issues.
I would only mass remove statements if these were mass added. Be on the careful side here.
You can leave {{Location}}empty and will just use the structured data. That avoids a bit of data duplication. We do seem to have a bit of a precision bug in the template. Notice how it shows "49° 06′ 00″ N, 104° 54′ 00″ E" instead of "49°6'N, 104°54'E". I guess this template was invented before we had photos from spacecrafts. I'll follow up on the template talk page so we can fix that.
I will let the depicts (P180) statements be, and take manual action if something less than useful appears on my watchlist.
Thanks, great tip concering {{Location}}. That should make it a bit simpler - I assume this goes for {{Object location}} as well? A few of the images have this information already.
To test our creator (P170) plan out, I tried to implement it thusly however it throws two errors when viewing it;
For the employer (P108) qualifier: The property employer should not be used on this type of entity, the only valid entity type is Wikibase item.
For the member of the crew of (P5096) qualifier: The property member of the crew of should not be used in this location (as qualifier). The only valid location for this property is as main value.
Using structured data here is still quite new so the constraint violations haven't been updated yet. I considered using affiliation (P1416) instead of employer (P108) because not all crew members might actually be employed by NASA, but after some clicking around I found File:Expedition 30 crew portrait.jpg. Let's just only add member of the crew of (P5096). I updated the constraints for this one.
@Multichill: I have implemented the suggested improvements; File:ISS062-E-127467 - View of Earth.jpg represents the first iteration. Seems to be working as intended. I have not had the pleasure of using the query engine, but it looks really interesting. The grid like distribution of the second query must be caused by the 0.1° precision limit of the coordinates of the NASA/EOL images. Askeuhd (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I think all looks good. Just a minor thing: Adding structured data doesn't properly trigger a page render so you might see some warnings and files in Category:Media with erroneous locations. As a work-around you should do a null edit after you saved the structured data. This will force the page update. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I seem to have mixed up two things. The look angle (tilt) of 44 should go in tilt (P8208) and the look direction of NE (45) should go in heading (P7787). Should probably double check if we use the exact same logic as NASA. Multichill (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: Thank you for that suggestion and I agree, that it should be added. I will look into it tomorrow. I did not think of it earlier as that data is only present on relatively small subset of the images. And your assertion is correct vis-a-vis “Look direction” == heading (P7787) and “Look angle” == tilt (P8208). Askeuhd (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@OvalThunder9: You uploaded some CC-BY-ND images, [2], [3], [4], [5] - these are inadmissible on Commons as per Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. I haven't checked every single image you uploaded from Pikwizard, but if they are all CC0 they should be fine. The first image you uploaded [6] - is this something you created yourself? And for the sake of my curiosity, what is this field of yellow supposed to illustrate? Is it a flag of some kind? BTW - avoid adding files to non-existent categories such as Devlet Bayrağı unless you have a specific purpose with this category, and intent to create it. I hope this is helpful! Askeuhd (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:STS061-96-052 - Story Musgrave on RMS during STS-61 (Retouched).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.
Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).
Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.
@Contributers2020: - I do not claim the rights to the source material, which I also uploaded to Wikipedia as public domain created by NASA. This is my derived work based on the public domain source material, and the CC BY-SA 4.0 claim extends exclusively to this derived version, not the original source material, which is of course public domain, and remains so. By the way Template:No permission since is probably not appropriate for this type of complaint, as permission is clearly granted, by me. Maybe something along the lines of Template:Disputed? Askeuhd (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
But when you just did some touches like contrast, brightness etc. it doesn't mean that you own the work now. The picture show the same thing. You fix the Own Work thing, and I remove the template entirely as that is the root problem. If you still think it's yours, I don't think you should have a problem submitting the OTRS request. --Contributers2020Talk to me here11:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
So now @Askeuhd: you have just removed the template? I mean, you're just spectacular. So now, guess what- communities will decide now. This file is nominated for deletion and you'll see it right now on your talk page. I thought you're massively experience by have more than 5 million edits and 13 years of service but you just let it down. --Contributers2020Talk to me here04:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
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!
@Jphwra: I'm sorry, I do not speak your language. Please write your request in English, or direct it to user or admin speaking your language. Askeuhd (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luxembourg-City-02.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luxembourg-City-03.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luxembourg-City-04.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri-Lanka-Sigiriya-Rock.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bati-hun-imparatorlugu.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
