User talk:Cobatfor

Copyright question

Hello Cobatfor thanks for the question, I am not really an expert but the images if credited to the air ministry should be covered by {{PD-BritishGov}} have a look at Image:Peenemunde test stand VII.jpg for an example. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

German fighting vehicles

Please, don't mess with German armoured cars and artillery tractors if you can't tell them precisely apart. For example, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-04721A, Lüneburger Heide, Manöver des VI. Armeekorps.jpg is SdKfz 231, not 232. You also categorized at least two photos of halftracks with original descriptions SdKfz. 6 and 10/4, as SdKfz 11. Finally, "Schwerer panzerspahwagen" shouldn't redirect to SdKfz.234 - in fact SdKfz.234 was only one of "Schwerer panzerspahwagen"s. pibwl (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I hope I was not too straightforward. "Leichter/Schwerer Panzerspähwagen" were not that bad, since Leichter covered Sdkfz.221 family (221, 222, 223, 260, 261), and Schwerer - SdKfz.231 family (231, 232, 233, 263) and SdKfz.234. Do we want to create separate categories for each of them? (apart from the fact, that photos of 233, 260-263 will be probably rare). Other way is to create categories "SdKfz.221" or "..221/222" or "..221 family" for all 221 family and "231" for all 231 family. I think it is a good idea, for all these vehicles were variants of basic vehicles, but I won't insist much. As for "Wespe", "Hummel", "Nashorn" I don't see a problem, since English is a basic language of Commons, and therefore wasps will be in category "Wasp", not "Wespe". But I won't oppose names like "Wespe self propelled gun". Regards. pibwl (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09520, Kieler Hafen, Abfahrt der Deutschen Hochseeflotte.jpg und File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09519, Kieler Hafen, Abfahrt der Deutschen Hochseeflotte.jpg

Hi Cobatfor, ich will selbst nicht danach kramen, deshalb frag ich dich einfach was dich zur sicheren Einsortierung als Torpedoboot 1924 gebracht hat.--D.W. (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AW kopiert von dieser Disk: Hai, die waren in einer Serie von Fotos, wobei ich dann aus der Perspektive geschlossen habe, dass es sich um die gleichen Schiffe handeln muss (Anstrich, Aufbauten, BArch Nummer). Ganz sicher bin ich mir deshalb nicht. Grüße und frohe Feiertage --Cobatfor 15:48 23 Dec 2008

Mmh, was war´n das für ne Serie? Ich würde mich nämlich eigentlich mal über nen Bild eines Torpedoboot Typ 23 freuen, dem Artikel fehlt ein Bild ;) Wenn du dir auch nicht sicher sicher bist dann werd ich mich nochmal in der Bestimmung versuchen...ahh habe schon was gefunden, nach dieser Seite war Luchs als Typ 24er auch mit im Mittelmeer. Müsste man nur noch Wissen wie sich die 2. T-Halbflottille insgesamt zusammensetzte ;) Für den Bildvergleich sind ja beide Bilder ziemlich ungeeignet.--D.W. (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Pflüg, pflüg... Ich habe gerade das Marine-Arsenal Sonderheft Band 5 "Die Marine der Weimarer Republik" ISBN 3-7909-0464-3, da sind zwei gute Fotos von "Falke" und "Albatross" drin, kann ich ja mal scannen und mailen, falls gewünscht. Dort ist die Gliederung der Reichsmarine Ende 1932 auch angegeben: I. Torpedobootflottille: 1 Halbfl: G7, G8, G10, G11; 2. T151, T 153, T156, T158; II. T./1. Tiger, Iltis, Wolf, Jaguar; 2. Albatross, Möwe, Kondor, Falke. (Seeadler, Greif, Leopard, Luchs?) --Cobatfor 17:12 23 Dec 2008

Ach, die Angaben hab ich auch, II/1 ist aber die 3. II/2 die 4., im Folgenden Satz steht "zwei weitere Boote erfüllten Sonderaufgaben", könnten Leopard und Luchs gewesen sein, die erhielten in der Zeit irgendwann mal neue Geschütze (ich hab für den entsprechenden Artikel mal 1934 gefunden, hab aber gerade das passende Buch nicht griffbereit). Aber das hilft mir noch nicht weiter, in der Halbflottille können immer noch Typ 23 und 24 gesteckt haben, schwarz waren die wohl alle ;) Nochdazu sehe ich auf dem einen Bild 5 Boote (drei große Masten hinten, zwei im Vordergrund), also eins zu viel für ne normale Halb-Flt.--D.W. (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg

Hello Cobatfor - just a note. You recently called for the deletion of the above image because it was a misnamed duplicate? The correct way to do this is place (on the page of the file to be deleted) the following tag: {{badname|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} - i.e. the "badname" tag and then the name of the correctly named file.

The advantage of that is that a) you have less hassle nominating it in this way, b) it's quicker. An admin only has to check that you have nominated it correctly, and can then delete the file after ensuring all links are updated. If you nominate a file for deletion, it has to go through the whole review process, with mandatory waiting times etc...

Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I was not aware of that. So, if I understand correct, I should have added {{badname|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} on the "SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich" file, because "SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich" is the correct name. Is there also such a "shortcut" for duplicates? Cheers --Cobatfor 14:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct on your first question. Yes on the second too - it's conveniently called "duplicate" ;-) - used like this {{duplicate|SS Prinz Eitel Friedrich.jpg}} with the tag being placed on the one that you want gone, pointing to the one that is to stay - and the one to go must either be an exact copy, or a smaller version of the one you mention within the tag. Try it on any image (but don't save the preview or you will confuse an admin ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Electric Boat

Hi Cobatfor,
I've seen that you tagged Category:General Dynamics Electric Boats as badname instead of Category:General Dynamics Electric Boat. Is there any special reason for that? Because usually cat-names on Commons are on plural.--Túrelio (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! As you can see, I made a new category "General Dynamics Electric Boat". The name does not refer to the ships built there (plural for boat would be boats), but the company's name is "General Dynamics Electric Boat" without an "s". They built boats, but surface vessels are called "ships" in English, "boats" are either small rowing boats or submarines. So "General Dynamics Electric Boats" is nonsense. If one had planned a category for ships of EB that could have been named "Ships of General Dynamics Electric Boat", but I think "General Dynamics Electric Boat" is sufficient, especially as the company was only named "Electric Boat" before it was acquired by GD. Greetings --Cobatfor 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

O.k. Thanks. I've deleted the Boats and added a small note to the Boat to prevent others falling in the same trap ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added an explanation. --Cobatfor 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: EP-3E China

Hi, the US Navy did not take those pictures. An employee of Lockheed Martin did. Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20020613054411/http://www.pacom.mil/pages/ep3photos.htm

Pacific Command was simply hosting the images (hence the "courtesy of ..."). Jappalang (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cobatfor 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Copyright questions

Unfortunately lately we face many cases of extreme copyright views on Commons by a certain group of users. I face today a similar problem by another user. It is a very disruptive behavior. Sv1xv (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I converted the latest one to a regular deletion request. Sv1xv (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interessante...

...Fakten hast du bei diesen beiden Dateien [1] [2] hinzugefügt! Großes Lob! Woher stammen die Infos? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Danke. Also, die habe ich mir zusammengesucht, ein Teil ist von der Seite der Feuerwehr von Deggendorf. Mit dem Datum findet man dann oft bei der USAF die Bombergruppen, entweder bei Veteranenseiten oder in Chroniken. Anderes Bild: Bei dem "Flakturm" (mit der Thunderbolt) übrigens sehe ich gar keine Geschütze. Könnte dies nicht auch ein stinknormaler franzöischer Wasserturm sein? Die Flaktürme, die ich kenne hatten immer 8,8 oben drauf oder so was. Das USAF Museum übernimmt ja leider immer die historisch doch sehr bedenklichen Kommentare aus der Entstehungszeit der Fotos... Grüße Cobatfor 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Diesen FLAK-Turm habe ich gedanklich ebenfalls angezweifelt. Geschütze sind wahrlich nicht erkennbar. Wenn du einen besseren Bildtitel in petto hast, können wir eine Bildverschiebung anstreben. Müsste halt dann in der Bildbeschreibungsseite erwähnt werden, bzw. korrigiert werden. --High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hier [3] steht Folgendes: " 13. CLOSEUP OF A FLAK TOWER-Disregarding the hazards involved, a U. S. Eighth A.A.F. fighter plane (P-47) can be seen here swooping in on a flak tower on a German airdrome in occupied France recently (muss dann 1944 gewesen sein!). This picture taken from the motion picture gun camera record of the American plane following, shows the hazardous type of action encountered when strafing at such a low level. Bursts can be seen striking the tower as the American fighter pilot roars perilously close to the tower in his attack." Trotzdem: Frankreich ist gepflastert mit Chateau d'Eaus, und wenn der Turm an einem Flugplatz stand, dann wurde der bestimmt beschossen. Wo soll denn da ne Flak stehen? Dach ab und Vierlingsflak rein?!? Bei dem freien Schussfeld (ist ja alles flach) würde ich mich eher eingraben, als auf so einen weithin sichtbaren Turm setzen! Ich würde den Titel wohl in "File:Republic P-47 attacks tower.jpg" umbenennen und obige Info und die Bedenken in den Text packen. "An 8th U.S. Air Force Republic P-47D Thunderbolt attacks a tower on a German airdrome in occupied France, in 1944. Note: The original caption identifies this tower as a "flak tower". However, it resembles more a normal French water tower. Also no guns are visible."Cobatfor 19:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gute Recherche. Hast du noch Zeit die entsprechenden Infos in die Datei (File:Republic P-47 attacks flak-tower.jpg) einarbeiten. Deine Vorschläge überzeugen. Im Anschluss verschiebe ich das Ganze nach File:Republic P-47 attacks tower.jpg. Mir erscheint dies als die beste Lösung. --High Contrast (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gemacht. Cobatfor 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done! Besten Dank! --High Contrast (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quellenangabe

Hallo!

Folgende Dateien, aus deiner frühen Uploadphase stammend, haben Mängel bzgl. der exakten Quelle zu http://www.defenseimagery.mil/, der Lizenzierung ({{PD-USGov}} statt {{PD-USGov-Military}}) und oftmals stimmt "USN" nicht als Quellen (bzw. ist nicht nachweisbar) vorzuweisen.

• File:USNS Hassayampa T-AO-145 1985.jpeg
• File:AO-146 refuel CV-63 BB-63 1986.jpeg
• File:AO-143 1985 DN-SC-85-08549.JPG
• File:USS Ponchatoula AO-148 USS Blue Ridge LCC-19 1991.jpeg
• File:USS Kawishiwi AO-146 Pearl Harbor 1991.jpeg
• File:USNS Hassayampa USS Midway 1983.jpeg

Bei diesen beiden Dateien [4] und [5] sind die Probleme schwerwiegender.
Bei dieser Datei fehlt der Beweis (entsprechender Link), dass das Bild tatsächlich von Richard Miller BMCS, USNR Ret. stammt, denn nur dann kan das Bild unter die PD-USGov-Military-Navy-Lizenz fallen. Bei dieser Datei stimmt entweder die VIRIN-Nummer (DN-ST-91-00385) nicht, oder es entstammt nicht dem Medienarchiv http://www.defenseimagery.mil/. Bitte dringenst um Korrektur. --High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So, ich hoffe es ist alles zu bester Zufriedenheit geregelt. Wenn ich Dateien mit fehlenden Links finde, ändere ich das auch. Die Angabe zum Bild der USS Truckee war richtig. Falls sie aber falsch gewesen wäre, so besteht das alte Problem, dass ich überhaupt nicht mehr auf die Defenseimagery-Seite komme. Ich wäre daher dankbar für Hinweise, wie man die Seite erreicht oder für Hilfe von jemandem, der auf die Seite kommt und das nachrecherchieren könnte. Danke. --Cobatfor (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Naja, wenn es sich schon um eine US Navy Quelle handelt und der Fotograf der US NAVY zugehörig ist, dann bitte statt {{PD-USGov}} diesen Baustein {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} verwenden.
Auf diese Seite (Beispiel [6]) kann nicht mehr zugegriffen werden: verwende stattdessen zur Bildersuche diese Seite: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ . Nur interessehalber, wie konntest du bei diesem Bild die Quellen nachliefern, wenn die Seite nicht (mehr) aufrufbar ist (zumindest die Suchfunktion)? --High Contrast (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Zum Glück, aus irgendwelchen Gründen, liegen die Bilder noch auf der alten Seite http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil. Da komme ich problemlos hin, also mit "DN-ST-91-00385"[7]. Ich habe den Link gespeichert und gebe dann die entsprechenden Änderungen für das jeweilige Bild in die Laufleiste ein. Umständlich, aber anders geht es nicht (bei mir). Gibt man nur http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil ein, wird man zu http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ umgeleitet, aber da kommt bei mir seit Monaten nur "...braucht zu lange, um zu antworten". Ich komme da gar nicht drauf, weder Eingangsseite noch Suchfunktion, gar nix. --Cobatfor (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Das deckt sich mit meinen Erfahrungen. --High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mist.--Cobatfor (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:FGS Hessen (F-221).jpg

This story with prefixes again... Same problem with the Greek navy, the prefix HS now is used only in international communications, especially within NATO, while inside Greece they use prefixes according to the type of ship. I shall rename the file, no big deal. Sv1xv (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Verstehe ich das richtig, Cobatfor. Sv1xv hat das Bild nur wegen dem "FGS"-Präfix verschoben? --High Contrast (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Weiß nicht, ich habe ja nur gesagt, dass es die Abkürzung nicht gibt und ich das Bild anders genannt hätte. Ungünstig finde ich z.B. an der obigen Namensgebung, dass die, meiner Meinung nach, zu allgemein war. Bei fünf Bildern von einem Schiff (oder von sonst was) sollte man schon genauer sein, um die Bilder unterscheiden zu können. Ich dachte, er hätte es deshalb umbenannt. Anders übrigens User:BotMultichillT, der scheint's jedes (wenn auch noch so belanglose) Bild der US Navy (maschinell?) hochlädt. Die Titel sind elendlang und die Kategorien rein geografisch und nicht existent. Ein Schiff suche ich ja nicht unter "US Navy images, location Atlantic Ocean", oder ähnlich. Für die Naval Air Station Oceana gab es z.B. fünf verschiedene Kategorien, scheinbar, was der Computer gerade erfasste. So was finde ich wesentlich nerviger, da findet ja keiner was mehr. Grüße --Cobatfor 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Das mit der von mir angesprochenen Verschiebung ist in Ordnung, ich nahm an, dass Sv1xv, quasi dich trietzend, ein Bild wegen "FGS"-Präfix verschob, was überflüssig gewesen wäre. Einerlei, insgesamt egal.
User:BotMultichillT: ja, da läuft irgendetwas gerade nicht rund. Auch existieren die geographischen Kategorien (meist) nicht und die Dateinamen sind wirklich sehr lang. Vielleicht befindet sich dieser Bot noch in der "Aufbauphase"? Gruß zurück, High Contrast (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:MiG I-270.gif‎ und andere

Hallo Cobatfor, ich nehme an, Du möchtest die Kategorien aufräumen. Das ist sehr löblich, und ich gehe davon aus, dass man meine Kategorisierungen tatsächlich besser machen kann. Es ist dennoch erwünscht, Kommentare anzugeben, wenn man Dinge wesentlich ändert. Ganz ohne Grund Kats nur zu löschen hilft nicht wirklich. Wenn Du einen Vorschlag hast, wie solche Bilder besser kategorisiert werden sollten, werde ich das gerne berücksichtigen. Gruss --JuergenKlueser (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, tut mir leid, aber ich habe da so an die 200 Risszeichnungen kategorisiert, da war mir das zu viel Stress. Ich fand das total unübersichtlich. Normalerweise mache ich auch Kommentare. Grüße -- Cobatfor 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FP Nomination

Nomination Notification

G'day! I love File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg, that you've uploaded to Commons, so I've nominated it for Featured Picture status. Its nomination is at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wirklich klasse! BTW, ich habe es auf de:Portal:Luftfahrt/Bildergalerie‎ als Luftfahrtbild der Woche vorgeschlagen. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Navy base?

File:UW Waterfront Activity Center 02.jpg‎, File:U Wash shell house 02.jpg‎, File:U Wash shell house 01.jpg‎: I'm not at all sure I agree with the change you made from Category:United States Navy installations to Category:United States Navy bases. The building, on a college campus, was intended (but never used) for U.S. Navy floatplanes. I don't see anything there that qualifies as a Navy base. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, though with less confidence, I wonder about using the term "navy base" for this facility: File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 03.jpg‎, File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 02.jpg‎, File:Fort Lawton - Navy housing 01.jpg‎. Historically, Fort Lawton was an Army post. Most of the military facilities there are closed, and most of the former fort is now Discovery Park. These houses are being used for a few more years by the navy (with plans to turn them over to the city of Seattle, eventually). Does that really constitute a "base"? I don't think you'd find this facility on any list of Navy bases; it's certainly not at http://www.militaryconnection.com/navybase.asp. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea who put this in the "installations" category (where it was before), as I have no knowledge of this special area. Therefore I would just delete it from the navy base category and just keep it at the local ones. Thanks Cobatfor 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, either: any physical land or shore-based Navy facility is an "installation". I see nothing wrong with the previous category. I see now that the generic Category:United States Navy installations was moved to Category:Facilities of the United States Navy, confirming my view that the terms are synonymous. Any problem with putting these in that rather generic category? I wouldn't want to lose all association of these photos with the U.S. Navy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been several weeks and no reply, so that is what I will do. - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry, it is probably due to the fact that I am no English native speaker that I did not see a question in your lines, I thought it was rethorical therfore I did not reply. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Thanks Cobatfor 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC

Sichterrechte auch auf Commons

Hallo Cobatfor!

Wahrscheinlich kennst du das Sichten von Artikeln auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. Das gleiche ist nun auch auf Commons verfügbar: Commons:Patrol. Solltest du Interesse haben, so kannst du diese Funktion hier beantragen. Nach "kurzer" Zeit wird dies Funktion für deinen Account freigeschaltet.

Bei ausreichend zur Verfügung stehender Zeit, bitte kurz darüber nachdenken!

Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Danke, hab's mal versucht. Grüße Cobatfor 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal images

What is the second reference that you intended to offer as evidence in your request to stop speedy delete of File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk2 1978.jpeg and File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg? The two links you gave are identical, pointing to "page32.htm" of the same site. "Page 50" (page50.htm) at that site has photos of "Officers & Men: Communicators" and a list of personnel names, but I wasn't able to find any relevance to the issue at hand there. Based on what I've already seen at the Ark Royal site you've referenced, I'm leaning heavily toward agreeing with your position.
Sorry about my slow response: I am recovering from a bout of influenza.Quicksilver^@ 05:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected the link. when you look here on navsource.org [8] you will also see that by 1986 Nimitz was already equipped with Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow Mk 28 (not Mk 25 anymore Mk 25) and SPS-49 radar on the radar mast, not the large rectangular SPS-43. Also the catapult sponson on the end of the landing deck had been removed, which is still present in the photos in question. HMS Hermes was fitted with a "Ski-jump" ramp for Harrier jets around 1978 and was decommissioned by the Royal Navy in 1984 [9]. Ark Royal was already scrapped then. The Defenseimagery texts are generally trustworthy, BUT, when a date is not really clear, it is always "1 January 19XX". If you take a historic photo, often the propaganda texts form the Second world War or so are still present. I learned to be careful and check. Hope you get better soon. -- Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the RFD has been removed from both images and the descriptions have been updated, so hopefully the controversy won't come up again. Getting one fact wrong might be excusable, but getting both the ship name wrong and being off by nine years on the date is rather severe.
I added comments and links on the provenance of the images to both of their talk pages. That should answer any questions about the metadata discrepancies in the future. I also submitted corrections to the DefenseImagery.mil site via their contact form, with links to the WikiMedia talk pages so they can examine the evidence themselves. Dunno if pushback will do any good, but it's worth a try. Being run by bureaucrats, they might get around to it in a few months. Quicksilver^@ 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mounting motor on a Fairfax B-25 bomber, at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood

I reverted your edit to File:Mounting motor on a Fairfax B-25 bomber, at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Inglewood, Calif.jpg to the documented original description. When you change information, please add your source in the edit summary. You stated that the engine is Wright Cyclone, I am quite sure this model was fitted with a Wright Whirlwind. But since neither of us has a source, let's prevent spreading misinformation, and stick to the documented description. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well I certainly disagree. The description is rather inconclusive, as there is no "Fairfax B-25 bomber". B-25 "Mitchell" bombers were produced at Ingelwood and in Fairfax, Kansas. Either way being powered by two R-2600 Cyclone engines with 14 cylinders arranged in two rows. Each produced some 1.800 hp. The Whirlwind had 800 hp max (and only 8 cylinders) which would have never gotten a B-25 bomber in the air. All photos out of this series show B-25 "Mitchells". Therefore I still see these engines as R-2600. Also note the B-25 engine nancelles. Can you name any aircraft having such nancelles and a Whirlwind engine? Thanks in advance Cobatfor (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to help me there, since English is not my native language. What are nancelles? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you know much about this, apparently, and the description of the original image is indeed inconclusive I can only refer to http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8b04698/ which shows a black/white image of the situation, saying it is a Wright Whirlwind. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the nancelles are the things in which the motor is mounted. To the LoC description: It CLEARLY says, that these are B-25 bombers with 1.700 hp motors. As I said, the Whirlwind produced only 800 hp and was never used on a B-25. All B-25s were powered by R-2600s. Also, remember that the description is the original "propaganda" description from 1942 - and not always correct (Here it says that this photo was taken in Kansas, the other one says it was taken in Inglewood. Also: a Fairfax B-25 does not exist). Can you give any proof of a Whirlwind engine mounted on a B-25? Also, the photo shows two rows of cylinders on the engine, wheras the Whirlwind had only one. Cobatfor (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can not give proof, but in Wikimedia/pedia it is all about sources and documentation. Original research is out of the question. So I gave you sources. I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Whirlwind and you are right, the Whirlwind does not deliver this hp in a single engine, but the models R-1510 and R-1670 were 14-cylinder twin-row radial engines. Why don't you start a discussion on the talkpage of the image. Oke, now for my own bit of original research. This engine shows a oval shaped housing around the central shaft. The Cyclones in the Category:Wright R-1820 all have cone shaped housings. Can you explain that? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, File:Woman working on an airplane motor at North American Aviation, Inc., plant in Calif.jpg shows a woman working on engines. In the bottom left a specification plate is visible. I looked at it in detail and it says it is a Cyclone 14, but the housing around the shaft is, as I said before, cone shaped. It would be nice if we could find an image of the matter in question where the plate would be readable. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Cylcone 14" was the R-2600, see [10]. Also the NAA Fairfax and Inglewood plants produced the B-25 File:Assembling B-25 bombers at North American Aviation, Kansas City, Kansas.jpg, which had R-2600s, and only R-2600. See B-25 versions here [11] or here [12]. Cobatfor (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to read the specification plate in the photograph, but I can't detect what it says. The only thing I see is that the name on the plate is to short to read Whirlwind, and that the name is followed by probably a two digit number. It is therefore possible that it says Cyclone 14. The question remains why the shape of the housing of the propeller shaft differs from the other pictures. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't read it either, not even as a 190MB tif-file. But you still have not accepted that B-25s were only powered by R-2600s? Haven't you? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have accepted that in general. But shape of the propeller shaft housing bothers me. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-inserted your edit, because there is no reasonable doubt about it, I think. Is it ok if I copy this discussion to the talkpage? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I also added the original description. Cobatfor (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cope Thunder (exercise) zu Category:Cope Thunder (military exercise)

Hallo Cobatfor!

Ich habe aus Gründen der Konkretisierung folgende Verschiebung angeordnet: Category:Cope Thunder (exercise) zu Category:Cope Thunder (military exercise). Ich hoffe mein Handeln erscheint nachvollziehbar. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, danke, ist besser. Wenn Du mal auf die Seite Category:Military exercises of the United States gehst, sollte man das meiner Meinung nach mit allen Kategorien machen. Auch die (teilweise) Großschreibung finde ich unsinnig. Herzliche Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:MiG-23-red12.jpg

Hallo Cobatfor!

Kannst du helfen:

Diesem Bild fehlt eine Quelle. Ich habe bereits versucht es bei den gängigen US Militärseiten zu finden, aber die Suche blieb erfolglos. Vielleich hast du mehr Erfolg. Wäre insgesamt schade um das Bildchen, da ich mir eigentlich sicher bin, dass es von einer US-Militärquelle stammt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Gesucht, gefunden! Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

KLASSE! Danke! Wie/Wo konntest du das Bild finden bzw. mit welchem Suchwort? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mit viel Rumprobieren und suchen habe ich diese Seite [13] gefunden. Ist wohl noch von der alten dodmedia.osd.mil-Seite übrig geblieben und funktioniert - meistens. Hoffentlich löscht die niemand! Ist alle Mal besser als die totale Blockade von Defenseimagery. Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Postcards

Hi, Cobatfor. You uploaded a number of postcards of German WWI-era warships (like File:SMS Kaiserin coloured postcard.jpg) - I was wondering if you have publication dates for these photos? I'd like to use these images in articles on en.wiki, but I need to be able to definitively prove that the images are PD. If we have a pre-1923 date, the images are at very least PD in the US, and due to the anonymous nature of the work, should be PD in Europe as well. I imagine even a postmark date would work too. Thanks for any help you might be able to provide. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I only know that they were published before 1919 during the German Empire, before the High Seas Fleet sunk itself at Scapa Flow. A similar postcard is dated from 1915 [14]. I hope that this information is sufficient. Cobatfor (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File:West Virginia Air National Guard HQ patch.svg

That isn't really what SVG files on Commons are for. If you have a JPEG and are not going to convert it to vector format, then just upload the JPEG file itself, instead of wrapping it in an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do so in the future, saves time. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see

w:User talk:Cobatfor#Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I copied a wrong infromation (sorry, I cannot read Russian). The freigher is most probably the Okhotsk, which left the left the port at Nuevita carrying 12 IL-28 airplanes on 5 December 1962 ; see [15], [16], [17]. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem!! I can't read Russian either, but when comparing the two pictures, the one had a dark hull and the other had a light hull. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

US Navy emblems

Hi! You remember this: [18]? I'm uploading the files to Commons now. Bot will place them "all around" but once all the files are uploaded (and it will take some time) I plan to move them to Category:Military badges of the United States because it is not just navy related badges/emblems (so Category:United States naval aviation emblems will probably not be the best category). I will only move the files that still have a {{BotMoveToCommons}} so if you or someone else fix the files before I change the category bot will not touch them. That also means that if you fix the category but do not remove the {{BotMoveToCommons}} then the bot will change the category. Please let me know if you can think of a better category. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well, I don't know what you will load up. If there are many emblems from different US military branches, then you'll probably should beam them in the "military badges" category. Maybe you could name the Navy emblems in a similar fashion, so that it will be easy to locate them and move them in the proper categories, later. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The files are in Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 15 April 2011. I will see if there is a way to sort the files in the right categories so we do not have to sort them all manually :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy Moses! 2,235 files! You beamed four photos of people with it (a politician, a prince, a mafioso, and an actress), which I moved. I have no idea of bots, but maybe one could move the ones with the same beginning (like "VMFA-..."). There is probably no way to move the VMFA-235 badge into the VMFA-235 category, but one could create a category like "Emblems of US Marine Corps strike fighter squandrons" and move them there. Maybe that would work. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe not all the files in Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 15 April 2011 were uploaded by me :-) I rearranged the files so the insignia should be in Category:Military insignia of the United States and the rest should be in Category:Military badges of the United States.

It is possible to move all files that start with "VMFA" to a special category or files that uses {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} to one category and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} to another category etc. However i noticed that we have categories for "Insignia", "Emblems" and "Badges". I'm not sure when it is a badge and when it is an emblem. If you can tell me what to do I can do it with my bot. --MGA73 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am no English native speaker, but the USAF uses the term "shield", whereas the US Navy uses the term "patch". As far as I know, a commercial one would be "logo". However, I did not get all of the above. If I create a special category for all patches starting with a special letter combination, could you move the "whatever they are called" there? Sorry fo my lack of understanding. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not a native English :-) My point was if the license template is one with "Air Force" then the badge should be a Air Force badge etc. But yes it is also possible to work on files with a letter combination. I can make a list and put them all in Excel if I have to and do the search there. --MGA73 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich wollte...

..nur mal Danke sagen. Macht immer wieder Spaß deine letzten Uploads durchzusehen. Mit welcher Ausdauer und auch Qualität (also vorallem hinsichtlich Beschreibungen, Kats etc) du für Commons jede verfügbare Bildquelle abgrast ist schon beeindruckend. Gehen dir die nicht langsam aus? ;-) --D.W. (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nöö. Macht halt Spaß. Danke und Grüße (+viele Eier) Cobatfor (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Captured German half track Libya 1941.jpg

Hi. I'm not 100% sure, but most probably it's SdKfz.6. Pibwl (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Redstone Army Airfield flight line 1960s.jpg

Great photo. My dad was a pilot there and flew all of those planes in 1967-68. There is one more plane in the picture, a U-21A Ute. The tail is showing in the lower right of the photo. To see what the whole thing looks like:

http://www.wsmr-history.org/airplanevc6a.htm

They call it a VC-6 on that page, and that is what the Army designated it later, but I remember my dad calling it the U-21 and loving to fly it. You might want to add that to the caption. Minutus 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I added it. The Beech King Air is more commonly known as the U-21, just two were designated VC-6A. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File modification

Hi Cobatfor. Thanks for improving File:This old castle perched on a hilltop above the Moselle River and the town of Cochem, Germany, is headquarters of the... - NARA - 530785.tif I only just noticed when my bot overwrote it. Nothing personal! :-)

In general, I think it is accepted practice to upload modifications under a new name. I have added a notice to that effect to the template for each page. While your change was simply aesthetic, and might normally be acceptable, I think that in the case of these National Archives images, the image description represents this image as an exact copy of the image in the National Archives' catalog, so it is quite confusing (and possibly misleading) to see that they are not identical. We should have at least one image that faithfully represents NARA's document, as well as any modifications listed with the "Other versions=" template parameter. Hopefully this makes sense. Again, thanks! Dominic (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know, why I overwote the tif-file. Normally, I convert it to jpeg and upload it under a new name with the link to the original tif-file. Like with this file File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar, 1941 - NARA - 540147.tif, which is inverted, I added this info, but I left the original tif-file. The original descriptions are also borne out of their time...
Many photos showing U.S. Navy ships during WWII have their radar anntennas removed by a censor, like File:USS PENNSYLVANIA and battleship of COLORADO class followed by three cruisers move in line into Lingayen Gulf... - NARA - 520627.tif, I tried to reconstruct the original photo here: File:US warships entering Lingayen Gulf 1945.jpg. The bot is great, by the way! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly your file?

Hello - I came across a picture similar to your "US Navy aviators San Diego 1918" except it was of enlisted women from San Diego. I can't recall the filename, or any good, very narrow keywords, to track it down. I was hoping perhaps, since it was so similar in style to your file, that it was also your upload. Might you be able to help? Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't remember such a file. Maybe you can fid it in this Category:Navy Nurse Corps (United States). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this one? LOC-image|id=pan.6a33145

Thanks. Great minds thinking alike! I just earlier went to the LOC and got that image. It's now File:LOC 6a33145r.jpg. Not San Diego after all ;-( but no matter. Thanks for the assist. ...best, JMOprof. JMOprof (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just cut the frame off and used the orginal tif-file. Maybe you could give your next file a more self-explaining title like "US Navy female yeomen in front of White House 1919" or something like that. It makes it easier to identify the photos. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do that! Thanks for the tech assist. JMOprof (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You continue to make my upload better. Thank you. May I ask why the PD-1923 tag is not preferred? You know about these things, and I'm but a Wiki-newbie, though learning fast ☺ JMOprof (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The PD-1923 tag always says "This may not apply to Germany and Austria", whereas the PD-USGov just states it as a picture with a free US copyright. It just makes things easier... Cobatfor (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps no more? PD-1923

Well, I still prefer the USGov, otherwise one (might) had to prove in Germany and Austria that the author is already dead for 70 years! Probably, I am more concerned about it than you, because I am German!!! :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cataloging the NARA files?

Hi Cobatfor-
Could you quickly describe the procedure to catalog a NARA file? I cataloged File:Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith (right) USMC takes jeep tour of Saipan airfield. - NARA - 520968.tif and don't know the steps to make it visible on the scorecard. Things I tried didn't work. ...best JMOprof (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you almost made it right. 1. please remove the "Template:Uncategorized ..." so it will show up as categorized. 2. The only thing you missed was to remove the two "==" above the categories. Double brackets (these -> "{") and "=" mess up everything when not used properly. Use "< br >" (without blank spaces) for a line break (instead of blank lines) and when you make a link to a file in a discussion, just put a ":" in front of "File:..." and it will link without showing the picture (see above when you use "edit").

Categories: I removed the categories "Generals of the United States Marine Corps" and "United States Marine Corps people in World War II" as being redundant. The category "Holland M. Smith" already links to these categories. But I added "Battle of Saipan" and "Willys MB", although the latter is probably not really necessary. There are categories I think as totally useless, as something like "people in cars", "people carrying rifles", "back and white photographs of people stitting in cars". Some are really obscure. On the other hand, I tried for example to categorize the "Pearl Harbor" category, as there are now almost 2,000 pictures in this category. But others my find my categories "useless"... Feel free to ask any questions. Have a nice weekend! Cobatfor (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Radar scope. - NARA - 520692.tif

Hallo, du hast dort die Kategorien "Ship radars" und "Essex class aircraft carriers" eingetragen. Für mich sieht das eher aus wie eine Glastafel wie bei File:CVA-34 CIC NAN10-63.jpg. Auch interessiert mich wie du auf die Essex-Klasse geschlossen hast.--Avron (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ich hatte vergessen, dass es die anderen Kategorien gibt, ich habe es geändert. Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Soviet M-4 Bison bomber in flight 1982.JPEG

Hi Cobatfor,
This aircraft is not M-4 Bison, but 3MD 30 Red (ЗМД in Russian). You can easily find the difference here: М4, ЗМД, flickr. Thanks, Sealle (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the pages in Russian could also be in Chinese for me ... As far as I can tell, the 3MD is still the aircraft that was labelled "Bison" by NATO. Therefore, I hope not much harm was done. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. However, there's a correct photo. Rgrds, Sealle (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Commons' coverage of aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! russavia (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I have to do anyting to "join"? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to add your name to the list at Commons:WikiProject_Aviation/Members you can do that. There's also a userbox you can use if you want. There is also various discussions also underway at Commons talk:WikiProject Aviation in which editor opinions are wanted/needed on various issues. Feel free to raise any questions, ideas, suggestions, etc there as well. Cheers russavia (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Found your Submarine

Cobatfor - Doing other work, I found your submarine File:U.S. Pacific submarine on war patrol. Pacific sunlight silvers the sea. - NARA - 520690.tif
It's USS Barb SS-220, Commanding Officer MOH awardee Eugene Fluckey, Gato-class.
Do a Google images search on: USS Barb. At about the page 5/page 6 break is an autographed copy from Fluckey for sale at Snyder Treasures. It's cropped closer, but it's the same picture. Don't go to the website unless you have a superfast connection. They don't understand compressed graphics.
By the way, the defining differences between Gato/Balao/Tench classes are the hull thicknesses. There's no way to tell from a picture without help like hull numbers (or an autograph ☺ ).
A lucky day. JMOprof (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Or do the search: USS Barb Snyder, and it's No. 1 JMOprof (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Reading my last post, I have no idea who Barbara Snyder was, or why she had a ship named after her ☺ Season's cheer.JMOprof (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum uploads

hi, my message is 2-fold (well, one-and-a-half); 1st, many amongst the pictures you are recently uploading are some of the most beautiful ones i ever saw in my life, and i just want to say that this work is wonderful, and thank you. (i have only since a week noticed that some large scale uploading is in progress, and only since a few days that its not an individual uptake but whatever, still of tremendous value imo). so i dont know if random noobs can just toss barnstars but lets say i wish you one. but ... :S ... 2. i think its a very serious problem and leading to either much duplication of effort, or even worse, of not even noticing ever or just dont giving a shit, is that in 99,9% of the time, your pictures contain some extremely minor alterations, touchups, rotations, contrast/brightness raisings, crops to older version and whatever, and then you upload that changed one. i suspect (from the scale of your and others' activity), that some sort of a bot or automation is involved. in a few times (e.g. the blown-off nosed destroyer) there were even zero changes yet a goddamn huge resave is there in place of the original grab from iwm. i despite being a very beginner, strongly disagree with this. the best would be, is to either A/, 1st upload the originals, maybe with auto-optimization (irfanview has built-in jpegtrans plugin, or one can use the app named 'jpegcrop', this not only resaves losslessly, but as the name says, also can crop and greyscale losslessly, but one alwyays must set the "huffman optimized" and the "progressive coding"-this latter only on images below ca 800kB for being gentle to mediawiki, and if you deal with the matter manually, then also when you see its blackandwhite, to greyscale it. in avarage, one can achieve a 10% filesize reduction of iwm standard jpg-s, which are in turn averagely 50kB in size, they becoming 45 or so, and only after this, upload to the same file a new edited version, with not applying anything to the original ones; or, rather, B/ if you think that a cropped and otherwise edited version is also neccessary, then better provide a new separate instance for that version, or for the original, depending on already-usage on other wikis and personal taste, and cross-reference the 2 pictures in their desc; C/ i'd think the best 'd be though if there were much less mods altogether... . also, your rotates are producing extremely uglily blurred and low-quality-looking images, i think probably a moderate amount of sharpening filter would benefit them, always only so much as to regain the appearance of the original, though i hold a personal grudge against rotations as they are the most destructive and impossible-to-do-very-efficiently-ever bastardizations of a picture. and then there is another thing. most of the iwm pictures are, if im not mistaken, saved at the jpg 85 non-colour-subsample mode. or 75, i dont remember. but whatever, i am bringing up the subject because i have noticed earlier, that if we resave a jpg, the previous saving-quality is a sweet spot where the file size is increasing only 1-5% and the quality decrease is also minimal. OF COURSE this is not true AT ALL if one rotates a picture, because this is i think somehow related to the macroblocking of the format's encode, but you are making many other types too and it is applicable then. obviously if we save below, ugly artifacts appear, and if above, surprise, unless 95% to 100%, then too more of them appear, and file size drastically increases. so what i'm saying is some of the times, the totally agreeable wiki policy of saving highest quality, does not hold verbatimly. when rotating, it does, when not, then best is to resave with the original qlty-setting; but (imo) always provide at least in the uploadhistory of old versions, the base file. and the original q% can be found by experimenting by 5% increases (saving-as in a row from 75 to 100 w different increasing names and then comparing them with snap-to-screen zoom with setting any scaling algorithm OFF and only using plain pixel-ish rescale, i've found this way the best to compare small-size jpg-resave pictures). i might be mistaken in the exact conditions neccessary to be able to utilise this loophole, and alse have nothing to say that all of their photos are saved at the same qlty. i also dont know if one removes a watermark for example and leaves the rest of the pic unchanged whether is it still applying, as i usually dont rape my own pictures (ok ok i know 'policy'...).

ok and then another thought of mine... i think its unneccessary when you r overwriting an old low-def file with the new 800px, to emulate the old shit's crop arrangement just for the 1-to-1 replacability in mind. i dont feel it to be important to make the new one appear exatly, even in its proportions, like the old. and especially not more important, when its removing beautiful detail, like in one of the spitfire formation pics. imo the primary task when someone is involved in such a massive and historically very significant transfer is to provide the pictures themselves, and it can come later if editors of particular wikis want coloradjusted or cropped versions, to make it for themselves a separate file. (and not overwriting it. but a million times worse if there is nothing to overwrite or choose from because already only the edited shockingly huge-kilobyte croprotates are uploaded.

best wishes--Aaa3-other (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. forgot but i've noticed that very rarely (heinkel-pic) your dummy bot even down-transformed the dimension/resolution of the pics!!!!! omg facepalmed, i was like wtf

Hi, that is a lot to read... I did not understand everything, i.e. I have no idea what "omg facepalmed, i was like wtf" means. However, there is no bot included in my uploads, I am all doing this by hand. It is common on Commons to alter the pictures, if the colours are wrong or the levels etc. There is even a link on each page to alter the photo using an external application. If you take the recent U.S. National archives bot, we have all pictures at least twice (tif and jpeg). The jpegs, however, often have a frame or damages etc. See File:USS Barb (SS-220) off Pearl Harbor June 1945.jpg. If you take the orginal IWM photos that were available until recently, you will notice that they all included watermarks "Imperial War Museum" and the photo ID. Some users cut it off or tried to erase them. Now, some photos have frames or black areas, not visible on the photos before. Most photos had a different shade of grey before. Which one is now the original one? The most important thing in my opinion is to give the correct source. If you have noticed, it is now for the first time possible to give the direct link to the IWM photo. I do always include this. Every user can look up the "original". But then there is the problem with the descriptions. Here File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg both the carrier and the year were incorrect. Also often you have wartime descriptions which are more propaganda than everything else. There are also censored pictures, where the radar antennas have been erased, but sometimes the same photo exists, not censored. Some photos are inverted File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar - NARA - 540147.tif. Which one is now the original one? You can see the earlier versions of the photos underneath each photo and now you even have the possiblity to request a rotation of a photo. I think what you propose (if I understood it correctly), it would complicate things unnecessarily - and it would make a lot of work. One could add the template "retouchedpicture" like here File:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard aerial photo 1940.jpg, I think this would be enough. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

okay i was too antiedit yesterday, its fine for me that we have edited versions as well, and i respect the beautification of colours (not so much the mods of blackandwhite images and rotations) you making to many, but i still feel the best to either first upload the uncropped-unaltered ver, and only then overwrite it with the edit, or make 2 versions. with a few of the images i already did it (ul-ing separately the orig.). as for your question, of course the new, 800px ares the original. the old 350px watermarked ones are not only small but already cropped-edited-improved by iwm, this is obvious and explains all your doubts about different grays etc. we shouldnt follow these low-res versions. yes, the source. i agree with you, and even fixed a lot of them today, as (what comes, identified during such an originalversion-upload and crosslinking), that the iwm template has exatly yesterday changed and the old links arent working anymore. and yes we can look up it but its much more a hassle than if it were just 1 click away and here on commons. as for slightly changing descs, i have nothing against! adding template... well that is what i feel too much (useless, as uploadhistory or crosslink it makes clear that it changed) and lot of work. also, doing so little changes then resaving (tripling file size as a side effect) is also a lot of work. examples:

File:HMSEskimoBowTorpedoDamageMay1940.jpg - nothing change (why did you do this?), 3x filesize, lot of work. yes, the original is available, but the noob user dont know or dont care to grab it from there, and we end up such a file on our computer and on wiki server. also it is not so easy to download it as they dont allow righclick on the large size so we have to get it out from 'page's data -> media' window, many extra steps. who will take this just to save an image?

File:Hellcats 1840 NAS in flight 1944.jpg - cropping with no reason, and not using 'jpegcrop' (search for the program in google, really the way to crop jpgs, or in 'irfanview' one can ctrl+shift+j a selection, both are lossless, no need to resave, but in this example, not to crop either)

File:Heinkel He 111 during the Battle of Britain.jpg - this was the downsize i called dummy. as i wrote above, it is such a grand mission and a fortunate possibility that we can have all these images on commons and therefore linkable on wikis. why only transfer a blurred hand-altered (lots of work) version for our use?

File:HMS Indomitable (92) underway 1943.jpg - this and File:HMS Barham in Suda Bay.jpg this: very-very little rotation, not bothering anyone, 'lots of work', yet your image is 2-3x size, and looking very blurred.

File:Supermarinespitfire.JPG - here, that you replace the picture with this is an excellent idea, i love it. but you wanted to make the propertions (x / y) of it to be similar to the old, and shouldnt have been - the new looks VERY beautiful in its full variant, no need for such a sacrifice. (and more work too). it will look a little different but who cares :P

your enhancements of colours and levels on colour photos however, are very useful and nice. (example:

i placed many of your new images i liked to other wikis, example File:404 Sqn RCAF Beaufighters Feb 1945.jpg (this too very little unneccessary change, more work, less ideal state for reusers and bandwidth), and i will keep doing in the following days, but it looks so saddening to me to see on the grey photos almost never the original.

and as a last thought, it might be more inspiring to try and less troublesome to other editors who may want to do another change to a pic to work from the original one here on commons and not having to go to the iwm site, in your current way maybe they wont have the idea of using the very useful link you always provide, and will start from your already changed ones. or noobs may think that what you uploaded here is the same as what is foundable on the link. the only thing which alerted me that i saw surprisingly large kilobytes and not the familiar 800px site, but how could they know if they never saw a real recent iwm photo. they will believe your is the real thing. so maybe, -forget template, way too much-, when you are uploading a changed one, dont just say 'iwm photo' but that what did you change, and maybe, crop rarely only, and maybe in the case of not very bad images, where you would do only a very little change, then dont do that, or i dont know... i dont want to discourage you! just think that this way might be better... sorry for writing too long, i tried to in my first post to show other ways of doing cropping and resaving. Cheers :), Aaa3-other (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rotation: Well, I rotate the pictures normally to get the horizon level, if possible. I also think it is absolutely necessary to provide the IWM link - just for licensing reasons. It is not my picture, easily to find out, since I wasn't even born then. I also think that Commons is no public archive. The IWM is the archive, not Commons. Some users worte "post-work: User:xyz". I don't want to alter the pictures - in a sense of making them historically different, I want to make them better. Take i.e. User:Hohum, who is very proficient in getting the right colours of photos. I think you could have this discussion with hundereds of Commons-users. I would be glad, if you do not re-upload all the IWM photos. There are so many good pictures now, I think we are making unnecessary double work. Cheers to Hungary Cobatfor (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. well i never said not to make the links. i love that you make the links. i only say many will not click and use your versions as a base to making further-edited versions. and of course i reuploaded only a few of them, i used judgement. many of it i left as it was because your edits made them better. but could you tell why yyou did the strange thing to the destroyer and the heinkel? just curious. rotation: i think if difference is below 3°, better not rotate, as it takes away many detail and sharpness for nearly nothing. hundreds of commons-users...: well, many i noticed uploaded the originals, not immediately cropped versions with creating the illusion that it is the same as on iwm. Cheers to Germany too --Aaa3-other (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. it is interesting what you say about commons is not the archive only the iwm... but i dont know.

p.p.s. sorry, i was meaning the „retouched”-template always (one can use the uploadlog for that) when saying „toomuch”, never meant the source-template!

Well, the He 111 photo, I don't know how that went. The destroyer image, well, the IWM images are 24 colour, but mostly I revert them to true grey scale, as sometimes the 24 colour gives them a brownish tint. Nothing else, the photo wasn't changed otherwise. I still stick to the opinion that Commons is no public archive and ho harm is done, when you tell the others what you have done. The source template explains - in my opinion - where the original is to be found. For further information see Commons:Licensing#License_information -> "Acceptable licenses" where it is stated "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ok:) thanks. then as a last ask, can you tell instead of 'iwm photo', just shortly, some of the main changes when you upload? it'd be informative to anyone viewing it. cheers aaa3, and p.s. to if any1 finds this later, i place a copy of this to the only talkpage i use, on enwiki en:User_talk:Aaa3-other if he want to further commnet to me without disturbing him

p.s. to you, here i give the link [19] this jpegcrop can revert an image to greyscale losslessly and then when you save it it remains smaller size, not bigger (because there is no re-encode, it just deletes color info directly from file). one just clicks the greyscale button and ctrl+s. (set and save „settings” as i wrote above (huffopt+progress). use for cropping color photos too, when no level or rot is done, but that's rare because they really look aged etc

Thanks for the link. I am not sure if I understood what you are meaning by "can you tell instead of 'iwm photo', just shortly, some of the main changes when you upload? it'd be informative to anyone viewing it." Is the information you request the ones I put in the "retouchedpicture" template? -> cropped, levels, noise reduced etc.Cobatfor

i mean, when you are upload, and fill the "description", you dont only write 'iwm photo' evrywhere, (whether if it is a new upload or an overwrite, doesn't matter), but write into that summary the "cropped, levels, noise reduced etc". i do not request that you make a retouched template, because it is bad for you (more work) and not better for anyone (no more info, they can read in "upload-desc." too).--Aaa3-other (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

hi again, sorry for 'harassing' you again, just thought to tell: the new way to link is adding into the source-t, the number is the last part of the real http link. (i only found out after being puzzled why they look broken, when i took a look at the template's page.) this way its easier to link i guess thats why he changed it. if we only add photonumber, maybe its more load on iwm bc they have2 do a search. cheers Aaa3-other (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about the http-links in the photos. At first the picture-ID was not working. I am now deleting the http-link. sok üdvözlet Cobatfor (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

oh no, please don't! thats why i told you how can you now add the link the new way. it is very good to have a link. it is simple, you dont paste the full link to the template, only the last part of it. please read the template's page i linked, or how i also shown it here (you must write "oid=" toobefore the number). (old: {{t|link id|coll}} now: {{t|id|oid=linklast|coll}} ) also i wrote why its bad to not give a link (this way iwm must do a search, and user must click 1 more). mehr grüss --Aaa3-other (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Trier Air Base

Unfortunatley not. If I get over to the USAF Historical Research Agency I will attempt to find one. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and Cheers! Cobatfor (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:15th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron F-101 56-0042 Davis Monthan AFB,.jpg

No it's not. It's from the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron (McDonnell RF-101C-60-MC Voodoo 56-0042), which the tail markings are from. I made a typo when I loaded the photo and I don't know how to change the name (It needs to be delted and re-uploaded). Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Making a PD image PD

Cobatfor - How does one certify a PD image as such when it is not sourced from a US Gov website? For instance, I have a standard US Navy PAO photo of an admiral I like to clean up and upload, but the source website is an auction house. File is here [20]. I have other examples of claimed copyright, where the original source doc gave all rights away (Canal Zone pictures) that I don't know how to handle either. Is there a way? As always, thanks. JMOprof (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, that is a very difficult question, as there is no evidence on who took the photo. It would be better, if it is somewhere claimed to be PD. Many users just say "PD-USGov" without any proof and hope that since there are 12 mio photos on Commons, no one will bother. However, even if you have a publication at home where it is written that it is a USN photo, that would be good and you should put it under "source". If there is an inscription that states that it is a USGov photo then you can upload the phot with the inscription, erase it and re-upload the photo without the inscription. I hope this will help you. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cobatfor - Thanks. So the source may be a journal rather than a website? And If I link to the electronic journal that would be OK? If so, I'd think better to link to the release than the picture. The journal lives on line in the FSU archives. Pictures are retrieved elsewhere. JMOprof (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The journal or book does not have to be online. You can also quote it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we fix...?

Hi Cobatfor -

My upload :File:LOC 6a33648u.tif did not properly render a preview. How do we/I jumpstart it again?

I keep coming here to learn my way around. ☺

Thanks ... JMOprof (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia is experiencing some problems at the moment, see File:A-6B Intruder VA-95 at NAS Miramar 1974.jpeg. I just waited a while and pressed "F5", normally it worked then. If it is a large tif-file, that may take some time. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll continue at my place ☺ JMOprof (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cobatfor. You have new messages at JMOprof's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Perhaps a use for an RNZAF Skyhawk is to replace this one - Flickr - PhillipC.jpg

Hi. After seeing the photo, I am almost sure that is a replica. Sorruno (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Midway

Thank you for your remark, I changed the B-17 sketch to B-17E. Cheers Kaboldy (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:North American T-28, Flughallenfest Vilshofen a.d. Donau.JPG

Hallo!

Vor wenigen Wochen habe ich dieses Bild bei einer Air Show aufgenommen. Weißt du mehr über dieses Flugzeug bzw. Flugzeugtyp. Ist dieses Flugzeug noch in US-Besitz? Man beachte die Hoheitszeichen. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mojen! Die T-28C BuNo 146246 war wohl ursprünglich mal hier [21] und dann 2010 da [22]. Hier [23] stand sie zum Verkauf, ist aber nicht mehr auf der aktuellen Verkaufsliste [24]. Scheinbar ist sie nun in Mühldorf am Inn stationiert [25], wenn auch die Kennung N2800M immer noch für einen Besitzer aus den USA spricht. Bei der FAA ist sie immer noch in Texas gelistet [26]. Hat das geholfen? Cobatfor (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nunja. Irgendwie hatte ich diese Detailtreue erwartet. Respekt. Danke! Jedenfalls sprach einer der beiden Piloten Englisch und einer Bayerisch - was zu diesem Eck passt. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

USS Boxer LHD-4

Yes Cobatfor, You are right. 2011. The USS Ronald Reagan Aircraft Carrier and its three support ships arrived in Hong Kong on 13 August 2011, and USS Boxer LHD-4 has arrived in Hong Kong on 31 August 2011. So it was my mistake. Sorry for that. Please change the name. Thank you for pointing out this mistake.--HK Arun (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year

From: Kaboldy (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo!

Tolles Bild! Kannst du eine Version darüberladen ohne Windows-Dateinamenanzeige? Aus unerfindlichen Gründen streikt bei meinem Gerät die pdf-Datei

Ein frohes Neues wünsche ich dir natürlich auch! Viele Grüße, High Contrast (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten und ein glückliches neues Jahr! :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:MvRichthofenWreckage.jpg

Hi, I noticed you overwrote File:MvRichthofenWreckage.jpg. As it seemed to me that the two versions had their own merit, I splitted the file in two, your version being at File:MvRichthofenWreckage (2).jpg. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would have preferred the original Australian image without the writing, but if you prefer... Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don’t really have a preference ; I merely thought others might have one :)

A second look at the images clearly indicates that I should have left the original Australian image as the default one (and the one with the writing as the alternate version). I thus made the replacement through all the Wikimedia projects.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Probably the best solution. Thank you and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Moselbruecke_zerstoert_1945.jpg

mybe the translation to german is incorrect. Did you know the name of the Bridge? From where is the translation? 91.67.16.85 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Na, man kann die Übersetzung ja auch selbst verbessern... Cobatfor (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

F-102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Fighter_Squadron 16th FIS I believe is the unit you are looking for :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Cobatfor⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Cobatfor,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

H-2 vs SH-2

If it is H-2, then you might want to rename the wikipedia page as well as that page uses SH-2. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sadly this is very difficult. The U.S. designation system has clear rules since 1962, if not the U.S. itself would sometimes "bend" it. The Seasprite ist the H-2, the Sea King the H-3, the H-60 is the Black Hawk or Seahawk. Especially the SH-60 derivatives have unofficial-official names like SH-60F "Oceanhawk" of MH-60S "Knighthawk" (officially they are all "Seahawk"s) which found their way on wikipedia. The H-2 was originally (before 1962) designated HU2K. After 10-15 years of its production almost any surviving example was converted for anti-submarine duty and all UH/HH-2A/B/C/D became SH-2D/F. Some were even converted to the SH-2G, again 20-30 years later. However, technically, the type is still called "H-2". This is difficult to communicate to some users, so I just let it be. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your argument, in fact it is the policy of the aviation/aircraft project on wikipedia to use the base designator, even when it is never used in practice (such as with Japanese navy aircraft only having letter number letter, even when an additional number was always used). Once the base page is established, it can then be broken down to include major subtypes, so SH-60 is broken off H-60, then when it gets big enough the MH-60S can be broken off.

The point of renaming the wikimedia page is that they should match the Wikipedia page names to make finding pages easier, so one or the other should be changed.

The existence of the HH-2, SH-2 and UH-2 clearly argues for the wikipedia page to be changed.NiD.29 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see that discussion happened a while ago - I wonder if the time is ripe to reopen it, especially as the SH-2G was subsequently split off, along with most of the media talk about the type? I would back you up on this one - it isn't a well enough known aircraft for a popular name to override the wikipedia standard naming convention.NiD.29 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you made a new category for the AD Skyraider, R5D etc. I think this is very problematic, as any USN/USMC/USCG aircraft still in service in 1962 was redesignated according to the new tri-service designation system. That was why I made the category "Douglas C-54 Skymaster (United States Navy)". For example, the Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star was the WV-2 with the Navy, and the crews called it "Willy Victor" and not "Constellation". After 18 September 1962 it became the EC-121K, and it is known by this name. The Douglas F4D Skyray soldiered for about 1.5 years as the F-6, but no one calls this aircraft the F-6. Who says McDonnell F4H Phantom II? The F-4 Phantom II category was renamed "McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II", although the company was only McDonnell when the Phantom was designed. I would stick to the designations most commonly used: C-54 for the R5D, C-47 for the R4D, F4D instead of F-6, A-1 instead of AD, F9F instead of F-9, F11F instead of F-11. Everything else leads to ever-lasting confusion and (in my opinion unnecessary) categories. What do you do with the photo of a Navy C-54 in 1962: is it an C-54 or an R5D? It just depends on the exact date the photo was taken, but it is the same aircraft. Take the ships, vor example: The aircraft carrier USS Essex was CV-9, CVA-9 and CVS-9. However, the category is USS Essex (CV-9), as it is the one consistent with USN carriers and the one mostly known. What is your opinion? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories for HABS/HAER files.

Hi, I've been working on categories for these surveys too (primarily in western states) and was hoping we could coordinate to avoid redundant/conflicting effort. My approach has been to move the files for single survey into an existing correct category if there is one, otherwise create one, preferably corresponding to the name of an article on en.wikipedia, and then adding a {{Commonscat}} tag to that page. All of the files are in (possibly hidden) HABS/HAER categories already as a built-in function of the templates used on the files, so I'm not sure any categories created should be added to Category:Files from the Historic American Buildings Survey (the category page states not to add to it manually).

The other thing is to remove the files from the place name category that they were first in, once they've been added to a more specific category. It's difficult to do this with available tools right now because of the lack of sorting by filename, so until sort keys have been added I'm using a replace script to move all files matching a survey. If there are particular surveys you'd like me to do this for, you can list them here, and I'll try to get to them promptly. If you think the files really need to be in a HABS/HAER-specific category within the topic category, mention that too. Meanwhile, I'll remove the files from, for instance, Category:Bremerton, Washington that you've added to Category:Historic American Buildings Survey files - Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. If the files are left in the place name categories they started in, I (or someone else) might not realize they've already been categorized, and then make a mess doing work that you've already done. Cheers! --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure, if I got what you meant (a language problem on my side). However, I see a problem when there are 1,500 files for one location (like Mare Island Navy Yard or Pearl Harbor). Especially the Pearl Harbor category is totally jammed with whatever file. The other problem is that the files are tif-files which should habe jpg-versions (but: who would convert 300,000+ files...). So, what do we do with the HABS-files that go into the hundreds for one location? How do we differentiate these? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The language problem is half on my side, too. I didn't mean to say that you should never put the survey files in their own category, just that it isn't always needed. I agree, in cases like the Puget Sound Navy Yard, it's a good idea. The thing that's most important to me is that files that have been categorized are moved from their original city or county category, and not only added to a more specific category. If not, it's difficult to tell which files still need to be categorized. I understand that this is difficult to do with tools like Cat-a-lot when working with such a large number of files, especially when the file names don't sort them together. This will get better, but for now if there is a large group that you would like moved into a category (maybe one that you've already created), I'll be happy to do the move operation if you mention it here. I hope that makes sense. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as you can see here Category:Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, I put not all files in HABS-bla bla bla-categories. At the Mare Island Navy Yard, someone created a category for almost any building! This would probably be good for the Pearl Harbor HABS-files, but I (sadly) know Pearl Harbor only from a map and have no local knowledge, and, to be honest, that's not my type of work. I actually do not know if the bridge in Chicago (where I have actually been) is called "Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Bridge No. Z-2", but it is easier to just upload 300,000 files than to categorize them. I for my part, think that many of the US Navy-files uploaded via bot are just useless (seaman X shaking hands with seaman Y, etc). The HABS-files at least have some historical value, but who am I to judge the importance of a photo (although having an MA in history...). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully people with specific or local interest can add more detailed categories when needed. My efforts are mostly towards getting the huge number of files sorted out of the sadly overcrowded city/county categories where they start out - there were over 2,000 in Category:Los Angeles County, California, which is where I started. In cases like the bridge, I usually visit the survey page to see any information that isn't on the file pages, then search on en.wikipedia to see if there's an article (there often will be for historical landmarks). In this case, searching for "Milwaukee Road Bridge" redirected me to Beverly Railroad Bridge, so now, even though I have no local knowledge, I have enough information to create a good category. Fortunately, I enjoy learning about random places and things, or it would probably seem like too much work. And now, looking at the page, it's not the right bridge, so... bad example, sorry! It's this one: Category:Cherry_Avenue_bridge... except some of those pictures are of bridge Z-6, not Z-2... is that confusing enough? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and about the tiff/jpeg conversion, there's no need to convert the tiff files, since the mediawiki software now does this automatically for any use of the image. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Does it convert it into a new file? I wonder, because many of the tif-files have frames etc. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it just generates jpeg versions any time the file is referenced on-wiki, such as the one that you're looking at when you view the file page. The only way you'll ever see an actual tiff file is by clicking the "Original file" link. As for cropping the frames, that's another problem entirely. It would be nice if there was a working crop-bot for tiff files on the server, since the files are so large... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pictures and images

Hi, did anything go wrong using cat-a-lot? --Wuselig (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously. How do I remove it? Cobatfor (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid the same way you got the images into the category. Only this time use the correct category into which the images should have gone. I imagine it is something like "Category:Pictures and images of whatsoever" and so using cat-a-lot you had just clicked on the first suggestion and not the correct long version. --Wuselig (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons - Photos

Hello Cobatfor!

I am glad that you like some of the images that I have uploaded to Commons.

I confess to sometimes being unsure as to what category to assign to the images. Following your kindly strictures, I promise to try harder in future! When I slip up, I would appreciate it, and many others would, I'm sure, if you would add to or correct the categories that I created.

I'm afraid that my strength is the old photos that I have - my weakness is the 'clerical' side!!

Best Wishes

RuthAS (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, so I will continue to look on what you load up :-) Thank you for your nice pictures! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation now on Twitter

Hi, as mentioned here, Commons:WikiProject Aviation is now on Twitter. I will be using the feed to tweet photos from our now extensive repository of aviation imagery, and will also use it for outreach activities. If you have any suggestions on how to get the maximum use out of Twitter feel free to leave suggestions on the Aviation project talk page. You can follow the account at http://www.twitter.com/commonsaviation. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:KB-29J streaking fuel out of boom.jpg

File:KB-29J streaking fuel out of boom.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!

Petebutt (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Daimler-Benz DB 605

Hello Cobatfor. I saw in this file history that you twice removed Category:Messerschmitt Bf 109. I wonder why. Maybe the presence of Category:Daimler-Benz DB 605 has lead to the assumption that the Messerschmidt category has become redundant. But the engine has been used in more planes than the Bf 109 only, which means there's not something like a hierarchical relation.
Another reason might be that we see only an engine, not a plane. But this 'visual' argument isn't used for the three 1944 categories, so why should we use it for the Messerschmitt?
I would appreciate your comment. Regards, Apdency (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to keep categories reasonable and not to throw anything into one category. For example: File:A French air force EC-725 Caracal helicopter prepares to land aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), not pictured, during joint operations in the Gulf of Oman Jan. 3, 2014 140103-N-RY581-008.jpg. This photo is in the categories "USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)" and "Operation Enduring Freedom". The first has some 500 files the latter more than 2.000. The ship is not pictured in the photo, wo why put it in the category? I would put it in the "Airbus Helicopters EC725 Super Cougar in the French Air Force" category and probably make one for "French contingent of Operaion Enduring Freedom". As for the Me 109 engine, if there would be more photos of the wreck, I would make one for the wreck, but on this photo there is only a DB605 and no Me 109 shown.Cobatfor (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Every case will have its own considerations. As for the helicopter picture, I think I wouldn't have categorized the ship either. But that would not be so hard to decide, because the helicopter is just a guest to the aircraft carrier, and that doesn't influence its characteristics. The relation between the rusty engine block and the plane that it was part of, is much closer. The fact that we see the object as it is, is completely entangled with the story of a crashed Me. Apdency (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, are there more photos of the wreck? As I understand it was Me 109G-6 (s/n 410210) "Yellow 4" of 6./JG 11 flown by Uffz. Horst Quietzsch [27]. The "Bf" (Bayerische Flugzeugwerke) designation was changed to "Me" (Messerschmitt) in 1938. Cobatfor (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. No, I don't know about more photos. Apdency (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Title of File:Marlet landing HMS Illustrious NAN2-1-44.jpg

Hi there, I see you originally uploaded this photo. Caption currently says it's aboard HMS Indomitable, but file name says HMS Illustrious. Is this a case where it's been re-identified as Indomitable ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, this was six years ago... The reasoning was probably the following: The U.S. Naval Aviation News describes the carrier as HMS Illustrious. However, here [28] you find the following: "A Deck Landing Control Officer aboard HMS Illustrious enthusiastically guides an 806 Naval Air Squadron Grumman Martlet (Wildcat) pilot home in wet weather en route to Malta, using the hand-held lighting system. On a grey day like this, the lights would have been a very effective system. Photo: Imperial War Museum". According to English Wikipedia, 806 NAS flew the F4F from Indomitable: "In May 1942, the squadron then split into "A" Flight (with Martlet IIs on HMS Indomitable, fighting in Operation Pedestal) and "B" Flight (with Fulmars on Illustrious). The former was disbanded in the UK when its ship was damaged in Pedestal and returned to the UK, while "B" Flight disembarked at Port Reitz Airport in East Africa in October 1942, only to be disbanded at Tanga in January 1943." Fleetairarmarchive puts 806 NAS on Indomitable until September 1942 and on Illustrious in October 1942. The en:wikipedia information is from the 806 NAS page of Fleetairarmarchive which contradicts the information on the carrier-pages of the same site. Well, I assume that was my reasoning, but we can change it back to Illustrious, because probably nothing is really proven. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:F-14B VF-32 with aerial target on cat USS Truman (CVN-75) 2001.JPEG

I hope I am doing this correctly. In the metadata information section of this image the F-14B Tomcat is listed as an F-14 Hornet. Unfortunately I can not seem to figure out how to edit this area and am wondering if you are able to correct this information as the person who uploaded it. As you and I are not fully aware, that image is not an F/A-18 Hornet. It also helps that I am very familiar with the actual jet in the photograph as it was the very last F-14 that my wife ever worked on. Thank you for your hard work and contributions. Razor LtcdrRazor (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I came to learn the hard way that one is actually a fool to always believe the metadata. In case with the U.S. National Museum of Naval Aviation I was told by the staff, that the information given with the photos was done by apprentices with (often) no knowledge about the topic at all, but there was/is no money to hire other people. As you can read further upwards with the "Ark Royal" images, the carrier was wrongly identified as HMS Hermes in the metadata. As with the above photo, the aircraft is easily identifiable by its serial number (called with the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps "Bureau Number" for "U.S. Navy Bureau of Aeronautics Number", short "BuNo") 162916. This was a Grumman F-14B-145-GR Tomcat. Also, Fighter Squadron 32 flew the F-14B at that time. There is actually no F-14 Hornet, as the McDonnell Douglas (today Boeing) Hornet is designated F/A-18. The metadata comes as it is. I thought we should leave it as it is and provide the correct data in the photo description. Wrong? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Destroyers of France

Thanks for the input, I hope I made some of the corrections that you recommended. I couldn't actually update the pictures because I uploaded .jpg files where I had .gif files before. I'm still pretty new at the uploading thing and mostly going by what I've seen other people do so I will work on adding more info in the future.

Pennsy22 (talk)

Spruance whaleboats

I have update the urls on these two. If that was the only issue I will move them back. Otherwise please clarify. Dankarl (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command completely reworked its website, giving all photos new URLs. Gladly, they also post(ed) a lot of new photos and often high-resolution TIFs. The problem I was referring to was the category "United States Navy" or "Naval ships of the United States". I put the uncategorized photos from the general (mostly totally overcroweded) categories in two "to check" categories. I did not have the time and energy to check the thousands of photos. For your two, I deleted the category, as I think, category "USS Spruance (DD-963)" is sufficient. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please consider...

I know you were aware that the issue of which name we should use was under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, because you weighed in there. So, why did you move almost 250 files and categories from Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to Category:Naval Station Guantanamo Bay? Why didn't you wait until an administrator closed the discussion?

In my experience it can be extremely disruptive when a contributor unilaterly moves files from one category, to a newer category, that they personally think is a better name. Categories suck as an organizing tool, for various reasons. One is that they keep no history. Administrators routinely remove empty categories, and have no good tools to help them realize that the category has been a useful category, for a long time, and is only empty because one individual basically hijacked its contents. This can be extremely disruptive. We have no way of knowing how many external third parties had a long time link to that category.

I saw that you redirected Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to point to Category:Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, which means it won't be deleted because its empty. But there is no way for me to know you didn't empty other categories, and leave them empty.

When contributors wait for discussion to conclude, if the closing administrator determines a move is desirable, they have tools available that will (1) automatically move the elements from one category to the other; (2) they can rename the old category, with the new name. This has the strong advantage that it preserves the revision history.

So, could you please consider refraining from manually moving all the elements from one category to another?

Could you please consider refraining from jumping the gun, and letting discussion run until an administrator closes them?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it would make things easier. Cobatfor (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your improvements and hard work on images from the DoD. Fæ (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Cobatfor (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File:E-1B Tracer VAW-111 on USS Kearsarge (CVS-33) 1969.jpg

Hi Cobatfor, You are listed as the User for a picture of an E-1B Tracer on the Kearsarge. The description reads: "A U.S. Navy Grumman E-2B Tracer (BuNo 147234) from Airborne Early Warning Squadron VAW-111 Det.33 "Hunters" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge (CVS-33). VAW-111 Det.33 was assigned to Car..." Every other description lists the correct designation of E-1B "Tracer". I tried to edit the entry and failed. I know that is a very minor typo, but can you please have this entry corrected? Thanks, ced102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ced102 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I corrected the typing error. However, I placed your comment at the bottom of my talk page, as it is usually done. Use two "=" before and after the heading. To sign, just make four "~" at the end. If you might need any advice, just feel free to ask. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:HMS Ladybird (ship, 1916)

Hi, thanks for creating this category. To complete the job, please remember to add a Commons link e.g. {{Commonscat|HMS Ladybird (ship, 1916)}} at the end of the English language page so that readers of the article can find the Commons category; and also a link to the Commons category at the end of the Wikidata page, which causes links to all the related articles in various languages to appear on the category page. To update the Wikidata page, click on the "edit links" option at the bottom of the leftmost column of the EN article, scroll to the bottom of the Wikidata links, "Other sites", select edit, and add a link to Commons Category:HMS Ladybird (ship, 1916) and save. I've done both in this case. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I was not even aware that a wikidata-something exists ... Cobatfor (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help with that : it's clumsy but the end result is a system that nicely connects articles in various languages with image collections. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)!

"Ticonderoga" class carriers

I reverted you, because of 'overcat' (putting a category in both another category and it's parent) but please don't take it wrong... I'm not incredibly enthusiastic about calling them "Ticonderoga" class at all, since that was not an 'official' classification... when I did so, I was just following the existing categories. It might be reasonable to just call them 'Essex class', and note that they were 'long bow' in the description, or some other solution... but if they remain in the parent and the child, someone with no idea will eventually screw them up. Revent^talk 04:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I thought this would be the elegant solution. I also added the desctiption some time ago, as later modifications made the distinction obsolete. I myself would prefer to just name them the Essex-class. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as well, but we might want to throw it on CFD for a couple of weeks before we make it go away, just to avoid drama. It was never an 'official' distinction, and as you noted they all eventually got the hurricane bows anyhow. Revent^talk 09:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:AleutianPBYWWII.jpg

Hallo Cobatfor. Du möchtest dem Foto einen anderen Namen geben, in dem Adak island vorkommt. Island wird aber groß geschrieben. Deshalb frage ich vor einer Verschiebung: Wäre es nicht sinnvoll, das Linkziel der korrekten Schreibweise anzupassen? Gruß, --Gereon K. (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, wäre für mich kein Problem, aber es wurde schon umbenannt. Gruß Cobatfor (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Moin! Beim Umbenennen bitte die Dateiendung nicht vergessen. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 09:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Mist! Vergessen. Tut mir leid. Ich versuche, nächstes Mal dran zu denken. Gruß Cobatfor (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Passiert mir nach 10 Jahren auch noch. Diagnose: Kaffee-Mangel! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE-5)

Why this? I see more than a dozen inclusions of such ships in Category:Military Sealift Command ships. Just curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason is simple: When all ships of a class are MCS-ships (in this case the Lewis and Clark-class), I put the whole class to the MSC ship category, instead of every single ship. Cobatfor (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Hi Cobatfor, 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.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

---

lNeverCry 10:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Cobatfor (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed or planned naval ships

Hi Cobatfor. I have reverted your edit of this category. Reason is, that it is not a subgroup of Naval ships of the United States, but of Naval ships in general. If you want to make a country-related subgroup, you should make a category for those vessels that were planned or proposed for the United States. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Somehow, I got carried away in the heat of the moment... Cobatfor (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

NHHC files

Since you asked, File:USS Wharton (AP-7) - 19-N-26645.jpg and File:USS Wharton 1941.jpg. - Revent^talk 08:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought you would overwrite the lowres file and I would later rename it. Would this be possible with your semi-bot? Cobatfor (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess we miscommunicated... I can do that, if I notice it first. I search, but sometimes they are 'misfiled'. - Revent^talk 11:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you had not seen it, btw, User:Revent/NHHC_images might be useful, though the links there don't get automatically fixed when files are moved. - Revent^talk 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Conyngham.jpg more what you wanted? Terribly generic name. - Revent^talk 12:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! I was wondering if you could split up the licence template you created. Would't it be better to put the NHHC-part to the "accession number" in the file description and the navy-licence below? Another thing is that I like to elaborate the descriptions. Like here, I wrote "The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Conyngham (DD-371) off the Mare Island Navy Yard, California (USA), 22 January 1942. Note that she still has her number three 5/38 gun." Also, would not be the title of the photo "19-N-27127 USS Conyngham (DD-371)", as being in bold letters above the photo. I know, this is probably the easiest way for you to import the file while using the NHHC site description, but I studied history ... :-) Cobatfor (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS San Diego (CL-53) in Boston Harbor, 10 January 1942.jpg

It's better, of course, to revise the descriptions, but tbh a certain part of how I'm doing this (copying the descriptions verbatim, in particular) is that I'm importing these 'in bulk'.... in order to not make it a maddeningly tedious process, since there is a degree of manual work involved, I'm doing it while watching videos on YouTube. Having to actually 'think' about trying to rewrite the descriptions involves concentrating on the particular image, and it slows down the task considerably. My hope, really, is over time the actual descriptions and other information will get improved... I just think it's valuable to have the images 'on' Commons (especially the 'source' images) and crosslinked. Too many of these 'old' uploads have basically no information at all, not even a source.

As far as the titles that were on the old printed images, in a lot of cases I have no idea what they were... they are not on the current NHHC site... I could likely find some of them on the archive of the old site at hyperwar (like at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar///OnlineLibrary/photos/images/n20000/n27236c.htm), but it would make the whole process much slower... the goal here is basically to upload 'all' of these, eventually, and the only real way to find them there is to google each individual ID number, and then look for the particular hit. It's not a huge task for any particular one, but would make a very big difference over time.

As far as the NHHC template, I originally was using it as a 'source' template, and was including the blurb from the permission page in that field of {{Photograph}}, but was specifically asked to change it by a couple of the other admins who hang out on IRC. I kind of agree with them that it's better this way, as it ensures that the 'blurb' that states why we believe these somewhat 'anonymous' photos are indeed PD is included. Also, it means that the template can also be used for the 'licensing' of photos from there, even if we obtained a particular copy via NARA (I've found a few cases that I skipped, because there was a NARA tiff that was significantly better). NARA doesn't actually 'assert' that any of the material that they hold is PD, but NHHC specifically says they have checked. I think the NHHC statement that 'these are PD' is important, and for images that we obtain from NARA (that should be using {{NARA-image-full}} the relevant field (record id) should actually be the NARA file number. - Revent^talk 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS St. Louis (CL-49) off Mare Island in March 1942.jpg - be nice to get rid of the captions. - Revent^talk 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I was thinking to use your template, but I don't know what to put for "source" as I don't plan to upload the tifs. Any idea? Cobatfor (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd think if nor uploading the tiffs, just use the NHHC page as the source (like I am doing on the tiffs). Eventually I hope to get the vast bulk of the tiffs uploaded, but I'll probably be working on it for months at least. - Revent^talk 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS_George_F._Elliott_of_the_Norfolk_Navy_Yard,_1_January_1942.jpg - was attributed to the Cost Guard, obviously wrongly. - Revent^talk 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Didn't notice that there is an "f" missing! Cobatfor (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Bellatrix (AK-20) off Tampa in 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 21:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Cummings, taken at Mare Island Navy Yard, California, 4 March 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Cummings at Mare Island.jpg - Revent^talk 16:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to give any of the other images I am uploading better names (see my list at User:Revent/NHHC_images). I'm just pinging you about the ones that I specifically notice already existed.. unfortunately, sometimes a matter of actually 'looking' at the categorized images, because the IDs are missing. - Revent^talk 21:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

TBH, there are probably a number of cases where a new image is 'better' than what is being used. - Revent^talk 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I "prepared" some images from USS Cummings for further upgrading. As I am uploading "by hand", I am actually doing the same, I just upload the edited jpegs that I take from the tifs. Cobatfor (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS San Juan (CL-54) off Boston in April 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 12:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Blue (DD-387) USS Ralph Talbot (DD-390) - 19-N-29229.tiff, the smaller crop already existed in a quite poor version. - Revent^talk 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Indianapolis-overhaul in April 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 23:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Enterprise (CV-6) c1939.jpg is File:USS Enterprise (CV-6) - 19-N-29688.jpg, from a different source. Unfortunately there are defects in the higher res scan. - Revent^talk 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned and cropped the file. For the NMNA-file: I replaced it with File:USS Enterprise (CV-6) at anchor, circa 1939 (NH 54226).jpg. You might want to upload the TIFF. Cobatfor (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice job! I'll upload the TIFF, yes. BTW, File:USS Hull (DD-350) off Mare Island in April 1942.jpg. - Revent^talk 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded at File:USS Enterprise (CV-6) at anchor, circa 1939 (NH 54226).tiff. I think the filename is in error, though... she's underway (note the ensign is flying from the gaff, and the jack is not flying). You can also see a bit of white water at the stern... there appears to just be a shadow cast from the anchor, that looks like a chain. - Revent^talk 23:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that it difficult to determine, in my opinion, there is no bow wave and I see no anchor and at least the mast for the jack is raised. However, the photo in itself is not of good quality, it seems like a copy of a (Navy) newspaper photo to me. Cobatfor (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Yellowstone (AD-27) at Augusta Bay with submarines and destroyers in 1950 (80-G-428712).jpg is a file which I want to keep, as the "All Hands" photo is of much better quality than the TIF. Also, many colour photos are (sadly) only available as b/w TIFs, now. Cobatfor (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

more NHHC files

I'm into a new 'section' now, so I figured I'm start a new one here for 'brevity'.... I'm assuming what you specifically want to have mentioned is where I'm overwriting existing stuff (tho I think I mentioned the page where I'm keeping track of them all). File:Launching of USS San Diego (CL-53), 26 July 1941.jpg File:Launching of USS San Diego (CL-53), 26 July 1941.jpg File:USS Cimarron (AO-22) Norfolk Feb1942.jpg File:USS Matagorda before launching, 18 March 1941.jpg File:USS Matagorda after launching, 18 March 1941.jpg File:USS Matagorda being launched, 18 March 1941.jpg File:USS Hovey (DMS-11) off Mare Island in June 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 14:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Meade (DD-602).jpg

File:USS Meade (DD-602) in June 1942.jpg - Revent^talk 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:USS Raleigh (CL-7) -g.jpg - Revent^talk 02:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Douglas A2D Skyshark at San Diego Air & Space Museum annex 2.jpg

The aircraft is not at the San Diego A&S Museum. It is at the annex at Gillespie Field. Not sure what the category should be BTW. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, then we should make an Category with "Aircraft at the San Diego Air & Space Museum annex" or so. Can we identify the aircraft at the annex? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, I don't understand the "Can we identify the aircraft at the annex"? The SDA&S Museum refers to it as the "Gillespie Field annex" here Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Should I create Category:Aircraft at San Diego Air & Space Museum Gillespie Field annex? There are a number of aircraft images I am planning on uploading. I live relatively nearby. If you have any suggestions/requests for photos, please let me know. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean, if we can see which aircraft are located at the annex (besides the A2D). I just created the category you proposed, now you can fill it ... :-) . Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Should I change the categories of those aircraft engine images I uploaded to Category:Aircraft engines San Diego Air & Space Museum Gillespie Field annex? Currently, they are Category:Gillespie Field and Category:San Diego Air & Space Museum Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I added most, if not all my images to Category:Images by Jim1138 which seems to make it simpler to view rather than the uploads tab. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The wikipedia article say that it is a county airport. Therefore I created Category:San Diego Air & Space Museum Gillespie Field annex and put everything from the SDASM in it. Now we have two sub-categories for aircraft and engines in it. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You did all the hard work! Thank you very much! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded about 22 more images. If you have any requests, I go out to the SD A&S museum annex about once a month. I realized at the end that I could easily move the signs/plaques hiding much of the engines. I might get another photo of the en:Packard DR-980 - I'm rather fascinated with diesel aircraft engines. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

New Image Upload

Cobatfor, I just wanted to see if this new upload was closer to the mark than my previous offerings. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this is much better! However, there is still some room for improvement. Please give ALWAYS the direct link to the photo and the page where the photo was found. In case of the NHHC User:Revent made a special template that I used for the photo. You wrote "National Archives Photo" and made the link below the license. Please put the link always in "source". However, in this case you got the photo from the NHHC and not from the U.S. National Archive (although there probably is a copy there). If you use a scan of the book, please give the complete reference, with author, ISBN, page etc. User:Revent also adds the file registration number at the end of the file name when the file is from an official achrive. By the way, it is always nice for non-US-users to specify. What National Archive? What Navy? etc. Concerning the photo: since the NHHC provides high resolution TIF-files, I download the tif and convert it into jpeg. I also crop files, like in this case, I would crop the frame, if you know how to do it. Please feel free to call on me, if you got any more questions. Cobatfor (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, here File:Edward C. Outlaw aboard USS Langley (CVL-27) on 15 April 1944 (NNAM.1999.296.041.089).jpg I added the link to the file. What you worte: "... official U.S. Navy portrait ..." is not necessary. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

File:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is pulled out of Rosyth dockyard on 26 June 2017 (45162790).jpg

File:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is pulled out of Rosyth dockyard on 26 June 2017 (45162790).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hi, I don't understand why so much of the description was lost from this photograph. For example, the photographer's name was removed diff. This invalidates the OGL as the attribution used on publication should always remain. I'm not in the habit of checking your changes, as you are so reliable. Could you take another look for this case? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously removed too much information. The HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) category was full of duplicates and your files were not categorized. I understand the quick bot-uploads but I am somewhat critical of it. The US Navy uploads, for example, led to thousands of photos that someone has to categorize. Also, the descriptions are (as the titles of your HMS QE-files) public relations texts written by the respective departments. Modern techniques also lead - in my opininon - often to too much information, in Commons often to too many photos that are uploaded by bot, just because they are there. Of course, I know that we cannot say what the future sees as "important" or "valuable" photos. But the workload with categorizing, duplicates and often renaming is huge. Cobatfor (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

NARA/NHHC Dead Source Links

Cobatfor, I was wondering if you could provide some guidance. A number of pictures in the Commons from NARA/NHHC have suffered link rot, to the point where Featured Images (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Bunker_Hill_hit_by_two_Kamikazes.jpg ) no longer have viable links to their source. Is it okay to just replace dead URLs with current examples? I tried using |archiveurl and other similar tags that work on Wiki proper, but those weren't recognized here. I'm hoping to go through and fix all these broken links so that the WWII image collection here maintains proper provenance. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the NHHC got a new website about a year ago. The link at the above photo was only pointing to a general site about USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) on the old NHHC website, which does not exist anymore. For example, the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships photo (designation "19-N") 19-N-62694 had the old link "http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/n60000/n62694.jpg". This was changed to "https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nara-series/19-n/19-N-60000/19-N-62694.html" on the new website. There are no redirections. The only way is to use the search function on the NHHC website, like in the photo you mentioned to search for "80-G-323712". Was this helpful? Cobatfor (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I was just asking if it is okay to replace the dead links with current examples from the NHHC page. It is easy enough to find the current links on that site. I just want to make sure that source files can be followed off Wikipedia rather than dead-ending. It seems like this is a major problem for NHHC pictures hosted on Wikimedia, so it'd be a big project, but it'll give me something to do in my downtime. Just wanted to make sure it was okay to simply copy over the old link. Like I said previously, |archiveurl and similar commands that work on Wikipedia proper don't work here. Usually it's standard operating procedure to create a new link (secondary source?) while leaving the dead link behind in order to trace the lineage of the image. If that's not necessary, though, I certainly don't mind simply inserting the active URLs in place of the dead ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finktron (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Revent invented a NHHC template that I recommend to use. We also started to add the photo identification at the end of the photo. This becomes especially useful as the NHHC puts more and more photos online. By the way, I do not see any use in keeping the old links. The whole defenseimagery library was moved to the U.S. National Archives, with totally new file names and links. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

How's this? I applied the kind of template that Revent used on another of his NHHC uploads. If this looks good then I'll continue on my merry way updating the link rotted images as necessary. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, I like the one from Revent better. The problem I see with "title" and "description" is, that for most photographs at the NHHC, the so-called "title" is no title but just the first words of the description which continues in the so-called "description". Also, the "curtesy of" our "donation by" "U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph" is an information that would have to be in "permission" and not in "description", in my opinion. Date: if you use 1944-10 instead of "October 1944" this will show up in other languages in the respective language. Licence: I think the licence should be seperate. I don't know why you added the "Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files |institution=Naval History and Heritage Command". Revent only uses this for the high-res tif-files and not for the jpg/png-derivatives which are often cropped, levels adjusted etc. I'm not the one for wizard/bot uploads, as I like to work on the photos and I check that the description is correct. This is mostly the case at the NHHC, but former defenseimagery photo descriptions are often wrong, for example. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

An example for problematic descriptions: File:USS Ralph Talbot (DD-390) underway in Hawaiian waters, circa in December 1942 (19-N-40190).jpg The description says that the photo was taken circa in January 1943. However, the ship was in Australia at that time. If you read DANFS, than you can see that the photo was taken between mid-November and mid-December 1942. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons-Conference-Projekt

Hallo Cobatfor,

als einer der aktivsten Commons-Benutzer aktuell, hast du vielleicht schon mal von der Idee gehört, einen Konferenz speziell zu Themen, die Commons betreffen zu veranstalten. Wir haben vor kurzen begonnen konkrete Schritte zu unternehmen, eine solche Konferenz tatsächlich stattfinden zu lassen. Wenn Du daran interessiert bis an dieser Konferenz teilzunehmen, sie evtl. sogar mit zu organisieren, oder auch einfach nur die Idee unterstützen möchtest, schaue dir einfach die Projekt-Seite (en), hinterlasse dort deine Ideen und Kommentare und füge deinen Namen der Liste der Interessierten hinzu.

Grüße,

--MB-one (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

File:F3H-2 of VF-14 on USS FD Roosevelt (CVA-42) in 1960.jpg

File:F3H-2 of VF-14 on USS FD Roosevelt (CVA-42) in 1960.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!

Proslinger (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Take Her Down! Drawing of USS Growler (SS-215) on 7 February 1943 (NH 53787).jpg

File:Take Her Down! Drawing of USS Growler (SS-215) on 7 February 1943 (NH 53787).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!

Glrx (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Vought F4U-1 Corsairs of VF-17 in flight, 1943.jpg

Hello Cobatfor. You uploaded this image some time ago, and the source is stated to be the July 15, 1943 BuAer News. Your source link is now dead, but is available at archive.org here. I was going to substitute the archive link, but I looked through that issue and cannot find the image. Could it be from another issue? Or is the scan incomplete?

I have seen the image elsewhere and do not doubt it is an official navy photo, likely taken when VF-17 was working up in 1943.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the links. When the NHHC got a new website, all old links became useless. Nevertheless, you were correct, as the image was from the 1 July 1943 issue, not the 15 July 1943 issue. I also now gave the page number. Thanks and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Grampaw Pettibone thanks you too. But I don't think that even Ike Kepford would claim (as the magazine does) that the Corsair outclassed the Zero in maneuverability. Kablammo (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway map 1959.png

File:Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway map 1959.png 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!

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:USS Wright (CC-2) underway at sea, in June 1963 (NH 97619).jpg

Substantiation for ejection from Retouched by Mbdortmund? Especially abominable with respect to a late Commons member who, obviously, can’t defend himself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Added. Cobatfor (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:F-14A of PTMC with AIM-120 1981.JPEG

Hello. You put the following picture saying that an F-14 will shoot an AMRAMM in 1981, but the first shot of this missile takes place in 1984. Is there an error on the date? --L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I know that data from the photos now available at the U.S. National Archives is unreliable. I found photos from ships with dates when the ships had already been scrapped... However, File:AIM-120 first kill.jpg and also File:F-14 carrying AMRAAM.jpg all give dates in 1981-1982. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Sunday. It was indeed the article in French that was wrong. Sorry to have bothered you. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help! :-) Cobatfor (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

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

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

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

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

File:HMS Eastbourne (F73) visiting Amsterdam on 23 May 1969.jpg

File:HMS Eastbourne (F73) visiting Amsterdam on 23 May 1969.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!

Jcb (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Cobatfor,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I love it. Web Source Self-Management System (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

USS Manatee (AO-58) refuels USS Hancock (CVA-19), in 1962.jpg

Hi, I don't understand what has happened here. You added a new photo [[29]] taken in 1962 where the photo Description states "The U.S. Navy fleet oiler USS Caliente (AO-53) refuels the aircraft carrier USS Hancock (CVA-19), in 1962. Hancock, with assigned Carrier Air Group 21 (CVG-21), was deployed to the Western Pacific from 2 February to 7 October 1962", so I'm not sure why the File is described as USS Manatee (AO-58) refuels USS Hancock (CVA-19) as Caliente and Manatee are different ships. I also don't understand why this photo replaced the photo taken in 1951 described as "USS Manatee (AO-58) refueling the Australian destroyer HMAS Warramunga (D123) in Korean waters on 27 June 1951" regards Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am a little puzzled myself. Originally, there were two versions of File:USS Manatee (AO-58) refueling HMAS Warramunga (D123) off Korea on 27 June 1951 (NH 96261).jpg, a bad one and a better one uploaded by myself. I thought to replace mine with a different photo and keep the other one (updated) to circumvent the duplicate issue. However, I now see that I uploaded a photo of USS Cailente (AO-53) and not of USS Manatee (AO-58). Why? I have no idea. I was absolutely sure, that I uploaded one of AO-58. I must have been blind and completely lost in other things. Thank you for bringing this up! What do we do now? Cobatfor (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how to fix it. Mztourist (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidance Question

Cobatfor, you helped me with best practices previously so I'm hoping you can help me out again. I'd like to go through the NHHC images on Wikimedia and add the NHHC template to help improve image linkage. I've noticed on quite a few pages either the original image or improved images made by users have deadlink issues. Do you think this is warranted? I have the time and inclination to make the necessary changes where it makes sense. I won't bother adding the template to pages that contain the relevant detail in other formats, unless for some reason you think that would be warranted as well. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. A few years ago all NHHC-images got posted in a new structure, also with providing high-resolution TIF-files. The same occured with the moving of the complete "www.defenseimagery.mil" to the U.S. National Archives, resulting in thousands of dead links. The NHHC at least kept the photo-IDs, the NARA didn't. I am trying to update the links by hand, whenever I have time. I also try to upload high-res JPEGs converted from the TIFs, although I edit them first (rotating, levels, removing frame etc.). The only drawback is that some coloured JPEGs posted are only available as b/w TIFs. There, I normally leave the low-res coloured JPEGs, hoping that the NHHC will provide the TIFs in colour in the future. Does this answer your question? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, more or less. I haven't been uploading images as much as fixing previous uploads with updated sourcing information, but it's good to know procedure should I choose to upload additional photos/replacements of lower-res images. I'm actually finding quite a few navsource sources on NHHC photos, so I think my priority is going to be fixing those. There are a few examples I'm finding where it's a navsource link with no corresponding file on NHHC, but I'm not comfortable enough with procedures to tag those images as problematic/nuke them accordingly. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Navsource and the U.S. National Naval Aviation Museum have both provided information that all images are U.S. Navy images, unless marked otherwise. In ealier times, Navsource provided many NHHC photos that were not online at the NHHC, yet. Even today, you'll find NHHC photos at shipscribe.com that are not available at the NHHC. Destroyerhistory.org and usndazzle.com also offer a lot of official photos, not being available at the NHHC or the NARA. User Hian has caused some trouble by bot-uploading hundreds of photos from the National Museum of the U.S. Navy (from flickr) that were already online via NARA. This has created many unneccessary duplicates. Howvever, he also found photos there that are new. Sadly, these are mostly not categorized, which leaves a huge task for others. So there is enough work there, if you have time and patience ... :-) Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:HMS Jervis (G00)

Hello, I notice you moved this category, without explanation. I have queried the move, here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

HMS Jervis sailed as "F00" only for a short time. Commissioned on 8 May 1939, her pennant was changed to "G00" in 1940 until her decommissioning in October 1947. Especially a certain user on en.wikipedia omits the pennant numbers on warships when there was (upt to today) only a single one with that name (USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) to USS Carl Vinson). It is common on Commons to keep the pennant numbers. I know that this may lead to problems, as some ships had their pennant numbers changed (USS Forrestal: CVA-59 -> CV-59 -> AVT-59). It became therefore common on Commons to add "(ship, 19XX)" of so. Mostly the launching date is added, however, some users use the commissioning date (which, I think, would be reasonable). There is, however no common rule for that. Many ships on en.wikipedia also receive names that they never have of had. Americans tend to use the prefix given from the "Jane's Fighting Ships" publication, where any navy receives its English prefix, which is mostly non-existent. French Marine Nationale ships receive the prefix "FS" for "French Ship". Obviously none of these authors ever heard that people in France speak French and not (American) English. "BNS" -> Bangladesh Navy Ship (see BNS Bangabandhu). I think, we should use the prefix used by that country, IF any is used. "F214 Lübeck (ship, 1990)" is such a category that uses pennant number, name, type and commissioning date. Therefore we would need common rules. Cobatfor (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Pennant numbers are unreliable. This category should be named HMS Jervis (ship, 1938)), Reasons given below in my USS Sigourney (DD-81) posting. -Broichmore (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

USS Sigourney (DD-81)

Pennant numbers can change over time, two times is not uncommon and can even be more on occasion. They can and are re-used for later ships. There is general consensus of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Launch dates in category titles, give for chronological listing.

The header of the folder was seeded with name changes for obvious search reasons as was the very title with the word ‘’ship’’. For the same reason I generally put pennant numbers in the header,

Last but not least two of the three images here are for HMS Newport (ship, 1940) True compatibility with Wikipedia's long term aims is therefore USS Sigourney (ship, 1917). Please revert your edit to USS Sigourney (ship, 1917). Thanks -Broichmore (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

File renamed

Hi there! Regarding File:USS Cascade (AD-16) underway in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island (USA), on 15 March 1968 (K-45705).jpg, it's fantastic that you located a higher resolution version of the file, I like it! However, renaming it in this situation did not fall under Criteria 2. That's for truly incomprehensible filenames where no useful information is present (like U.S. military VIRIN codes, for example). Just keep it in mind in the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I know. It was to add the NHHC file number, in a try to standardise NHHC file names. Maybe ist was not really neccessary, as many files are still just the name of the ship LYSpear.jpg- others are just a file number of some source 80-G-1025878 (18231127140).jpg. These files certainly need a renaming. Cobatfor (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2019!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2019}} to your userpage!

Hello! Last year you contributed to Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States. Thanks to people like you it was a great success, with over 1,900 people contributing over 10,000 photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the country. Hundreds of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, improving our open knowledge about United States history, culture, and heritage. If you haven't seen the winners yet, be sure to check them out here.

I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in the United States, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information. Just like last year, you'll be able to upload your photos of any registered historical site in the United States through the end of September (even if the photos were taken before this month).

If you've traveled and taken photos of monuments in non-US countries, you can see if those countries are also participating here.

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018, and we hope to see you again in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Cobatfor,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Cobatfor,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States 2019 – Last day to enter!

This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2019}} to your userpage!

September 30th is the last day to upload photos for Wiki Loves Monuments! We're thrilled that the United States has almost reached 4,000 contributions so far this year. Of these images, ~370 (~9%) have already been used to help illustrate Wikipedia articles and pages on other wiki projects, which is fantastic.

If you've already made a photo contribution this year, thanks so much! If you have any last-minute photos of U.S. historical sites to upload and enter into the contest, today's the day to do it. Check out the United States event page for more information. Judging will take place throughout the month of October, after which the top-ten national finalists will be announced in early November.

If you've traveled and taken photos of monuments in non-US countries, you can see if those countries are also participating here.

As always, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Cobatfor,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Railraod tracks to the torpedo piers at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (USA), on 3 September 1918 (NH 11795).jpg

Copyright status: File:Railraod tracks to the torpedo piers at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (USA), on 3 September 1918 (NH 11795).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Railraod tracks to the torpedo piers at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (USA), on 3 September 1918 (NH 11795).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand where the problem is: "Copyright Owner: Naval History and Heritage Command", that means "United States Navy", see [30] -> "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." Cobatfor (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

File:F-104Cs 475TFS DaNang 1965.jpg

Hello Cobatfor, The above named photograph and description says that the picture is from Danang Air Base in Vietnam. In truth, that picture is actually the flight line at Udon Thani Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. The source? Me, I was stationed with the unit and worked on those exact aircraft. The 479th TFW out of George AFB, California was based at Danang, Vietnam for a while, as well as Taichung (CCK), Taiwan (435th TFS) Udorn Thani air base in Thailand. I was at all four locations with that unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEUCEDOG (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your description: As you can see, the original uploader was Bwmoll3 on the English Wikipedia. He uploaded hundreds of USAF photos scanned (?) at the "United States Air Force Historical Research Agency - Maxwell AFB, Alabama." I just imported the description in 2008. Is the following description correct: F-104Cs of the 435th TFS, 479th TFW at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base? Cobatfor (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bow view of USS Oriskany (CVA-34), circa in 1953.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bow view of USS Oriskany (CVA-34), circa in 1953.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Elisfkc (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revrt to the version with the writing on it? Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

File:152nd Airlift Wing Nevada ANG patch.png

File:152nd Airlift Wing Nevada ANG patch.png 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!

47.224.161.179 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:F2H-3 VF-31 on USS Midway (CVA-41) 1954.jpg

File:F2H-3 VF-31 on USS Midway (CVA-41) 1954.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!

Midwaysailor136 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

a request

I see you have uploaded a number of images of USCG vessels. Unfortunately you are linked to the image's URL, not the URL of the page where you found the image. It is essential that you link to the page containing the image, because other people will look to that page for confirmation that the image was actually released under the image you said it as released under.

Sometimes another contributor can track down the actual description page from the image's URL. It is not always possible. Even when possible, it is generally difficult.

I tried finding the image page for one of those images - without success.

If you are still uploading images PLEASE link to the web page where you found the image, not the URL of the image, itself.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your request. I uploaded the first photos in 2007. Since there are now so many of them, I have no direct recollection which photos you refer to. I humbly admit that in earlier years, I probably only gave the direct link to the photos. I remebmer that many photos by the U.S. National Naval Aviation Museum just vanished from the internet. Even asking the staff did not produce any results as they obviously only employ(ed?) student trainees. The USCG history site was redone a few years ago. Before, they had many PDF files on individual ships (with many photos) that are now gone. At least I do not find them anymore. If you once provided the PDF-link, the wayback machine still find them, if not, they are somewhere lost in space. Today, I always give the site and the link to the individual photo. So, if you can list the photos, I can try to remember, where I found them - and hopefully give the link. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)