User talk:Huntster/Archive 14

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

Hi

is there a single device to request deletion of all images uploaded by an editor? I ask because the editor User talk:Marquess123 has uploaded all his images as a copy and it is taking too long to indicate them one by one. --Lentoster (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Lentoster, yes. Under Preferences > Gadgets, search for "VisualFileChange". This will enable a tool in the "tools" box on the left side of the screen called "Perform batch task". Go to the editor's userpage/talkpage, click that button, make sure "user name" is selected in the drop down menu of the next screen, and click Proceed. You can then select the images you want to nominate, add your rationale, and when you click execute at bottom, it will create a single, large nomination page for all of the images you're nominating.
You can go to Help:VisualFileChange.js to read more about this tool. Hope this helps. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Recovery_of_Dragon_(spacecraft)

Category discussion warning

Recovery of Dragon (spacecraft) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Candidates for merging

Hi, Huntster! There were many problems last days, including my failed attempt with OGV, but at this time I ask you nothing about it. I almost finished to upload all the images from the Ingenuity's RTE color camera looking forward the next step. I intend to make the clickable thumbnail panel which shall replace huge galleries of separate images which overfill some articles. This thumbnail panel shall have a separate designation - having all ~100 images together, in rows and columns, people shall carry out their own estimates upon the quality of these photos. Here is this panel: File:Ingenuity flights color imaging.png

My discovery: NASA may have two, sometimes three versions of the same image! I have no idea why, but the images I uploaded this summer NASA changed the last digit in their names from 1 to 2. Visually they are alike, no color processing. Strange. Anyway, I've come across a lot of 'Candidates for merging'. Here's one pair I bring to your examination:

  1. File:PIA24628-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-AirfieldB-4thFlight-20210430.jpg
  2. File:Ingenuity's Color Camera Spies Helicopter's New Airfield.png

I understand that different formats are not subject to merging. What to do: only to set 'other version' templates on both?

Question 2 - does #2 deserve the PIA template? Cherurbino (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, regarding the files with different digits in their filenames, can you point to an example? This is strange, but maybe there is some reason.
There are two options for the duplicate issue. One: go through the COM:RFD process for each unwanted item, or two: use the {{Otherversion}} template on both copies. Per COM:DUPE, speedy deletion for different file types is not done, and for that same reason it is unlikely that COM:RFD will succeed very often. So, option two will have to suffice unless you enjoy fighting uphill battles. For question 2, yes, you can use the {{NASA-image}} template on both. The ID does not refer to a specific format, but to an image frame. So, that same image in JPG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, or whatever would still warrant the same ID. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Huntster, thank you for the explanation. My conclusion from what you said and future decisions would be as follows: no fightings uphill)), no [[COM:<actions>; for me it's enough to place {{Otherversion}} let the others decide what to do. In extraordinary cases I shall begin with asking your opinion about specific files. For me finding out my own )) opinion turns out to be the most difficult moment. I mean artistic assessments: it’s hard to decide which picture best serves its purpose.
Re: the files with different digits in their filenames - I didn't catch which files you mean. In my example above one filename has no digits at all.
P.S. Concerning your nomination of OGV with Emily's voice: is it necessary for me to support your nomination on the discussion page? — Cherurbino (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, it just takes time to learn best practices and such, but I'm always happy to lend an opinion if desired.
By digits, I was referring to where you wrote "the images I uploaded this summer NASA changed the last digit in their names from 1 to 2."
You can support if you want, but it is absolutely not required. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: regarding the files with different digits in their filenames, can you point to an example? This is strange, but maybe there is some reason (my delayed commnent) — I see these differences only after uploading these files to my computer. The filenames I mean have a strict naming standard. I forgot where I posted the entire 'decifering table' and have not found it up to this time (sclerosis is a bad thing, I know) — but here is a sample I've published this summer. The “last digits” in that sample are J02 where 02 should be the version of file. Usually it is stable, but sometimes I get J02 uploaded instead of J01 from under the same “cover page”. I came across that problem 2 weeks ago when I was uploading files from Ingenuity color camera missing at Commons. Happily I avoided uploading duplicates here because I noticed that a folder I opened for a certain flight was 'overfilled' (e.g. 16 files instead 8). Cherurbino (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino: I understand now, thanks! I do wonder why they change the version numbers for some of these files. Since they are visually identical, I wonder if they are doing something with non-visual components, like EXIF or some other data. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Credits' status

Huntster, sorry for delaying the answer upon the numeric indices included in filenames at NASA storage. Last days I spent for creating a 'two-channel animation' (synchronous display of frames from two cameras) I uploaded yesterday. For today only one small request - please revise my last edit of File:Mars landing sites 2014.jpg description, replacing NASA with ESA-Roscosmos/LSSWG/E. Hauber per this image description. This is the same case you wrote about recently when people use PD-NASA only because the image is at NASA's storage. As you see, there are no verbal traces of NASA at all. MOLA is mentioned in the text but not credited. I did not touch the PD-NASA template though I feel it might be inappropriate in this case. What license template shall be used instead? — Cherurbino (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, I'm not exactly sure what to make of that image, but I'm presuming the base map is from MOLA and all additional editing is from E. Hauber. Not sure where at all Roscosmos comes into play, though. Unfortunately, since NASA works are public domain, any other entity that modifies a work can place copyright against it. Since there's no indication this new work was released by ESA under a free license (see original at https://exploration.esa.int/web/mars/-/53942-exomars-2018-proposed-landing-sites), we have to presume the new copyright is All Rights Reserved. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad that no rights were infringed )). I also added this image to the MOLA category to improve the source. As I understand, all my edits on the page ot this file were correct? Cherurbino (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, there's nothing wrong with your edits at all since the attribution was blatantly incorrect previously, but in my opinion the PD-NASA license cannot really be defended. I'm still thinking about how I should word the DR. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, thank you for the link! I just used it to refresh the image from 2014 to 2019 version. I regret that the source is JPG - there's a twice larger PNG version on this site... Cherurbino (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

My uploaders’ deletion requests

1. Nominated on November 19… maybe I again did not announce this nomination properly?

2. A very specific request: to delete the old version forever to prevent somebody from reverting to it accidentally.

Version to be deleted is time-stamped '13:14, 2 November 2021'

Reason: my fatal fault — didn't notice that animation compiler takes the files from the set I've prepared before for the previous flight. Actually, the animation for it has been uploaded ~2 weeks before, but the system did not catch the duplication. — Cherurbino (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, I've handled these, no problem. In the future, when you are requesting deletion for an error on your own part, you can simply use {{SD|G7|<specific reason>}} to indicate you as the uploader are requesting the deletion. The second parameter can optionally be added to elaborate on the reason, if you desire; especially good to do that if the file has been uploaded for longer than a few days, since technically speedy deletion for G7 is only allowed for a short period after upload, but...that's flexible. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Huntster, thank you! At my end, I've just written above the answer concerning NASA's file naming practice. — Cherurbino (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

“Image credit” vs “author”

First, let me thank you for correcting some entries im my recent upload!

As you may have noticed, in all my uploads of images, which have a 'recommended' (not obligatory) caption from NASA I follow this patern:

  1. write simply “NASA” in the 'author' field of the upload tmplate;
  2. copy the “Image credit: NASA / x / y / z…” line from NASA’s caption as the last line of the 'Description field'.

Your corrections mean, that this way of attribution was wrong. Of course I shall follow your pattern in my future uploads. However I must ask you to help me with filling these gaps in my understanding of the 'legal English' (same case as with the 'sues' and 'appeals').

My treatment was that as the governmental institution and the lender of funds to educational, scientific and other private or mixed institutions like CalTech, ASU etc., NASA is the only 'author'. While the others (CalTech, ASU etc) are the 'co-authors' which must certainly be 'credited' (mentioned) in the comments.

My understanding of the 'legal' grounds for this 'pattern of thanks' was formed upon the comments of the charming Emily Lakdawalla that she wrote 10 years ago at the forum of w:the Planetary Society. Being aware of all Emily's occupations in the Society and the mass media, I always wondered where she took time to run this forum - for >10 years she hold its keys as one of its plenipotentiary Admins.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT

The question of copyright comes up frequently, which is why I posted a page about it. The page includes suggested credit lines for all spacecraft cameras I could think of.

The short version: All NASA mission images are in public domain and copyright free. It is not required by law, but is considered proper and polite, to give credit to NASA, the NASA Center, and any academic institutions involved in managing the instrument. Once someone else has made a derivative work that substantially modifies the original (such as a mosaic), that person DOES hold copyright, and their permission must be sought for reuse.

Was she right in her treatment of copyright of those who perform the derivative work (e.g. mosaics or panneau from several images)? Cherurbino (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason of this question are the maps like this which are published on the forum of Emily. They are the derivate work from NASA's/ASU HiRISE maps. May I upload them to Commons on the condition of mentioning the cartographer (Phil Stooke) in the line 'Image credit'? Cherurbino (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, thanks for asking about this, I'll try to break it down as best I can.
NASA formats credit lines in specific ways. They usually take the form of "NASA/project/PI agency/author" or "NASA/contract agency", such as NASA/CXC/UC Berkley, NASA/JPL, NASA/JHUAPL, NASA/MSSS, etc. It is understood that 'agency' is working under contact with NASA, where the contract provides that NASA's governmental public domain applies to their work. Now, nuances abound of course. This format primarily applies to works created as part of a specific science mission, so when you see photographs of the SLS, for example, they may be credited to just "The Boeing Company". While the rocket is being produced as part of a contract, in this case it is a product being purchased, so photographs made by Boeing employees are not public domain. Copyright is absurdly complicated, and there are a ton of edge case scenarios that simply require experience to try and figure out. Remember, if there is doubt, then follow our precautionary principle and either ask or just don't upload.
As to the main question, Emily is absolutely correct in her statements. If you make a creative work based on a NASA image, you can claim copyright over that specific work. The underlying NASA material will still be public domain, but anything you've added to it is protected. So no, derivative works like the HiRISE modification you mentioned may not be uploaded to Commons unless they themselves have been released under a free license.
The "author" parameter is just a simplified method to accommodate a wide variety of situations we may face here. It works fine when the work is by a single artist, but it can become more confusing in situations like with NASA. Just keep things simple and use whatever attribution NASA supplies. Sorry for being so long-winded here, hopefully it makes sense. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for spending a lot of time for this extended, comprehensive explanation!
Now I continue with my trivial work. Thank you very much again!
P.S. FYI: Last October Emiy resigned from all her public activities. The reason is more than respectable - planets are good but chidren are always closer. Two figures in red coats and blue NASA's caps at her small avatar are her two daughters. They are growing up (around 11 and 14 now), so Emily decided to dedicate herself to their upbringing at the important pre-universitary stage. A brilliant teacher, lecturer and pedagog herself, Emily understands that distant learning must be supported with the eye-to-eye contact and personal presence. Of course, elder colleagues like me shall be missing her virtual support. But were I her father (I belong to the generation of her parents) I should be always proud with such a daughter )) Cherurbino (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, yes, she is an inspirational individual! She really loves her kids. Though, I wonder if when they're old enough if she'll jump on the next tourism flight into space? :) — Huntster (t @ c) 12:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
))))
And I'm proud to report that I've improved the file which some time ago you, in your turn, improved after DrBogdan:File:USGS-PlanetMars-TopographicalMap.png. What is strange from the technical p.o.v., is that you got larger PNG size in bytes for a smaller picture in pixels in the same 256-color indexed mode.
Tomorrow I intend to make a crop out of it, with no titles around (grades only) for using it as a background for the special map for the climate zones and the landing sites ony for those landers, which performed the functions of meteostations. Cherurbino (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Very nice. Regarding the file sizes, I can see the visual differences between the two images when I zoom in. It's been so long that I don't know precisely what I used, but it's a less strict colour palette. I can see the speckling effect in mine versus the uniform colour stepping in yours. Doesn't really matter though, so long as it gets the job done. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Huntster! Could you comment the license status of this nice image?

  • pro’s: credits to 'NASA/JPL/ASU' are explicitly written in the right bottom corner.
  • contra’s: it's not me who cropped it out of this big-big file mentioned in the opposite corner at the bottom. Of course, I could do that using the ASU viewing utility (this summer I've downloaded here the images extracted with this tool). The version ESP_071077_1985 here is another crop which covers less terrain. But the main obstacles are the inscriptions 'Perseverance' and 'Ingenuity' with arrows: their 'author' is the one who posted the file at USF.

Is it enough to mention only the link to the USF in the field 'source of the file'?

Cherurbino, while I do not believe simply adding text to the public domain work would be enough to create a new copyright, there's also factors like framing to consider. Yes, it would probably still be considered PD-NASA because there's little creativity involved, but it would be safer to contact the poster and confirm they are releasing their copyright. Making assumptions is bad form, especially with regard to copyright. I'm personally of the mind to recreate it with the RGB Color Non-Map version, since it offers better colors than the IGB version they used. If you wish, I can take care of it this evening when I'm home from work (since I cannot installed HiView there). — Huntster (t @ c) 12:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  1. The color. I'm also the adherent of strict color schemes in mapping. That's why I praise Phil Stooke’s maps in 256 gray and hate the schizophrenic coloring of early MOLA maps (happily USGS has better taste). But this image is a different case. After I converted it into b/w, Perceverance disappeared ((, and even thick arrows cannot help to find it. => I shall not download the raw b/w versions instead. (question: what is the "IGB version"? I'm not so experienced)
  2. Writing the USF member who uploaded. It's a very good idea, and it could be even better if I manage to convince him to register at Wiki and upload the image himself. I think that I shall do that later in the evening, promisinh him to 'catch' his upload to correct mistakes in filling the required fields.

So, thank you for the offer of spending your evening time )) - lets begin from my end. I shall first write him this evening, and wait for his answer. The case of this photo is not so urgent in the sence that an extra week does not matter Cherurbino (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, I'm dumb and meant the Merged RGB JP2 Extra file rather than IGB, located at https://www.uahirise.org/ESP_071077_1985. It's a simple export from HiView and then a pass through an image editor to fix orientation and add labelling. It's your project, so I'll follow your lead. Let me know if there's anything I can do. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Huntster, for the inspiration! I did it myself! (Luckily, I was too tired when writing a PM to a guy from USF, and sent the letter to myself)))). This is my version, without explicit inscriptions. Only arrows: File:Perseverance and Ingenuity wait out the solar conjunction.png. On October 7 the new article of the Perseverance / Jezero think tank was published in the "Science", so I am sinking in the Jezero lake article. Lot of things to be corrected and even written anew… - Cherurbino (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, please forgive me, but I thought Ingenuity was the dot to the northwest of your indicator? See https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/ and select helicopter waypoints in layers. Good luck with the Jezero article...things change so rapidly with these missions I'd be hopelessly lost trying to keep up. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Huntster. As for Ingenuity placement. This morning I compiled a larger map from HiRise and understood that the guy from USF was mistaken. The shade in a form of the cross is not Ingenuitty, so by October 14th I shall upload another picture wot correct arows. I also prepared a combo mosaic using HighView whether both Perseverance and its parachute are shown. But all that only on 14th. — Cherurbino (talk)
Cherurbino, I'm sorry for your loss, but at the same time, remember and cherish the time spent and the memories formed. I'm glad you were able to bond over the sciences, and remember them through your work. I understand the difficulty in working on articles at times, I'm dealing with health issues as well. It's honestly why I find it easier on me, and a bit more fulfilling, to work on Wikidata, because it can be done a little bit at a time. I just like the process of finding the information.
As for the image, I look forward to seeing it. And as offered before, if I can help with anything, please let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Huntster! October 14 has come, and both illustrations are already uploaded:

UPD: another good news is this edit. I invited an expeienced specialist from USF to review the errata to the French source that I printed in the description, and asked him to correct everything he finds improper. As the only thing he corrected was my English syntax )), I consider it as the verification of the correctness of my errata statement )). Cherurbino (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, nicely done, they look great! — Huntster (t @ c) 16:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Marsquake!!! )))) File:Jezero sol 0089 Mastcam-Z 229°-231° 16-13 LMST.gif. Another way to make people feel the 3-D. Now I have the full set of 3 interlinked photos to be used later (not now!) in explanations, how the team of Perseverance catches the objects for future examination from the panoramic series. — Cherurbino (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, that's great! I thought I'd add to the fun and created a red-cyan anaglyph and a cross-eyed stereogram. Found a program called 3Dcombine which automates the process, really neat. Let me know how those two work for you. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Huntster, above the aesthethics I have to thank you for the new entry in my glossary, that is the cross-eyed stereogram. Now I know how to call it properly, and know the template to place on these kind of images. Also thank you for the 3D-processing link - now I know where is the mint at which colleagues from USF coin out their anaglyphs )). In reward let me share with you a bit of my 'guild secrets')) of my processing images from Perseverance.
1. Not only the 'black frame' has to be cropped, but, in addition, no less than 8 pixels at the left, right and top borders within this frame. They contain the color noise.
2. Never use JPG in the intermediate savings. Swich to BMP from the very first step: this format is simple and transparent for all image-processing software.
3. For paired (and longer series) of images which you intend to use in the GIF animation. Do nothing only if you are sure that the raw is originally 256 grays (like in standard 640x480 NAV frames from NASA). In all other cases help the animation software with the conversion in 256-bit: the algorithm they use is not ideal. For my color animations I do the following: put all the frames together, one after another, into one big file to be converted to 256 colors. Only in this case I may be sure that the program shall use the same solution for the slightly different pixels from two frames. After cutting this 'sausage' back to the separate images (<=256 clrs each) I may be sure that proceeding to frame #2 the animation soft shall not correct the matrix it creates from the first frame.
Specifically for Perseverance panorama sets. The optics of left and right Mastcam cameras is set at a slightly different distance from the object. When I concatenate a set of images into a single panorama, the frames are positiones as the staircase (4-16 pixels each step). Moreover, the horizon may have the inclination. If you disregard these factors, you may get wiggling in all directions - see sample 1 from USF.
What helped to achieve the really professional result in their sample 2? My answer: the pre-procession aimed at restoring of the horizon level. "Sample 1" wiggles around the point at the center of the frame, while on "sample 2" the whole horizon is steady.
In the case of specific pair I worked with, the roll of horizon between the frames was 0.5 degrees. Rolling the picture is always the loss of original pixel colors. I know that the calculation of the value of the new color involves the averaging with the color values of the adjacent pixels. My two last secrets for today:
4. Always enlarge the image before rotation. Use only the integer ratios for enlargement: 2x, 4x etc.
5. Divide the inevitable pixel correction between two image frames. In my case, I divided 0.5 degrees in two halves)) and rotated one image 0.25 CW, and another 0.25 CCW
6. Crop the white triangles that appear in the corners after rotation, leaving no half-colored pixels.
7. Before diminishing the image to original size ensure, that both H and W may be divided to 4 leaving no remainder. Crop the excess 1-3 pixels from any side of the picture: it also helps the algorithm of size decreasing, otherwise it has to deal with the empty row(s)/column(s) on the edges of its inner matrix.
Thank you again for your help to my project! Cherurbino (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
NASA + Flikr

Hi, Huntster! In the further development of this useful thread (and in partial replacement of unrelated info with the actual questions):

Image: File:Jezero sol 0136 Mastcam-Z mosaic (S).jpg
Question. I always compile mosaics myself. They may be (and are) ugly due to the overlays of 'dirty skies' at the borders, but they are mine)). Today is the first time when I couldn't resist the temptation to download a state-of art compilation which resides both at Flikr and at NSF. This is also my first experience in using Flikr, so I kindly ask you to correct my inevitable errors in filling the upload form.

  1. The compiler, somebody Iñaki Docio, explicitly wrote 'Public domain' of his Flikr page. One could blame him for forgetting to mention NASA))), but I but I fill this gap for him, and in my turn I would not like to forget to mention him as the contributor. Is my record in the 'Image credit' line correct?
  2. Image was dated automatically per the EXIF of the source file. As a rule I don't touch such data. However there's a slight 1-day difference with the NASA's official description. Sometimes you added 'Image taken' template to my uploads. Is it technically possible to store both dates, without deleting the EXIF info?

Thanks in advance, Cherurbino (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino:
1) There is no need to have an "Image credit" and "Author" line. For Commons, Author is a catch-all. It is perfectly acceptable to use "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU/Iñaki Docio" in the Author field, as that will allow the machine-readable underlying code to be useful to outside systems that scrape Commons for data. (Note my addition of "ASU", as that is what the source pages on NASA.gov use.) Or, you could use "NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU, stitching by Iñaki Docio" (or something like that) to make it apparent that Iñaki Docio modified the original material. Since they released under public domain, you can technically credit (or not) in any way you choose. Of course, being accurate in what you present is, to me, the most important thing.
2) It is possible to include whatever data you want in the Date field, but EXIF data should not always be treated as gospel. Sometimes it is simply wrong, for a variety of reasons. If you know that a particular date/time is correct, then it is absolutely okay to supersede what the EXIF contains. That said, if you really want to keep it, just preface each data with an asterisk on a new line. i.e.:
*{{taken on|2021-11-09}}
*2021-11-10 (EXIF data)
That said, you can know using the EXIF data here is inappropriate because it includes a precise second. This is a compilation of a lot of photos, all taken at different times, so such precision is wrong.
3) Also, when linking to source data, try to avoid linking to the image itself. Link to the data page, like this: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/ZR0_0136_0679021127_056ECM_N0051572ZCAM08143_048085J so that end users can more easily access such details themselves.
4) Also also, why not use the 8993 pixel version from Flickr? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: 1,2,3) — corrected and adjusted. Including +ASU, although it is not mentioned in the semi-insiders' NASA source with full image attributions which I use. These attributions are 'hidden' behind each photo and may be copied after placing the cursor above each photo. The recommended image-credit line is always included in the raw format (almost unknown today) where 'line feed - carriage return' symbols are encoded with the "\n\n" sequence. Also thank you for the sample of filling date in two lines: I am always afraid to experiment with wiki templates.
Re: 4) why not use the 8993 pixel version from Flickr? — it's unbeleivable ))), but I'm a newbie in Flickr. Moreover, I shall never go there because it 'sucks', meaning it's very slow for my computer. So thank you very much for this lifehack with Flickr's photo sizing - now it looks even greater I could expect. This mosaic is really terrific: it helps me to re-explain in words the specifics of this section of rover's route. (I started re-improving the 'Jezero' article because now it is nominated to the "Article of the year" )). — Thank you! Cherurbino (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, while I appreciate the RoverPics project, the original data source (aka, the raw image files at NASA.gov) should be the ultimate arbiter of how to credit. I don't know why there would be a discrepancy between the two in this situation. Regarding Flickr, I understand your issues. If you ever run across a file that you have difficulty loading, let me know and I will assist. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
NASA + ESA

Huntster, thank you for the clarification! On my behalf, I also have some interesting things to tell you upon the hierarchy of NASA's image sources, but I'm afraid that my discourse shall be very long. This I postpone it to the better times, and at this time ask you the more urgent question. It's the license for File:Sample Fetch Rover (pre-decision, 2021).png. File source is NASA, 90% of its pages is JPL, but my image appears on the page under the double branding: ESA and NASA. Is it correct to put two license templates together, NASA + ESA like I did? — Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino: so, I'm concerned about this image. While there's no indication either way in that PDF, the only other place I found it was at https://danielmarin.naukas.com/2021/09/12/perseverance-consigue-recoger-las-primeras-muestras-de-marte-que-seran-enviadas-a-la-tierra/, where it's credited to ESA. Where they got that information, I don't know. Besides that, I've seen similarly styled images credited to both ESA and Airbus. I don't quite feel there's enough evidence to say it is actually NASA's, but...I don't know.
The licenses, though, are a concrete problem. {{ESA}} can only be used when an image is specifically released under a CC-by-sa-3.0-IGO license. As in, the credit line and license will be specifically mentioned by the image, as shown for this image. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Tecnically, both images, 'american/PDF' and 'spanich/site' are either identical or have a common JPG ancestor: after I fill the pure-white background with a contrast color, the shape of remaining pseudo-white and the 'jpg dirt' around the inscriptions is the same. I also may guess that the 'grandfather' image was a CAD vector file, later exported to the worst JPG format.
I understand the irrationality of the situation: spanish source does not clarify the ESA license details while NASA places only twin logo without mentioning ESA verbally at all.
My proposal: I remove ESA license template at all and write somewhere (tell me where?) the verbal acknowledgement of ESA participation instead. (Image credit: NASA/JPL… ESA participation acknowledged). Reason: NASA's origin and location of the document supposes all the licence rights on behalf of NASA which supercede the public domain level of the source granted to NASA by their European partner. — Cherurbino (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino, yep, that was my supposition. In this day and age, it's always a mystery why people use such awful compression for images like this. Oh well.
While in this particular situation I will support calling the image PD-NASA (primarily because NASA is the contracting agency for the rover, rather than ESA), I want to strongly caution against using the logic of "image was found on NASA.gov, so it must be PD-NASA". This has been proven wrong time and time again, especially on the NSSDCA website...they routinely post illustrative images of spacecraft without attribution that actually come from Russian or other sources, but people make the assumption that they are public domain because they found the image on NASA.gov. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Done (only PD-NASA left) and thank you for the profound consultation. — Cherurbino (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: awful compression — Although Emily might be a little bit jealous )), I could not hold the desire to improve the JPG faults from the source image of this, no less beautiful girl… I typologize both of them as cosmic girls attractive without cosmetics — File:Julia Goreva, NASA-ASU.png. Now her photo decorates my "Jezero crater" for understandable)) reasons.
I advocate 'ordinary' people like Julia: they are too occupied with their main job and do not worry about updating the image in their personal folder (I think it was the photo for the ASU badge). But I find no excuses for NASA/JPL when they compress to JPG files for their PIA catalogue. For this reason yesterday I rejected DrBogdan's upload and re-created the image in PNG (File:The Montdenier borehole in the Rochette target rock (cf PIA24805).png) to use it as a source for the cropped image. — Cherurbino (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Rather than being forced to manually recreate the image with raw files, I've found the TIFF images available alongside the JPGs in the Photojournal do not suffer any compression issues, so you could convert TIFF to PNG. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I experimented with their TIFFs and did not find byte differences with 'full-color PNGs'. (I again postpone a wide & deep discourse about NASA's JPG; only mention that their PNG's from rovers are… derivatives from JPG's created on board of rovers from original byte arrays obtained from camera's matrix). Worst is the case with DrBogdan's image: he really did not have alternative in choosing format - look at the catalogue page for PIA24805: only JPG (((.
My yesterday's File:The “Brac” rock target in Jezero crater on Mars.png was not the recreation. I created this mosaic in the same time with File:Borehole in the “Brac” rock target.png but did not upload it here until I know the names for both holes. Why did I finally hurried with this upload with a not-very-descriptive name? The reason is here. Looking for the names, I found this mosaic just uploaded to flickr by one on the USF forum members. Note that he cannot be blamed for being overly modest - he claims simply: ©All rights reserved by Thomas Appéré))). That moved me to upload my version to Commons asap in order to send him a link: "Hi, Thomas! Nice looking! And here is my version" ))) — 21:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Cherurbino (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino: Oh, certainly all their images are derived from files transmitted by the rovers in a compressed format. That's only natural given the constraints of the interplanetary communication system. Still, the TIFFs are superior to the JPGs that JPL produces. Regarding the image in question, and similar images: if you see an image with an image formatted as PIA#####, just do a google search on that ID and look for "NASA's Photojournal" or copy/paste https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA#####, filling in the number as appropriate. That link will almost always provide a full resolution TIFF file that you can convert. (Aka: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA24805) TIFFs are acceptable on Commons as well, they just aren't as universally usable as PNGs.
Regarding the Flickr image...you get 'em! I hate seeing NASA public domain material transmuted into an All Rights Reserved. It just irks me. Nicely done, and thank you for your continued work. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
NASA + Twitter

Huntster, a week ago you taught me the url syntax to access the credits' page for images posted in Flikr. Is there a similar way to obtain license info (and the best size) for images in Twitter? My object of interest are two photos of this twit:

Holder of the account, 65dbNoise, is apparently the JPL team member which makes me hope for his maximum transparency and honestness in describing his image uploads. However the only way to verify these hopes is to visit the relevant description page. — Cherurbino (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, see https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4GHfchWUA0_4cl?format=jpg&name=orig. If you add "&name=orig" (or change whatever "name" is prior) to a raw twitter image, it should always give you the full size image. Sadly, Twitter strips all EXIF data, so there is no way to obtain 'original' license info. Twitter is, unfortunately, an image source I hold as off-limits because it is so difficult at times to know license or proper attribution. I've advised others (especially new users who don't really understand copyright) on multiple occasions to simply avoid Twitter altogether for images.
I'm not sure if you're aware of https://areo.info/mars20/, but he does great image processing work. I've sent them an email to ask if they are releasing these processed images under a Commons-compatible license. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Huntster, your link to areo.info was the balsam which healed the wounds I suffered (see below). Images apart (as pieces of art they are wonderful, however I shall not download any of them here), from my POV the highest value of this site is its methodology. It is the accurate log of all image-taking events, of camera enhancements etc. Maybe I shall reference this site in my „Ingenuity“'article to make it available to wiki readers looking for artistic images. Thank you!
Uncertainty with Twitter images' status. It hit me in the center of my heart creative brain-chip. It undermined my plans to revise all the illustration concept of the “Flights” section of the „Ingenuity“'article. Time goes, each new month is expected to bring 2 new color sets the value of which decreases in full accordance with the law of Marginal utility (off-wiki I am the world economy history writer al primo).
Last week I downloaded a thumbnail set. I already started finding best words in my mind to kindly ask DrBogdan to assist me in creation of the <imagemap> template. (Instead of that yesterday I appeared at his talk page with a proposal to enhance the template he created ))). The final goal of this sub-project is to show tre readers how it works in reality. Not in the fairy tales widely spread by unscrupulous journalists where Ingenuity (its team) 'finds himself new landing locations' without any support from Perseverance and even without HiRise maps from ASU. The twin image from this twit speaks for itself revealing the process of choosing the next landing site for the 'copter. That's why I try to find the logic which may support me in downnloading these items.
  1. The rights for the canvas of both images are known: they are PD-NASA + ASU, JPL and etc.
  2. The man from Twitter used these 'canvases' in the same way that me, Chinapradkhan and some others do: he drew some schemes above.
  3. This man had a right to add the line with credits, as we have already seen in lots of another images (NASA/JPL/.../Mister X). The fact he didn't claim his rights verbally and posted the images in the social network that has no interface for stating these rights allows us to consider the status of derivative work to be equal with the status of the 'canvases' he used.
What is your opinion about my treatment? — Cherurbino (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
UPD: An interesting discussion, isn't it))? What is your opinion upon the legacy of maps of Phil Stooke he publishes on USF? Can he be attributed as a 'verifiable expert' for Wikipedia given the fact that the link to the list of his books is included in his USF profile? — Cherurbino (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino: unfortunately the author at aero.info has decided to not release his images under a free license at this time. He said he will reconsider in the future, but he is concerned about increased load on his website creating additional out-of-pocket costs, which is understandable. However, since he does give insights into his processing, you might glean some ideas for yourself.
Regarding Twitter, your concept has some problems. By default, any creative work beyond the threshold of originality automatically has full copyright applied to it upon creation. Marginal utility, if I understand your application of it, plays no part in whether copyright is present or not. Nor does a lack of stated license or credit line have any bearing on whether something is freely licensed. An author has to specifically release their work under a Commons-compatible license for us to use it. Using 65dBA as an example, I fully believe his works to be above the threshold of originality because he isn't simply taking a public domain image and adding minor tweaks. He is carefully mapping out flight plans and tracks, all of which takes significant effort to produce. This generates a new copyright for his works, even though the base product he is using is a public domain work.
The first step should always be to simply ask that author if they are willing to license their work freely. Just as I did with Mr. Isenberg at aero.info, I have asked 65dBA if he licenses his images in a Commons-compatible manner. Should he say he does, then I will determine which credit line he would prefer, and when uploading I would reference the link to our conversation in the Permissions parameter of the {{Information}} template.
Regarding Phil Stooke and USF: while I believe Mr. Stooke can be considered someone reliable, we can not use forums as references under any circumstance. That has been a hard rule on en.wiki for almost the entire 17 years I've been there.
I really hate throwing roadblocks against the ideas you have. I feel bad about it, because I know it limits your own creativity and productivity. But we have to abide by certain standards, be they the rules established on a Wiki project or the copyright laws that govern all of our creative works. Otherwise, I think you know by now that I'll support your work, and that of others, in improving our various Wiki projects in any way I can so long as its possible to do so. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Huntster: I start parsing your answer from the end because this issue concerns me most of all. To avoid misunderstanding my far-from perfect English, I shall answer not only for you, but by neccesity to those who may have misinterpreted my efforts to bring verifiable information to Wikipedia.
  1. I never did and do not have intents for future to quote anybody from any forums. Thus I consider the warnings of my opponent at the Talk page as unaddressed and based upon exaggerations of what I really do.
    (*) the question of uploading had been resolved long time ago. You may remember: I invited him to Wiki → he refused → the issue is removed from the agenda. Now I draw maps myself which is enough for Wiki.
  2. Similarly, in the hypothetic case somebody from USF shall answer me: «yes, we changed the enumeration» — if somebody expects from me that I shall immediately write about it in the article with the reference to the forum ))), I shall take this at least as humoristic remark however not based upon my actual edits etc. BTW Chinapradkhan who initially raised the issue with letter "J" deserves all praise for his attentivess! I did not notice that "J" in the Flight log, DonFB did not notice it (and did not correect the article) - Chinapradkhan noticed and raised the question! And as you see on the Talk page, my advise to C. was only to follow the discussion at USF in order to get the explanation.
It's time for the late evening coffee glass of water with a medicine against pressure… head is aching((.
Last news must be positive. Here's one: my template is ready! (no need to bother DrBogdan!) Now I must ask somebody whether it can be moved to Commons to be available for all wikies. — Cherurbino (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I continue.
Re: Marginal utility, if I understand your application of it, plays no part in whether copyright — No!!! Sorry, it's entirely my fault in your misunderstanding at that point!!! I should have begun a new paragraph to divide this "thought stream" )).
I applied this principle exclusively to the incoming flow of Ingenuity's images. From Flight#3 it was wonderful, from Flight#9 maybe nice… but now 9 photos from Flight #16 are expected… if you look at the gallery of my "Compendium" template you may agree that this becomes more and more dull. At this point I understand some moderators who stop editors from overfilling galleries in articles. Besides all, it's also a burden to the page display engine. My template may be a compromiss solution: "all in one", only one image uploaded, and those seeking specifically for images have a type of supermarket catalogue at their eyes. Cherurbino (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: I have asked 65dBA — I cross my fingers. If he agrees, that may dramatically change the concept of the "Flights" section. No more dull orange fields indistinguishable from each other - only human drawings revealing the engineers' thought! Cherurbino (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino: I apologize for continuing to misunderstand the situation with USF.
The template looks great! Unfortunately Commons cannot host templates for sharing amongst other wikipedias as a technical issue. I assume it has to do with there being no real way to selectively pick which languages are shared with which projects -- it's either all or, well, all. It's definitely inconvenient. While we don't know how long Ingenuity will survive, we know it won't be indefinitely. Perhaps once no more images are being returned, and the template is essentially stable and static, it could be copied to whichever Wikis you want, and then a Wikidata entry can be made linking all the instances together for easier tracking.
Now I fully understand what you were referring to with "marginal utility", thanks. Yes, at some point you just have to artificially limit yourself to an arbitrary number of images per event, and as the number of events increases, that limit may eventually decrease to a single, best representative image. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Huntster: today I gonna set a record of laconism )) Or at least to make the step towards it ))).
Re: the situation with USF (+ enumeration of flights, photos etc) — I'm afraid it's an offtopic to your Talk page where people come for answers of licensing. I am always ready to answer more than I'm asked, you know )). Compromiss solution: if you open the subpage in your user's space, where I shall not feel myself a sort of spammer, I may invite there Schrauber5 from Germany to be an expert for my assumptions — I know him both at Wiki and at the third sites and highly estimate his knowledge. Thus we could arrange a really international discussion point (Chinapradkhan is assumed by default, he is always welcomed).
Re: templates — it's a pity that they cannot be universalized. I shall not make the copy for en-wiki until 'moderators' of the "Ingenuity" article shall explicitly ask me about it.
Re: marginal utility — I look at my template as an instrument for choosing that "single, best representative image". Only a minority of readers know about catalogues at Commons - I show them the way. Articles' "decoration" is a job for us, editors. But there are tens, maybe hundreds of readers who, for example, may want to find pairs for anaglyphs etc. — Cherurbino (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huntster/Archive_14&oldid=617863085"