Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry21:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the i.d. For many of us the difference between a Bey and a Shah and Tunis or Persia is of little consequence! Are you able to make a reference to some published source for this identification? If you can do that and add a note on the notes to the image that would be very welcome. Anyway, many thanks, 08:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Heh, all those Middle Eastern royal titles can be confusing! Personally my real concern was that a photo of a supposed Type 3 looked a hell of a lot like the Type 4, of which only one example was supposed to have been made! Unfortunately, I have no published source to go on. I could find no other example of this photo online which might clarify matters, nor could I find any other reference to the Shah of Persia getting a Peugeot in that period, though that could be a situation of "proving a negative". It's even possible that what I'm claiming to be a misidentification may have itself come from an erroneous printed source; not all authors do their homework thoroughly. I think the only sure way of getting this citeably clarified may be to ask Peugeot's Sochaux museum for help tracking down the source and context of the old photo.
What struck me, however, was the remarkably close resemblance between the Type 4 in the Sochaux museum and the car shown in the photo. Inconveniently for us, none of our Commons images show the side of the Type 4 seen in the photo, but I did find a few non-free images of the Type 4 which do show that side: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Older black-and-white photography can have different color sensitivities than modern color photography (see orthochromatic photography vs. panchromatic film): blue-hued areas tend to be lighter than red-hued ones, so shadings can look different. Despite this, the shapes of the markings, decoration patterns, and other car details in the old photo and the modern ones are completely identical. As far as I can see, the photo car and the Type 4 in Sochaux look almost exactly the same; the only differences (such as the rear tires, wheel hubs, and absence of a horn on the steering column) could be attributed to changes which took place during restoration for display. This identical decoration seems extremely unlikely if these were two separate cars custom-built for different monarchs, who generally aren't known for slavish imitation.
One other thing strikes me about the old photo. At first I assumed it predated delivery (the source dates it as 1893), but then I noticed something in the middle right background. That object marked with the "Peugeot" logo looks like a truck, not from the early 1890s, but from a couple of decades later. (In fact, I think it may be carrying a car in its bed, mostly covered by a tarp, and if you look closely, both of those vehicles appear to have steering wheels.) The Bey of Tunis who received the Peugeot Type 4 died in 1902, and his heir only outlived him by a few years. The Type 4 obviously must have been returned to Peugeot somehow in order for it to end up in their museum, and I'm wondering whether this could have happened quite early, with this photo being taken around that time. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should not have troubled you I should have looked and seen Wikimedia holds other photos of the car. I should think everything in your response is true. I'd guess the photo we talk about is out the back of the museum after redecorating the vehicle, don't you. I think the truck and its cargo are very old vehicles when photographed and my guess, no more than a guess, would be 1930s to 1950s for the date of the photo. Sorry I've caused you to risk getting sore fingers! Regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's no problem; I often tend to write detailed responses that try to cover all the bases. :) As for your ideas about where and when the photo was taken, the museum project didn't start until 1982 and it didn't open until 1988, so I'd assume these were Peugeot industrial facilities at the time. My own impression was that the truck was simply a Peugeot transport truck that happened to be in the shot, so I was thinking of a time frame closer to the 1910s or 1920s. I appreciate the quick reply. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't think I know cars well in general—I'm much better with some other subjects, such as aircraft. But I had recently been spending some time studying the evolution of the Model T, whose appearance changed greatly during its two decades of life, and realized I could do a lot to sort out and clarify the undifferentiated mass of Model T photos on Commons. (Plus I can be a wee bit compulsive. :) ) The Model T Ford Club of America (mtfca.com) has an online encyclopedia which is enormously helpful in understanding the Model T's history and identifying specific years and models.
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.
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.
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.
I found your upload of a photo of the very goofy Vickers Vulcan, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vickers_Vulcan_Type_61_G-EBET_(148227972).jpg. I wanted to replace it with a higher-resolution copy, but the "Upload a new version of this file" system fails - a change was made in September to limit the feature to the file's original uploader and users with autopatrol rights. I can request rights manually on a per-file basis, but that would be a pain in the hoop to do for more than a few images, and I think you've uploaded more than a few from the NLA's "Trove" archive.
The jpegs the NLA give out willingly are low-resolution and very compressed, but you can use https://dezoomify.ophir.dev/ to get a single file from the tiles their image viewer uses (if you go to use it at any point, the system the Trove site uses is "Seadragon (Deep Zoom Image)"). I ended up submitting the file as a new upload, mostly so I could link it here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vickers_Vulcan_G-EBET,_1923.jpg - for if you'd like to save it and submit it as a new version yourself. And I thought you might find the tool handy in future - it's silly that they only give out low-quality files even for photos in the public domain which their servers are already sending out, the only way they're meaningfully different from a high-resolution version is that they're more likely to frustrate. One cookie (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the much higher resolution version, and for the tip on getting those! Actually, I think it's might be better that it was uploaded as a new version rather than overwriting mine. It's no trouble to switch the article to use it, and I've just done so, since the new version is so much better.
And yeah, that airplane is an absolute hoot, isn't it? You should read this great account of QANTAS's brief (very brief) fling with the Vulcan. Key quote: "At 500 feet we just stuck there; not another inch of climb could Wigglesworth get out of her." :) Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask you not to crop my pictures this way:
File:Spiziapteryx circumcincta Spot-winged Falconet, Chancaní Natural Reserve, Córdoba, Argentina 02 (cropped).jpg
It is simply awful, leaving a crop with no margins from the beak to the tail.
I upload my pictures to Commons license 4.0 expecting users have a good sense to edit them, definitely not this way.
Hope you understand. Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hector Bottai: First of all, I should thank you for providing your two very nice photographs of this bird, the only such photos which we currently have on Commons. (A bird completely inaccessible to someone like me who lives about 10,000 kilometers away in northern California!)
How about this revised crop, to the right? It's only a small change from my first one, but perhaps it's a bit better?
I should be clear that I certainly have nothing aesthetically against your original photo's composition. My intention when cropping this photo is only to produce a "tight zoom" on the subject itself. In places like the taxobox of a Wikipedia article, the chosen image will be shrunk to fit in a very small amount of space, and the only way to allow the reader of the article to see the subject as clearly as possible, while still being able to simultaneously read the article text, is to have a tight zoom for this image.
But maybe I overdid it the first time. Such things are partly matters of taste, and I am only one person, with a tendency towards obsessive-compulsiveness.
What would you prefer, if you were someone who has never heard of this bird before and wants simply to find out what it is and what it looks like by checking Wikipedia? Keep in mind this person may not be particularly savvy with how computers or Wikipedia work, and may not even know to click on an image to see a larger version, let alone to look up other related images and so on. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comprehension. This is what I would do for cropping, leaving a margin of at least the width of the bird body; meaning you are showing at least a little part of the enviroment. Additionally, I try to use some standard frame, 3x4 in the example.
@Hector Bottai: How about this (on the left side)? It captures the original photo's full height, while being wide enough for a generous margin around the bird. (This does require the image aspect ratio to be wider than 3x4, but that can't be avoided if you want such margins.) Past this point there's really no more environment to be shown other than blue sky. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I reuploaded that improved crop over the original cropped file, so all uses of that file should now get the better crop, and no one should see the former excessively tight crop any more. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips and tricks
Made a mistake?
.jpg)
![[1]](http://www.fauto-graphy.fr/peugeot2013/6B.JPG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4404/35673524153_45a222488e_o.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7684/17039073482_71504eb5f3_o.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://autoconcept-reviews.com/cars_reviews/peugeot/peugeot-type-4-1892/wallpaper/0003%20copy.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}