Extension talk:Media Viewer/About

Why does Media Viewer appear again?
I do not know how often I've disabled the Media Viewer. It appears regularly even though I do not delete cookies. Please provide a means to deactivate it permanently. It's really annoying.


 * Agreed. Every few days the Media Viewer is back. I don't delete cookies, I don't mess with my browser or switch browsers, but every few days the Media Viewer feature is back. Either your server doesn't recognize its own cookies or it's on purpose to try to make the media viewer look more popular than it is. This is precisely why it should be opt-in only. I don't want it yet you're always forcing it on me. 5:15 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Me too. I hate the media viewer. The old way was much better. Don't even get me started on how bad the mobile interface for images is. 199.66.183.2 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bad code protected by someone in Wikipedia for others who get paid to manage this mess. Run it and suddenly your browser 'back' button doesn't work correctly anymore. Why? Because, contrary to with every other media viewer out there, the geniuses behind this software design nightmare treat a media view not as a popup (which it truly is) but as a new page (which is ridiculous). This is very embarrassing for Wikipedia.


 * Doubly agreed, the old way was much more efficient and wasn't plagued with bugs. I too have to constantly disable the Media Viewer. It used to be every few weeks now it's been every other day. I had to create this account and then sign up with their internal software development board just to report this bug, since there was no other way to let them know that this was an issue. Which means they have no idea if there's only a handful of users with this issue or if it's tens of thousands, because only a rare few would jump through the multiple hoops to get there to report the bug. If that wasn't bad enough they expected me to debug it for them. I am not a programmer, I know nothing about how to do that, and it's not my problem. Tthe development team should be tracking down the bugs. I gave them all the particulars, they know the OS and browser, and all that, they have all they need to reproduce the bug.
 * ...You know, given how buggy it is, making the default for the viewer as "On" was a terrible mistake. It should default to off. You should have to opt in/enable it to use the media viewer. --Ikaruseijin 03:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...You know, given how buggy it is, making the default for the viewer as "On" was a terrible mistake. It should default to off. You should have to opt in/enable it to use the media viewer. --Ikaruseijin 03:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the Media Viewer?
My Browser can show, enlarge, and download Media. Why wasting time and money for a Media Viewer?
 * Ah that's easy to explain. There are some people in the Wikipedia organisation who have friends outside the organisation, they're all essentially without talent, but they were in need in a major way of additional funding. Does that answer your question?

In addition, the functions mentioned not bring the desired result. If I were a part of the image from an image viewer Meida magnify covers. It it a shame when a tool deteriorates the normal functions of the browser.
 * Unbelievable. After all this time, after all the documented complaints, bugs, etc, this 'piece of work' is still around. When I click on 'More details' it goes back to Wikimedia's standard image display and file summary. Sort of like a 5th wheel, put there by a couple of apparent petty dictator types at the Foundation who insist on putting their 'pet project' in everyone's face in complete defiance of editors (without whom Wikipedia overall would not exist) and in total disregard of all the bugs that have been brought to their attention, repeatedly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

More details button
"More details about this file" or German "Weitere Einzelheiten" is not the correct text for the user searching for the commons page - this is the link for the people who whishes the more comlicated and more informative page and who will understand the file description pages, therefore some more text is nessesary for this kind of user.

If someone is not satisfied with the things, the Mediaviewer shows him, this is a guy who hates pages with the Mediaviewer design! It is a user who likes pages containing much information and much written text.

I know that many people simply don't understand file description pages. But in fact I don't understand this, as to me the first time I read such a page I understood everything whithout thinking about it.

If I am a new user, I hate pages containing some symbols to click on, but no text explaining what the symbols are for - you have to try each button, as no text is given. Additionally I read a file description page in some seconds, but need a minute to get the same information with the Media Viewer, as everything I may need is some clicks away or will move when I touch it. And usually I am searching for the bit of information the normal user never thinks of. If I search for something special on a file description page I usually see it in the very moment I look first on the page, one look and I have it. With the Mediaviever - twenty clicks and I know it is not there and I need the file description page.

Therefore at the end of the page, where most people don't look, there should be a line starting with the Symbol and "More details about this file" or German "Weitere Einzelheiten" and than explaining that you find a editable file description page, with more information and categories containing similar images and gallery pages. This is a link that should have some text, as the ones searching for this link are the readers and they are not the clickers! They don't need bigger buttons they need more text.

--Kersti (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate the About | Discussion | Help links
They look like they go to some page related to the image, like the image description and talk page. But instead they go to the Media Viewer pages and that's extremely counter-intuitive.

2601:844:4204:63BB:5857:E8FB:DEDC:B921 What he said. I came to this page looking to discuss an image. I left disappointed.


 * What they said. The explanation/caption under the image made no sense. That's what I wanted to discuss. How do I do that?--Yeltommo (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to go to the proper file page, not this bling stuff, that's hiding the real thing. You have to click on the big blue button with More details (or whatever your language is) on it to get to the proper file page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first three contributors. This should be about the image, given placement of the link! —DIV (120.17.226.223 00:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi
Is Everyone still alive?
 * I've got bad news: No. Even you are going to die eventually (although I believe some who are alived will be raptured to the Heavens).--193.163.223.128 18:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm still alive, but I gave up arguing about this unsatisfactory piece of software ages ago. I disabled it so long ago that I had virtually forgotten that it ever existed. LynwoodF (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong transcription
The colophon shown is from the Sachsenspiegel. However, what is given as "the text reads" is not a transcription of the colophon shown but obviously of the one of Formulare und deutsch rhetorica.

Transcription of the colophon shown:

Chye endet sich der sachsenspiegel mitt ordnung des rechten den der erwirdig in got vater und herr Theodoricus von bockßdorf bischof zu neünburg säliger gecorrigieret hat. Gedruckt und volendt von Anna Rügerin in der keyserlichen stat Augspurg am oftermontag nächst vor Johannis do man zalt nach Cristi gepurt MCCClxxxiiii jar

Media viewer is clunky
How do I look at pictures the normal way? When I clicked on one of the small pictures in an article my first impression was that I had left wikipedia. When I click on "More details" it takes you right back to the normal wikipedia image. Why is this viewer even here? Can I disable it?
 * #How can I turn off this feature? --Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't offer to "Open in Media Viewer" for unsupported types
Hi there, thanks for a great extension. I understand that PDF, MP3 file types are not supported yet. If so, I would suggest to *not* offer the "Open in Media Viewer" button in the file page for such unsupported files, because at the moment all I see is a rather confusing error message: Sorry, the file cannot be displayed There seems to be a technical issue. You can retry or report the issue if it persists. Error: File does not exist: File:Fileicon-pdf.png Note that the file I was trying to open has a completely different name, so the file does exist (I can download it), but the error is bogus. Thanks. 91.125.85.186 12:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you show a specific example? The button does not show up for me on unsupported file types (e.g. here). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Uhm... it's a private wiki, but I took a screenshot. How do I upload a file here please? I tried to create an account, but no luck... Thanks. Hopefully Acceptable Username (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You can file a bug in our bug tracker and upload it there, that's less trouble. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, it's here. Thanks. Hopefully Acceptable Username (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Transparency in SVG images
It might better fit the Media Viewer's function if the background of transparent parts of SVG files was displayed in white or the same light grey background that is displayed for SVG transclusions on pages. Has there been a deliberate decision against that? --Marsupium (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The transparent parts on pages are really transparent – the thumbnail box itself is grey. Of course, a black background wouldn’t be good. The checked background is from the file description pages and I think it’s absolutely OK. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The checkered background was added to address T59620. (There was more discussion but I don't remember where exactly.) Commons uses the same background FWIW. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. --Marsupium (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not touch screen enabled ?
Had to disable this because trying to two finger zoom on my touch screen just increases the browser font size and does not zoom the image. Unless this was a fault on my end ?

Italian Language in Istria County
Italian language is in official use trough all the Istria County, not only in west part of the peninsula: https://www.istra-istria.hr/index.php?id=587 --87.0.140.134 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

to nie jest skwer po cerkwi!
Wszystkie cerkwie w Kryłowie były oddalone o ok 0,5 km od tego miejsca

Media Viewer joins words in the caption in case of wordwrap markup
On Media Viewer ignores the markup in the caption of the image in a confusing way. Two separate words are joined to one nonsensical word. There should better be a dash and two spaces instead. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

So instead of "Junger Krokodilkaimangesichtet in Tortuguero (Costa Rica)" (with the nonsensical word "Krokodilkaimangesichtet") it should say: "Junger Krokodilkaiman — gesichtet in Tortuguero (Costa Rica)". Does anybody of the responsible developers still pay attention to this talk page at all??? By the way, there are a lot of misdirected comments here. It seems, several readers are confusing this talk page about Media Viewer with the talk page about a certain image.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. Now that this pet project of some high honchos in SF (that have left since) is out in the wild, and working slightly OK, nobody seems to give a fuck about it any more, the next pet project has to be pushed. And anyway, why disn't you use Phabricator, why do you expect from the people in the WMF to use a wiki, while there is another venue, that far more secluded from he unwashed masses, that tend to disturb them with hints from the reality. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sänger ♫ for the tip with Phabricator. I created my first task there. Maybe someone will react and fix the problem. --Miss-Sophie (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Image title is wrong
Image title reads 'File:GIESINGER (Bd1) p464 Comtesse Du Barry.jpg'. It should read 'File:GIESINGER (Bd1) p464 Duchess De Berry.jpg', as the two women are two separate historical figures from separate centuries (even the attires show this). I tried rectifying the title, but to no avail.

Media Viewer not opening
I find the Media Viewer very helpful and time saving when viewing a number of images in succession.

But it frequently happens that Media Viewer does not open when I click on an image thumb, even though it is set to do so in the "appearences" tab of the preferences (by default on all or most Wikiprojects?) and I have never changed this setting. It happens less often in the English Wikipedia but I often notice this behaviour in the German Wikipedia as well as recently on Wikimedia Commons and the Portugese Wikipedia.

I am mostly working with Linux Mint 18 and the latest Firefox browser but this does happen on other setups as well.

Any ideas what is wrong?

--KaiKemmann (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How can we get rid of this crap?
And no, I don't just mean locally, I am asking how we can get rid of it everywhere and forever. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Time for 360° panoramic pictures
As more and more device allow to easily produce 360° panoramic pictures or movies, and almost all social/web services detects such content and allow to watch them in intuitive way, I think that Media Viewer should support such content out of the box allowing to rotate the view in spherical mode that is more intuitive than flat image with huge distortion. Also the engine should be able to take RAW data like from Samsung Gear360 (double lenses, side by side - not stitched format, as well as stitched in Galaxy device of PC software). There is sometimes lack of EXIF information that image is 360°, so there should be easy way to mark it as such, if not auto-detected. If image is not a full panorama there should be easy tool to mark sphere's surface that is covered by panoramic picture - to provide correct projection (or it can by auto-estimated). - Piom (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Russia, but the North Caucasus
About the File of "Middle East Levant.jpg" Sorry,The first Russian migrants and colonizers appeared in the North Caucasus only in the 16th century. I want to make adjustments to the map of Levante. The North Caucasus is the North Caucasus, but not Russia (that is really Moscovia) geographically,culturally and historically. I wonder why Wikipedia actively propagates maps of supposedly 19th century of Great Israel (never really existed!) is depicted on the ancestral lands of the Amorites and Hurrians/Subareans, and on the other hand the North Caucasus lands shows as Land of Russians(!?). What Russian? When did the Russians live there in ancient times? What does the Moscovia have to do with the North Caucasus? Nothing. --Wrkan (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The right place to ask such things is the talk page of the file. I copied your question to there. Thank the suboptimal MW for such stuff, now that it#s out in the open, nobody seems to care any longer about this pet project of Fabrice and Eric. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The shitty behaviour of the MV is already a phab-item. But, as I mentioned, nobody cares about dull maintenance, they all just want develop useless new bling.

Not Russian Slavs but North Caucasian Terra Sarmatia
On the map the North Caucasus is represented as the primordial earth of Slavs (!), and actually the first Slavs (invaders the Russian Cossacks) appeared in this region only at 16-17 centuries. The North Caucasus is a historical "Terra Sarmatia", but not Sklavoniya or Slavenia etc. Stop lying! Nobody gave to Germans or other Europeans such rights to represent the Caucasian lands occupied by the Russian colonialists as allegedly primordially Slavic. Anything similar!--Wrkan (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my answer to your question above? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why have you decided that the non-Caucasians had appeared in the region of the modern Caucasus only since XVI ? Your allegations seem to be just an ordinary politically orientated and non-scientific speculations. There is no any historical source for such point of view. You'd better learn this subject before make such categorical statements. You can try to come back time to see all the historical process personally if you could do so.