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))
 * Caught me again! —DIV (120.17.85.139 04:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC))


 * Yeah this is absurd, why on earth wouldn't I think 'discussion' means a discussion of the image I'm looking at? 178.170.142.70 02:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur as well. Like others, I came here expecting to be taken to an image's talk page (as did whoever contributed the unsigned "Wrong transcription" topic, below, evidently). Addressing this seems to have been taken up, than stalled in the Phabricator tracker T133899 task page linked above. --Undomelin (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (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 ?

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.
 * Wrong place for such suggestions, but not your fault, just the fault of lazy devs, who hate maintenance once the shiny new bling is out in the open. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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? date

--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)

I concur wholeheartedly with this beneficial upgrade. I don’t foresee there being much time and effort to include this function, although other coders could likely provide a cost benefit analysis for such a project. I would presume that a small project, such as adding code to an already existing platform, in order to include scalability, would be much more benefit than cost.

Also, I had mentioned in a Talk section of a post in the Music Category, the need to include additional audio formats, so as to allow every Community User the accessibility to access more than one (1) type of audio file.

I believe that since this topic pertains to Multimedia in general, both of these concepts would be considered and rectified. Making these changes will only Add to Consumer Satisfaction. Markhalsey (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2018 (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.

Why does map of India showing POK and some other part grabbed by china as not a part of Kashmir?
This is perhaps a valid question, just at the wrong place, because of the bad design of this piece of software. You clicked on the button to make a comment about the picture, as everyone would expect this button to be about, but because someone put there an irrelevant button for comments about the piece of software, that really nobody gives a flying fuck about while looking at pictures, you came here. Nobody can even tell what pic you are complaining about, and nobody from the (high?)-paid devs seems to care about the users of this software anymore, as it's no out in the open, and maintenance is nothing the like. It's tracked here, but nobody cares: Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

'''This topic is related to the map of Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) which are distorted in many wikimedia maps. It is distorted in the following ways:'''
 * The Aksai Chin (North East) region of J & K state is shown as territory of China and the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) North West region of the state is shown as territory of Pakistan.
 * I am not aware, if these areas are really part of those countries and not belongs to India and I would look for citations, if it is really unanimously agreed between Government of Republic of India and neighboring countries along with the United Nations that really those areas are not Indian Territories.
 * If we have citation for the same, then it justifies using the current map but with proper citation mentioned there against the map, if in case we don't have proper citation then it should be shown as territory of India or as disputed area with a clearly indicative color rather than dotted or dashed lines.


 * This is, despite the very look and obvious description of the button you just clicked, not the discussion page of the picture, i.e. the map (that I corrected), but just a discussion page of the media viewer. I know, it's frustrating,how long the devs ignored the issue at hand, they simply don't like basic maintenance and only work for shiny new bling (at least that#s the impression you get while looking at such very old bugs compared to new useless stuff like Flow). I'll copy your concerns to the proper place and leave it here, so that perhaps one day the lazy (or equipped with wrong priorities by their superiors) devs will drown in complaints like this and perhaps finally start listening to the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

How to replace uploaded image when I want to correct error?
I notice that image that I uploaded has error because of my fault. I want to replace error image to new image that I corrected but I don't know how to replace new image without delete. I want to replace only file and only administrator can delete file. 2:33 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, make sure you are logged in—anonymous (logged-out) users cannot upload images (not even for the first time, so I suppose you have signed up earlier). Then go to the file page (if you are seeing MediaViewer, just click on the “more details” button), then click on “Upload a new version of this file”. Then choose the new version, summarize your changes in the “File changes” field and click “upload file”. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Description of file not updating after new description
I uploaded a new version of a file that previously did not represent the show title screen used in a television series. I updated the non-free use rationale, including a new description of the file. However, when you click on the image file in the article infobox, the description that appears at the bottom of the file display is still the old description ("Black background with slender sans-serif words "LOST GIRL" amid curving wisps of bluish-white fog resembling long hair, and the more solid curve of a female form laying on its side.") -- which does not describe the new image file. The new description, however, appears under "Source" at the bottom of the old description and if you go to "More details" it is the description that viewers see.

This is the media display screen with description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girl#/media/File:LostGirlTVSeriesLogo.jpg

How do you delete the old, now-incorrect description so that the new one replaces it? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The description shown directly below the picture is from the image link (i.e. something like ). This code is generated by the infobox so you have to modify the   parameter of the infobox (in the article). You can see the description from the file description page if you scroll down, below the source. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I deleted the "image_alt" field from the template. Before doing so, just to make sure, I looked at a dozen random TV infoboxes and they did not include the field. Clicking on the image itself displays the text for the image in media view. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Old/Obsolete Map
In the "English Wikipedia" article, section "Graphics", the graphic showing the map of 25 countries editing English Wikipedia the most has the former Sudan on the map, before the split-off of South Sudan. This must be updated.--Bornsommer (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How tO edit an image?
Hi, This image has some factual errors and I would like to edit it.So how to do that??Please help https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_metro_system_cities.png#/media/File:World_metro_system_cities.png
 * Removing the Faroe Islands would be a start as they are not and never have been part of the EU (or EEC before that). 212.55.53.51 05:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Donetsk People's Republic" and "Lugansk People's Republic"
While these ones are marked at the map, they should be orange colored.
 * I can't know what picture you're talking about, as this kind of shitty behaviour (cheating users about the right place of discussion) of the MV is already a phab-item. But, as I mentioned various times here on this page, nobody cares about dull maintenance, they all just want develop useless new bling. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Media viewer a 5th wheel
This viewer had many problems from the start and was pushed on wikipedia as a default viewer even while all the bugs were still being worked on, and against the wishes of many users. No file info -- to get that you have to go to the normal viewing. This viewer doesn't do a thing that the normal viewing doesn't offer. So why is it here? Where is the disable button? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.4.1 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2017 July 19‎ (UTC)
 * The location of the disable button is explained on this page. MediaViewer is very convenient in situations where the user wants to watch many images on a page, e.g. view an article gallery, find the best photo in a Commons category or compare two images on a Commons file page. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I copy just a part of the HTML or wiki code?
Hello, when I want to copy the code for a picture, HTML or wiki code, I can only mark and copy the whole code. But I want to copy only those parts that I need. Why isn't that possible? Why does the MV force the users to copy everything? By the way, copying often does not work. I click on crtl-copy at the marked text, and when I try to paste it in the wiki editor, it turns out that nothing was copied. Ziko (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This map is no longer accurate
and I don't know how to change it.

4 countries: Spain, Peru, Mexico and Kuwait, have all closed the Norh Korean embassies and expelled the NoKo embassadors this month, sept 2017.


 * I don't know what map you're talking about, as this is not, like it looks like in the MV, the talk page of the picture, but only the talk page of this picture viewer. It's very deplorable, that nobody of the devs seems to dare about maintenance of this software, now that it is out in the wild. This wrong layout, the prominent click for the nearly irrelevant talk page here and the hidden possibility for reaching the extremely more important talk page of the picture itself is known for far over a year, the bug report was filed last year in April, but nobody cares about the users, once the software package is out. They don't like maintenance, they rather produce more unwanted bling from scratch. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Inset images
I use another image within the caption, such as the hashed legend box as at this page, but the box does not appear in Media Viewer. The white legend box is not an image and displays ok. I couldn't see anything in this discussion or the help pages, is this a known shortcoming or has it been overlooked? --The Equalizer (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * HtmlUtils blacklists everything except the,  ,   and   tags. It might be expanded with  , but large images should be filtered somehow. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Shiny red button/marker widget. Used to mark the location of something such as a tourist attraction."
User visits Theodore Roosevelt National Park and at bottom there is a picture of "Badlands during a winter night" which he clicks, and then clicks the right arrow to see the rest of the pictures, ending up on "Shiny red button/marker widget. Used to mark the location of something such as a tourist attraction." Further clicking of the right arrow just remain on this erroneous last image. Jidanni (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not an error in the extension. This icon is really present in at the end of the article, 59 times (the second navbox transcludes National parks of the United States map). So MediaViewer lets you view all these images, apparently the same one 59 times. If you click on the arrow 60 times, you will see a different image—US Locator Blank.svg—for the 60th (in theory; I’m not masochist enough to do this). The template should be fixed, first by using the  image parameter instead of absolute positioned links, and second by explicitly disabling MediaViewer by adding the   class to the outer element. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I hope somebody fixes whatever needs to be fixed. I am just a member of the general public. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Extension talk:Media Viewer/About - MediaWiki

Annotated images
ImageAnnotator is a useful gadget on Commons. Sadly MediaViewer does not allow to see annotations. It would be nice to add this feature. Szczureq (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FileAnnotations will once eventually replace ImageAnnotator, so this extension should certainly be integrated with MediaViewer. But nothing has happened around this in the last five months, so integrating the gadget doesn’t look pointless… —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Setting
Where is this photo set?

False title for photo
There is a photo entitled 'German Luftwaffe Triplane Fokker Dr.I'. It portrays a German World War I squadron of Fokker Triplanes, but none belonging to the Luftwaffe. The German Empire's First World War air force was called the Luftstreitkräfte. The Luftwaffe was founded 15 years after World War I ended.

In addition there is also a false depiction of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Latest discoveries depict the creature as an aquatic animal. To make sure people are informed with the latest and thus most correct apperaence of the beast I think it is necessary to change to profile picture for a more recent one.

Description corrected. --Thor19 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What do I need to do to enable Media View for a custom tag extension?
I quite like a custom extension for pics and would like to modify it so it is compatible with Media Viewer: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AdaptiveThumb Basically, it offers a scalable image that can be entered via a custom tag. I have done a fork and would like to modify the source code: when the users clicks on an image, I want Media Viewer to pop up. What do I need to do to make that happen? To educate myself, I have written a test extension that simply renders the exact same code File, but for a different tag. However, it does not trigger the Media Viewer. This happens only, if I put a File somewhere next to it on the same page. So what exactly do I need to do to make a custom picture extension compatible with Media Viewer? --Schreibhan (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the code selecting the images to be used, so you have to add one of these classes to your code to get it processed at all. You also need to store your images in the regular image directory (e.g.  for Commons) and have a link (  tag) containing the   tag. And, of course, a file description page if you want to show any details. Maybe it’s easier to produce a regular file link internally, and just override its width/height. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, it is much appreciated. However I noticed that the Media Viewer code does not get included unless it detects a on a page at parse time. So my custom tag handler calls the parser and hands it a dummy File tag. I gave it the metadata class so that Media Wiki viewer isn't displayed twice and made it invisible so the extra file isn't displayed on the page: $dummyMarkup = " "; $prefix = $parser->recursiveTagParse($dummyMarkup, $frame); It sort of works, Media Viewer pops up when I click on my images. However, sometimes images are displayed distorted in the Media Viewer (full height, but only a few pixels wide). When I click on such a distorted image in Media Viewer, it is then displayed correctly. Would you have any idea what causes it? And how I could make Media Viewer display images with correct dimensions immediately? --Schreibhan (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Image 4-677-222-01
I missed the file name, could I change it to 4-677-222-02? Basquyati (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

--80.130.58.157 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)zusam