Template talk:Rotate

graphic correction needed

hi

to-whom-it-may-concern;

1. the rotate bot (as far as i know, we only have the one) only rotates images in a clockwise direction.

2. the graphics used in this template include an illustration of an arrow pointing in a counter-clockwise direction.

3. to avoid confusion, the direction of the arrow graphic should probably be changed (i'm not experienced enough wih template to try messing with this myself).

4. thank-you! to whoever fixes it...

:)

Lx 121 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The graphic pointing left only appears when you provide a 270° angle as a parameter. That is equivalent to 90° counterclockwise. Even though the bot does only rotate clockwise as you say, it is more intuitive to represent that specific rotation as a counterclockwise turn. Besides, the text of the template makes clear that the image will be turned by 270 degrees, while mentioning that it is equivalent to 90° to the left. I think that's unambiguous enough. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotate a Category

I applied the template to Category:Horse Trade Theater Group but no picture was rotated. Did I make an error? With only two pictures this particular instance is not very important but other categories have a larger number of pictures uploaded with the wrong side up and I wish to know how to handle them. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Rotatebot only works in images tagged with this template, not categories (or any other namespace, for that matter). But you might want to contact the original implementers to confirm this behavior and/or request an adjustment (or do it yourself, if you can) --Waldir ^talk 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I guess the authors aren't looking at this talk page, which would suggest that it is abandoned. I have been discussing the matter at Commons:Help_desk#Rotate_a_Category but nobody there knows anything about it either. Can't even figure how to modify the text so it no longer mentions Categories. So, I'll just stop trying to use it except for individual pictures and hope anyone else who runs into the problem will find this discussion and know it's a bug, or at least a bit of mistaken text, in the template. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org?diff=46661210 – HTH --Waldir ^talk 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I would have simply dropped the part about categories and articles rather than mention them only to deny their application, but I'll defer to those who have experience in a matter of which I know little. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the mention is deserved. Note that the template is meant to be dealt with manually both when it's applied to a category, and when its parameters are not right angles (or not passed at all). --Waldir ^talk 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Waldir

Commons:Village_pump#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18

Related MW software change: Commons:Village_pump#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18. Please discuss there. --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A new class?

Recently I created {{Transform-rotate}}. This could allow us to present the result to the user before rotation took place instead of the operation-images.

Unfortunately MW does not allow () in the style-attribute. Therefore it does not work for IE-users. But we could maybe add 3 classes to the MediaWiki:Common.css. I am not sure... -- RE rillke questions? 17:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, cool. I thought of this but imagined JS is needed. If there is a way to make it work for all browsers this would be very nice. If not it is not very useful as we cannot change text according to browser used, can we? --Saibo (Δ) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately MW does not allow () in the style-attribute. Therefore it does not work for IE-users.

This doesn't make sense. For one, () isn't stripped by MediaWiki. And two, the syntax for Chrome/Firefox/Safari also uses (). Can you clarify ? I don't see the problem, that css is outputted in the HTML just fine. The reason it doesn't work right now (including not working in Firefox/Chrome/Safari) is because it's being used on a ‎<span> with display:inline, it only works on block-level elements; –Krinkle^talk 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the opening post to be a block level element by using a DIV, plus adding some margin to avoid overlapping text. –Krinkle^talk 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed back. Reasons: see below. -- RE rillke questions? 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it worked on Firefox and Opera. Don't know what you saw. But you are right () is not stripped out by MW. Must be something else with ms-filter. -- RE rillke questions? 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Applies to: all block level and inline level elements

— MDN

The problem was that I wanted a ms-filter for IE8, IE7 and IE6 and this is removed as "/* insecure style */" (or similar). -- RE rillke questions? 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

MS filters are actively blocked from transclusion because they are deemed insecure on the browser side, ie. a smart vandal *could* inject unsafe code into the browser. (I think it's humbug, but the devs have the last word.) — Edokter (talk) — 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Which method of MS is insecure? -- RE rillke questions? 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reportedly, all of them. Something about how IE parses the filter parameters is somehow exploitable. — Edokter (talk) — 09:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we need degree parameter if it is an EXIF issue?

I think that in case of "rotation" by deletion of EXIF orientation tag. the template should not need the degree parameter. --Jarekt (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In case of wrong Exif, we need a degree param to tell the bot what's the right orientation. see here. -- RE rillke questions? 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot first rotates the image physically according Exif and then about the requested degrees. How should the bot know that Exif is wrong? -- RE rillke questions? 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. He calculates the physically needed rotation from the exif and the requested degrees, rotate it and set exif to normal. That's it. --Luxo 16:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, your bot is very clever and you left one step by calculating the requirements but the result is the same. Or not? Let's say the bot supports rotation by 0°, then it rotates the image according to Exif and resets the Exif-tag, right? Do you like to provide a new option "delete exif"? Or by 0° to correct the difference between what the browser/thumb shows? BTW: He is a very useful. -- RE rillke questions? 16:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would like to propose to create "delete exif" option for images which are correctly rotated except for EXIF mess. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference if you add {{Rotate|0}} or add e.g. {{rotate|90}}? If you use {{rotate|90}}, you can ignore the rotation of the original file, otherwise you have to check if the original file is really right.--Luxo 20:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I know my uploads are "really right" and I was trying to avoid figuring out if it is {{Rotate|270}} or {{rotate|90}} when tagging. And I suspect that sooner or latter I will have to tag a lot of my files for rotation and many more people might be in the same boat. However I do not want to make more work for you guys, so if "delete exif" option is not easy to implement than do not worry about it. --Jarekt (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot does reject rotations by 0° as it is obviously senseless. The degree parameter is based on MediaWikis thumbs (what the user sees). If rotation by 0 is requested nothing has to be done. If you want to correct a wrong exif you do not need to care about why your image is rotated - just specify a degree parameter based on the thumbnails (Rillke's great new script (see Commons:Village_pump#Rotatelink_on_filedescription-pages) helps.

@ delete exif: Yup, the experienced user could find a "delete EXIF rotation" useful. Do you even if you use Rillke's script? Well, you still need to look at every file and cannot use a batch tagging. Okay, I understand. I don't want to look in the code now how complicated it would be... but probably something like {{rotate|reset EXIF}} should be possible. Maybe not...  ;) I wouldn't say this is priority now. I am glad that Luxo (and I) have gotten Rotatebot where it is now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Default value

Before I am going to break something here, I suggest making the default parameter different from 0. E.g. |#default = {{{degree|{{{1|<span class="error">Usage: {{tlp|rotate|number}}</span>}}}}}} (needs to be tested before). -- RE rillke questions? 10:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

ARgh.. thanks - mistake by me. There shouldn't be a default parameter. If the degree/1 param is not supplied it should be sorted in Category:Images requiring rotation. As luckily it still was - just the text displayed in the template was wrong. Fixed. I wouldn't mention reset exif or 0° in the text which is displayed when no degree parameter is specified. Both are .. well - not newbie options. ;) I would just mention both parameters on the doc page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Zero Degree Message

"0° This image will be rotated by 0° clockwise by Rotatebot. This is useful if the thumbnail displays right but not the full resolution."

This seems silly to me, because obviously it's not going to be rotated at all. Rotatebot is going to clean it up?

Since I don't understand exactly what this will do, I may be way off here, but how about:

"0° This image will not be rotated by Rotatebot, but will be repaired. This is useful if the thumbnail displays correctly but the full resolution image does not."      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The full resolution will be physically rotated according to Exif while the Exif-tag is set to "normal". If you would find easy words to explain this to the user... (I tried to avoid Exif and other potentially confusing terms) That's at least what I think happens. Hope Saibo or Luxo are reading this. -- RE rillke questions? 14:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the wording a bit. The 0° was introduced for this user. It isn't useful in most cases - see also section above. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong link

Please replace the link to Commons:Village pump#Autorotation using EXIF tag with MW 1.18 by a link to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/10#Autorotation using EXIF tag with MW 1.18. I can't figure out where to do the change myself. When I click on "Edit", I don't see the text appearing on the template -- only code. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thank you! Both links were in the subtemplate Template:Rotate/layout (not really belonging there - just a "hack"). Maybe this news was in there long enough now?! And maybe I will draft a Help page on the EXIF issue... since I always explain the same stuff. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 03:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Installing Rotate for my private Wiki?

I would like to use the rotation script for my private wiki. Would someone please be able to point me to a source that can help me with that? Thanks!

The source code for Rotatebot is here. --Waldir ^talk 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mirror flip

That would be a nice feature. Moreover, the description shows here clearly a mirrored version (270°) !? -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 02:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Will rotate in

I think we should include User:Rotatebot/approx wait time incl text in this template. Thoughts? --Sreejith K (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The template cannot distinguish whether an image is the first or the last in the queue. --Leyo 20:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cropping off triangles from non-orthogonal rotations

Tilted original.

Usual rotation, with crop: details lost.

Lossless rotation with blurred background triangles.

(all three images scaled to ⅓-size of the original)

This is a problem, and that’s often a delicate issue wether to keep a crooked image, or allow possibly meaningful detail context to disappear.

As an example, this photo was recently rotated (on my request) a mere 2°, putting the depicted houses and poles back to its natural verticality. This caused four triangles to be cropped off; the one at the lower right included a detail that was fully visible in the original image (Category:Phoenix canariensis infested by Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and description mentioning «palmstumpo») and which all but disappeared in the corrected image (cp. [1] and [2])…

To avoid this, for more extreme cases, sometimes image version forking is done, and/or a rotated image with complementar additional triangles is uploaded, these being either blank/transparent (example), or filled with cloned pixels (partial example).

Neither approach is less problematic than the cropping-off, with cloning risking to introduce dangerous falsehoods and transparency/blanking looking unexpected in most usages (not to mention that true transparency cannot be done with JPEG, thus forcing a change in filetype and filename).

All this lead me to the solution exemplified in this photo: It was rotated (2,6°) to verticalize straight lines and compensate for a tilted camera/scanner, but no detail was cropped off due to rotation, and the resulting four triangles are filled with a blown blurry pattern of the photo itself that on one hand gives the expected outlook of a full filled rectangle but in close inspection does not convey illusory information.

I think this approach should be suggested widely, and it is even possible of being generated automaticly, allowing non-orthogonal rotations to be handled (optionally) by bot.

Comments welcome. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You have posted this to the talk page of a template, whereas it rather belongs to Commons talk:Rotation or Commons:Village pump/Proposals if you want to reach consensus.    FDMS  4    22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Result is quite correct, but artefacts are visible in thumbnail border areas.

Maybe it could be better using multiple rotations by small steps (0.05° for example), using previous step as background for each step.

Always using original image as base to avoid precision loss:

1. original as background + original rotated by 0.05°,
2. previous image as background + original rotated by 0.1°,
3. previous image as background + original rotated by 0.15°,
4. ... until reaching 2.6°

Background as each step could be mroe or less blurred.

This is another way to rotate image, with two parameters to adjust it: angle step, and background blurring factor.

-- ◄ David L • discuter ► 12:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

rotation with vandalistic effects

Hello, I want to focus your attention to a problem, that may occur when rotating pictures

Usually the orientation of a picture is correct only in one way, and the Bot changes a wrong orientation to the correct one. But that is not always the case. For instance, the picture of a mounted insect or depictures of details as well as many shemes are correct in two ways, with the front above or with the front of the object to the left. Those pictures used in articles are often used in an exactly calculated position. But, if someone prefers to use that picture rotated – may be only for personal use – he usually does not keep in mind, that the rotation causes rotation in all articles in all languages, who use the picture, thus destroying for instance composed pictures. Those vandalistic changes are usually not recognized, because they are not documented in view history of the articles concerned.

I suggest to minimize that problem in altering the template for asking rotation. The template should have two options and should be activated only, if one of those options has been choosen. The options are: Do you want to have this rotation in all Wikpedia-projects, that use that picture? Or: Do you want to have this rotation only in your personal projects?. In the first case the rotated picture will keep the old filename, in the second case the rotated picture will get the name: old name _rotated.old ending or somthing like that.

I fear, my suggestion will rot here, so please give your comments and/or transfer my suggestion to a discussion page, where my idea may be develloped further. Thanks --Siga (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Is User:Rotatebot obsolete?

This template mentions User:Rotatebot in its documentation and template ("This image will be rotated 90° clockwise by Rotatebot."), but it looks as if that bot hasn't been active since 2014. Should these mentions be removed? --Gapfall (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Template wording suggestion

@Bidgee, Incnis Mrsi, Jeff G., Sarang, and Tacsipacsi: Hello template editors. Despite being common English usage nowadays, the construction needs to is incorrect and unclear in the context of the wording of this template's message. I suggest the text This image needs to be rotated be changed to "This image requires rotation" (or "A user is requesting that this image be rotated", or "This image should be rotated", depending on the intent of the template message). Eric ^talk 02:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ... (updated 21:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC))

Change example image

{{Edit request}}

Can we test changing the example image to something clearer, with greater contrast? I suggest this will look good and be easier to distinguish the rotate difference as a thumbnail: File:Ground and sky.jpg. I have constantly had to really examine the examples to make sure I'm putting in the rotation degrees correctly; this will make it much easier. ɱ (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Or something even higher contrast, like this drawing of the Eiffel Tower. ɱ (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It is possible to avoid creating a new SVG, like below. -- ◄ David L • discuter ► 18:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Expected image	Clockwise rotation visualised
	90°	180°	270° / -90°

Alternative presentation :

Clockwise rotation visualised
90°			180°			270° / -90°

Done, if I understand the request correctly. I don't think the documentation page was protected, so an edit request template may not have been necessary. Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)