If you think it is worth it, go submit for an FP. (I want those guys to recognize stuff that is explanatory, not just pretty landscapes and bird photos.) I'll stay away from any credit, as I didn't do anything.TCO (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought. I've been able to access the original separate images that make up the whole thing so to take up less room in the article I could create an animated GIF of it slowly changing between the years while retaining the colour scale at the bottom. Or could use one of Nasa's pre-created animations, see here, but these are rather long, about 2 minutes and would inlvove in users have to click to play it in the article as opposed to have a GIF that automatically and continuously loops the animation. What you think? If not and you think it would be more beneficial to have all the frame visible at once I can still use the original higher res images. Fallschirmjäger✉14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your animated gif is the best plan. Nice idea. Love the aspect that the user will see a larger view of the world.TCO (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. As its a GIF, which is needed for animation, the quality isn't perfect but nothing can really be done about that. But it looks fine at full-size. Fallschirmjäger✉15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the article. Looks really nice, centered and big like that. I added a wikilink to Dobson units, using the caption. Please put in for an FP for yourself (this is very encyclopedic, given the importance of our article, and the topic in general.) The FP people need to see that there is more than naturalistic beauty...are places where maps and diagrams can be extremely powerful to explain in a way that text could not.)TCO (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you feel that the minor change in detail to the new Tottenham shirt is very important would it be sensible to rename the image to a generic name (e.g. _collar_v_neck) to help for more general usage of the image? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be a good idea. If the image was on Wikipedia I would be able to rename it as I have file move rights but I don't on Commons so I'll have to request a rename there. Regards, Fallschirmjäger✉16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
got the corporate release for F2 chemicals
OTRSed the release from director of sales and marketing F2. Given I culled the gas image, we are basically clear on all the permissions issues you raised on F. Of course we are generating new images and the like. Still...I think major upgrade. Also, I had same impression as you on the images there. But you found more than I did. And they need to hear it from an image expert. Is just an awareness process. Thanks for letting me lure you into FA. ;) TCO (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work and cheers for the update! Glad to hear all gone well, good to see F is still being polished for another run through FA later on. I should be the one thanking you, I really should get involved more in FA, giving F the runover has kinda given me a desire to do so. I would be glad to help further with F as required, images related or otherwise. At the mo I'm just finalizing adding the Alaskan border to the Ozone animation, should get up upped soon. Fallschirmjäger✉21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, it is a pleasure to find strong people in aspects and then coordinate. I hope you feel same in reverse. They are dying for image reviewers over at FA. They will kiss your ass if you do stuff there. (I just downplay it cause I know they will "steal you"! ;))
Oh...shifting to seriousness mode. If you want to do an image review of Californium for FA, would be much appreciated. Is pretty short...and similar to F, maybe. Was kinda trying to get my nerve up to request that. Good thing is we will be ahead of Sandy...mwahahaha! ;) TCO (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. We are still going to get all the projects I mentioned, done. Just have been having fun multitasking. TCO (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
give me an inch...
Hey man...if you can also do the image review on Manhattan project, that would help. I think there is SOME commonality in the element article reviews (one pic overlaps actually). Also an overlap in that I will do a review of content. I think it should be pretty clean actually...but inspect it!!TCO (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
330 first
Actually prior to MP and Cf, wonder if you could check out the A330 article. Sandy has her hatchet out for it. I want to save it (pretty decent really...and young first time submitters). I just have a soft heart...that cries if they don't make it. :( TCO (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okies will do matey. Funny you say that, I was just looking at that a little while ago. ;) Fallschirmjäger✉
Always nice to come across another file worker. Keep up the good work, every one of those you get is one that I don't have to do, and with 3000 of them on half a dozen pages, I'm quite glad not to be alone in this. Sven ManguardWha?22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take this image and modify it to be more readable? I am thinking,
crop the top, maybe just above the railroad as that is a feature discussed in article. (either delete the scale, can explain in talk, or move it down).
take the number-letter things in the redsquares out of them and make bigger (so readable).
Sure thing I will see what I can do. I managed to access a PDF of the source book the diagram is from so can work on a larger, higher quality version, File:Oak ridge large.gif is in there too so may as well upload a better version of that too.
I've already been working on the images in the article, particularly I've been sourcing higher resolution versions of many of the images. I also added a better version of the infobox image and SVG version of the shoulder badge. I also came across this (File:Manhattan Project emblem.png) from Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb which I was wondering may be useful for the article, what you think? Fallschirmjäger✉13:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have been trying to help out this article, A330. It's actually a pretty decent article, in terms of very highly researched and detailed. However, the topic is really dull with a lot of numbers and such. I feel some pity for the writer, who is a young first-timer and is getting fed up with the FAC process. Want to help him get it over the hump and get the star. And a particular image could really help.
One thing about the article, is that the very start of the body text (Background and Design effort sections) is really hard to keep track of all of the predecessor aircraft, co-developed aircraft, and different names of the thing as it went through design. The readers eyes glaze over and lose track of what is what. What I want to do is solve this with an image, showing the "flow chart" of different models developed. Just some basic powerpoint style drawing. Thinking it would go centered, be pretty wide and sit at the very top of the section. That way, reader can refer to it if he loses track of what is what.
Certainly sounds like a good idea, an image will defo help making more sense of all the variants and what not. I was thinking a flow chart would be the right sort of thing to illustrate it, perhaps progressing on a timeline too from say the 1970s up to the later models. I shall look into it once I've finalized the Hanford map. Fallschirmjäger✉16:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put together a table and was leaning to just doing that. [1] But it really doesn't need to be edited, so perhaps conversion to a graphic might make it look better. What do you think? I want something pretty simple so people just have a who's who in the zoo reference for all the number letter stuff at the start of the article. Thoughts? (I already asked my table expert to play with it, but then wondered if I should just put it in powerpoint and convert a table to a picture.TCO (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could do a graphic but I think really that table you've put together would suit the purpose just fine in this case, once its formatted decently I'm sure it will do the job. Pure web rendered text will always be more readable than if it was rasterized in an image, plus a table can easily be changed, not that it should ever need to be and can also be converted into other languages easily. But if you think an image would be better I certainly don't mind drawing one up. Regards, Fallschirmjäger✉16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA/GA Image Reviews
I work in images a lot, and I was thinking that this might be the next logical field for me to move into. Looking over the FA criteria page, it seems straightforward enough. How do I get started with this? Do I just start doing them or do I sign up or tell someone? Also, do you have any advice for me? Thanks, Sven ManguardWha?18:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(eavesdropping, sorry) Hey, you are helping them out by doing the reviews. They tend to be short of good people for that (more verbally strong). I think you know enough to just go and do it without some special training. Like anything on Wiki, you learn by doing and by getting feedback. But honest, you're overqualified. You'll be fine. People like I or Nikki have done them just by using common sense, but generally when a "real image person" (like you) helps it is better.
The main concern traditionally is to scrub them hard for copyright/attribution type issues. And definitely check that hard. However, I would urge you to do a little more than that. I worry that our people thing only of that as a hoop to jump through. Rather than "do we have illustration for what we should have", are the pictures good, do they have "EV" in terms of really showing concepts not just decoration. I even gigged someone recently for doing a singer and not having a sound clip (was a surprise to him...he only thought of words and pictures). I would be a ball-buster on the copyright. But if you can help out a little, gently, on the actual functional aspect of the files, would be good as well. Note, the FA criteria actually DO say that the pictures should serve the story. So this is not some TCO diversion.
I would personally help with FA first priority over GA. It has the more prominence in being on the front page. Also, gives you a chance to see some nice articles and interact with nominators and reviewers there. And I kinda think they "need" you more than GA, where most reviews are one person doing the whole article anyway.TCO (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TCO, couldn't have put it any better. One thing I would add though, apart from the obvious digging for copyright and attribution issues is to see if the images that are there are the best they can be, so if they could use a little cleaning up, do so, if an SVG can be used in place of bitmap stuff use one etc. Also another thing I often find, particularly with older historical photos, is there are often higher res versions to be found if you are prepared to do a little searching. Apart from that just make sure each file has a proper file description, links and what not. Regards, Fallschirmjäger✉19:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll add FAC to my daily rotation. If I get to one before you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to look over my work to make sure I didn't miss something, just once so I know I've got the hang of it. I'll message you when that happens. Sven ManguardWha?08:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did image reviews for 'Indian Head eagle' and 'Over There (Fringe)'. If you could give them the once over and tell me how I did, I'd appreciate it. Sven ManguardWha?20:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look and you've done perfectly, good job. There is no set way to do a review, it is different every time, some may be short only having a few images while others are sometimes crammed full. Just be sure to check back every now and then to see if any issues have been addressed or new images have been added. Great work! Regards, Fallschirmjäger✉14:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yippee! So glad you got it. I almost ruined it by arguing with the opposes. Glad you got it. It really is nifty and what I like is that it may give other people ideas!TCO (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map
Just wanted to encourage you to submit the clickable site map to FP, with you and Hawkeye as creators. I think it is a nifty piece of work (the information density and user enablement with the clickable sites). Lot of EV, too. Think it is good for them to have a diversity of image types (not just photos).TCO (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting up with me and my wanting to see new things. The FPers are ripping into it. But I think it is worth putting forward. (It's not like I'm wasting their time with a low-res pic of my dog.) It really is a very high "information density" graphic, working well as a portal and also to make sense of the "Sites" section of the MP FAC.
YGM
Hello, Liandrei. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Orphaned non-free image File:2011 Copa América logo.svg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:2011 Copa América logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I want the images with equal aspect ratios. Whatever you want to do, I trust you (to include even picking different rocks, although I did put thought into what is here). But my thinking:
Add a little "black" to the left image so it not quite so tightly cropped (less out of place with the others)
All now have the same dimensions so can be displayed nicely alongside each other, there was no need to change the images, you picked out some great samples! I also adjusted the amount of black around the rocks so things should feel more balanced now. Regards, Fallschirmjäger✉20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Radstocktownfc1000-thumb-52476.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Dealt with. An IP tried to stick a whole gallery in the infobox and it... well... broke. Image was technically never actually removed, as far as I can tell. Sven ManguardWha?04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i noticed you helped with the Cristian Ceballos Page. I would appreciate it if you could help abit more with it, as i am new to wikipedia editing and dont quite understand how to do everything.BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I think it would be cool to get a picture and maybe find out a few more details about him as they are extremely harx to find.[reply]
