This is an archive of past discussions about User:MIckStephenson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
News & Notes - Every American Viticultural Area now has an article! Keeping up with the B class wine articles and find out which start class article of top importance was viewed almost 43,000 times between Dec-Jan.
Also, what wine articles have the most potential to reach Good article status?
Wiki-Winos - Meet User:EvanProdromou! Evan who? Well let just say that another "wiki-wino" has come out the closet to say Hi and share what his project Vinismo can do to help Wikipedia's wine articles.
Wiki wine articles on the Web - Guess which prominent wine personality thinks that Wikipedia is one of the best wine resources on the web? Also find out who thinks our Mission grape article is lacking and how our Plavac Mali article cleared up some confusion about the grape's relationship to Zinfandel. Plus, was Mick Jagger really singing about Sommeliers in the Stones' song Beast of Burden?
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Regarding my edit to Oak (wine) - I was referring to the fact that a "plank" of oak, when used in a barrel, keg or as an oak alternative wine additive is correctly called a "stave", hence the term "tank stave", a plank of oak added to a tank of wine. I haven't reverted your revert to my edit (I really don't like the whole edit-war thing!), however if you feel I have explained it well enough, go ahead and revert it back - if not, then I'm happy to leave it until someone comes up with a reference. Cheers, ABVS1936 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - actually I am an Aussie (and a cooper...) so i'm not so sure about the origins of the "plank" terminology. The large pieces of oak that we produce for addition to steel tanks are called tank staves. Anyway, I'm happy to leave both terms in the article if you are - more info means a better article! ABVS1936 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd gone away after dropping that comment re my VP proposal on FPC talk. Anyway, since you expressed an interest in my ideas, I've detailed my thoughts there. Not sure if it's the right direction or not. See Valued Pictures Proposal. Your input would be valued.
Thanks for the input. Probably not a bad idea to take the discussion to the PPR talkpage (even though it's pretty low traffic). But probably more sense there than on my talkpage ;-).
Can I just pick up your numbered points. (1) I actually hadn't even really considered renaming PPR, at least not at this stage - do you think that's high priority, or necessary? (2) Keeping it simple is agreed; that was substantially my initial concept, and partly what I don't like about the Commons VI setup. Also I have gone further off the Certified Assessors concept (as you may have seen I also said on Muhammad's talkpage). As a compromise I was thinking of instead requiring nominator + 3 Supports from anyone, rather than nominator + 2 Supports from Certified Assessors. (3) I know you're pretty strong on tying it COM:VI, but there's lots I'm not happy about there; I think the 'watered down' FP criteria I suggested in the proposal were a pretty good starting point, perhaps to be refined over time (one example that springs to mind is something like 'the image must have been in its article for at least one month' (or maybe even 3 months); in other words it has to have proved its value). And even Slaunger ended up agreeing that the proposal as put wasn't really out of line with the Commons project when you got down to it. I'm not entirely sure about their concept of scopes; I don't mind it, but as they use it on Commons it's confusing - it would actually probably be clearer here in that you could say only 1 VP per article; but not sure about that.
OK, might look at putting a summary of this stuff, the stuff I've discussed with Muhammad, and what came out of the FP talkpage discussion up at PPR talk in the next few days (I'm pretty busy atm so maybe not till the weekend). I'll drop you a note. --jjron (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The redirect/renaming just makes things easier to manage. The overall aim is to promote Valued Pictures; a spinoff is a boost up to FPC, as it has ever been at PPR. The peer review side is almost an incidental process; it's all about FPC-ability. You get a (better) peer review at FPC anyway, which has always detracted from the professed aim of PPR. I'd been thinking of proposing a rename of PPR for a while, as its pre-FPC role is paradoxically not very well observed. A redirect would seems to me to relaunch the whole crooked circus with a real purpose. --mikaultalk17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW. I just went and had a look at the COM:VI stuff again today. It really doesn't look to be attracting much traffic; there's a few noms and a tiny handful of voters. QI makes sense for Commons, but I struggle with VI having much meaning there. I go back to what I (and several others) said in the discussion, that VP/VI really makes a lot more sense on the 'pedia. This is another reason why I don't want to tie a project here too strongly to the Commons setup, as I'm not convinced it will thrive there, and perhaps not even survive (but a flow on from us, as Slaunger suggested, may really help them out). --jjron (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply here cos it makes it easier to follow. Couldn't agree more about the poor reception at COM:VI, and agree with your analysis in general. It seems to me the hard work has been done there, and we could do worse than summarise and improvise on the main criteria they've developed there. "Scope" has less meaning here, I agree, but everything else seems fairly relevant. There's always a chance that COM:VI will take off and, unless there are other incompatible elements, "moving on" from where they left off would mean porting stuff there from here (and other WP projects) would be fairly seamless. There's a chance here to avoid the COM:FP/WP:FP dichotomy we're lumbered with now, and allow commons to be the image depository it was set up to be. I'm busy myself or I'd set up that discussion today. There's no harm in ironing out some basics on our talk pages, makes the proposal more credible if the obvious stuff is already dealt with. A few minutes here & there is all I can manage ATM anyway. --mikaultalk17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, have rushed ahead and made some developments; hope I haven't gone in too recklessly :-). I'm very busy as well, and will be over the next month and a half, so don't really have a lot more to spend on it. There is a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial. I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal for comments. Will have to watch the response. --jjron (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw this thread by coincidence. Always interesting to read ones own opinions referred to elsewhere. I think you are treating me fairly though, so I am all heads up ;-) Just a quick remark on the activity at commons:COM:VI. Yes, the activity is low, but we also have not gone on-air yet. There are some plans of coordinated promotion when this happens as the project is not that well known among Commons users also. And, yes recently the roll-out has also been depressingly slow. I and others have been side-tracked by what I consider a disruptive users who wanted to merge all nomination templates (FP, QI, POTD, POTY, VI) into one single template without seeking consensus first. That has caused a lot of mess and the FP templates are a still a mess there... I hope now to be able to get back on track with COM:VI. However, the prolonged test review phase is also interesting and some good points have been raised which have lead to some adjustments in the guidelines, and the discussions continue. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I'm seeing you inject a lot of common sense into discussions like the one referenced above. It's good to see there are still people fighting to keep this great resource sane. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I need help with tagging pictures and was wondering if you could help me out. There are two images on Akshardham (Delhi) which need correct tags. An on the pages shows that it is verifiable, however the tagging isn't correct. Please tell me if you are interested in helping me and I will give you further details. Thanks Juthani1tcs23:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe I will understand you better in english (I understand it very well but my spoken and writen english isn't good enough). I think that I have understand you. Do you think that is early to put the section veguerie/vegueria?
When I put it, I was thinking to do two separate articles about Penedès as in other wikipedias because Penedès DO and Penedès isn't exactly the same. Penedès DO includes a part of Baix Llobregat and Alt Camp and less part of Anoia than the historical region of Penedès that includes all Alt, Baix Penedès, Garraf and the middle and southest part of Anoia (the northest part is of the historical Alta Segarra). What do you think about it? Another possibility is to separate in the same article both things.
Another reason why I put veguerie was because in Penedès are living that very deeply, you can see in lots of towns a banner in the entrance with the message "Municipi adherit a la Vegueria del Penedès" similar as the wellcome banners in cities. It is thought that won't be a veguerie because two are in one province (Barcelona) and the other part are in Tarragona and Lleida. Also is thought that will be a sotsvegueria (less than a veguerie) inside veguerie of Barcelona (àmbit metropolità).
Hi there. I'm obviously quite happy in English and your level seems to be about as good as my castella, so let's press on :)
I'm not sure there's enough of a difference from an English encyclopedia point of view to have two articles on Penedès. There was (amazingly!) none at all when I created the one we have now, and as you point out, this was to recognise the wine region. I think your approach (adding veguerie info there) is a welcome one and just needs refining into solid fact; in other words it deserve a mention now, with a fuller description once the comarcas are replaced.
I've edited the vegueria article and noticed you've used the same text to add Veguerie sections to other articles. If you want to check over my changes for factual accuracy, it might be an idea to copy/paste that into the other articles.
It's all really interesting but I confess I'm a bit confused by the new system – exactly what changes to what – and will leave that entirely up to you! I'll keep an eye on things but if you let me know when you've added something I'd be happy to check it over for grammar. mikaultalk20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have read your changes and I like it, it's more clear (and correct I supose).
As you have said, maybe there isn't many information for doing two article but I think that we have to clarify that historical Penedès and Penedès DO isn't the same. I have done a better map for Penedès DO and two of Penedès (one whitin Catalunya and one only the four comarques. Penedès DO, three comarques plus part of four comarques.Penedès, four comarques..
In fact Vegueries don't replaced comarcas, replaced the four diputacions or provinces For example: Catalunya >> Lleida (Province) >> Alt Pirineu i Aran (Veguerie) >> Alt Urgell (Comarca) >> la Seu d'Urgell (town), if you live in Catalonia I supose you know. Province or diputacions will loose its "power" (competencies??) and will be just simbolical because we can't remove because it is spanish administration. Comarca will loose some power to give it to vegueries, but Consells Comarcals will exists too.
Historically have been lots of vegueries. But when República Catalana there was 9 but now will be 7, thats why is thought that Penedès won't be a veguerie, as Alt Ter. Jordi Ausàs (ERC) Conseller de Governació de Catalunya, has said that probably will be a sotsveguerie: Catalunya >> Barcelona (Province) >> Àmbit Metropolità (Veguerie) >> Penedès (sotsveguerie) >> Alt Penedès (Comarca) >> Vilafranca del Penedès. I know that ERC in Garraf and Alt Penedès are talking with ERC in the government reclaiming the veguerie and there's a campaing: Per una Vegueria propia.
I don't know if I have explain to you well. I've got an idea for some changes for the article:
0. Introduction of Penedès and Penedès DO
1. Penedès DO
1.2 History
1.3 Production
2. Penedès
2.1 Veguerie
3. See also
4. External links
(for the introduction I can take things of catalan wiki (Penedès DO and Penedès), spanish wiki (Penedès DO and Penedès) and the actually Penedès DO english wiki and you can correct it, if you want. It would be very helpful)--Vilarrubla (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Would be glad to send you a .tif if you're interested in trying a different color balance. Actually it took considerable work to achieve the effect in the nominated version because the original had an uneven distribution of magenta. Tastes at FPC are fickle and some people oppose if there isn't a bit of yellow fade. I've even rejected demands to introduce yellow into formats where it doesn't occur, such as colloidon glass photographs. When I fully desaturated a campaign map created by George Washington, the nomination failed in spite of its EV because reviewers thought it was too cold. So my approach since then has been to retain a touch of yellow where the original format yellows naturally, usually by manually adjusting the color balance and then a partial desaturation. With bird's eye view panoramas generally, though, the coloration appears to be a function of paper chemistry rather than the scanner settings. Currier and Ives, for instance, was the best in the business and probably used the best paper--their material holds up the best over time. Other examples take on characteristic aging traits that tend to line up by manufacturer--which makes sense if each manufacturer were consistently using a particular paper stock. DurovaCharge!19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I'd be tempted to point out to those who think old documents have to be yellow that their colour isn't an affectation, it's the result of oxidation of lignin in woodpulp-based papers, only occurring on lower-quality papers, or good ones when exposed to incorrect storage and display. Cotton-based stock is expensive and the choice of artisans, precisely becasue it won't yellow like bleached woodpulp. Not only do these properly-archived documents not suffer that fate in general, the colouring of scans of them for aesthetic reasons might mislead a more knowledgeable viewer to draw incorrect conclusions about a work's paper type or archiving history. In any case, a good archivist will scan works with a white background, and where there is one, that's the best reference point for proper white balance and hence historical accuracy. What bugs me about the LOC ones is the consistently poor white balance which seems to taint a good many exhibits to the same degree. Whether affectation or miscalibration on their part, I think it should be corrected for the encyclopedia. mikaultalk20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll be candid: getting people to review non-photographic material is hard enough already. I expect 10-20% of my restorations to tank at en:wiki FPC for irrelevant reasons, and I expect greater than 50% of them to tank at Commons FPC for irrelevant reasons. Currently one reviewer over there is asking me to crop the floor plan out of a manuscript baroque architectural design so the remainder of the image would look more like photography. And that's one of the serious reviewers (I get non-serious ones too). If you'd like to take up restoration, great. Please do. We need more restorationists. In the meantime please be mindful of the waters I swim in. I recently had to readd a hand-tinted etching from 1789 to the article about the storming of the Bastille, because even though it was already featured some editors didn't think it was important. When I restored the original twelfth army situation map from D-Day, some editors didn't want it in their articles about D-Day. Do you really think this work needs more hurdles to acceptance? DurovaCharge!21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hell no, and if it was a major hurdle I'd feel obliged to chip in on the work, but it isn't. It's often no more than a single click in Photoshop. A pity, really, that such a simple thing should have such a large effect on all that work. I know how thankless this work can be – by its very nature, it's invisible to most people unless you wave it under their noses – I used to contribute a little to the restorations here and a few years back was actually employed in that capacity, so I could "lose" the time quite efficiently ;) These days I'm way too busy away from my desk and simply can't find the time for anything but one-off requests. Your biggest allies in this are those who appreciate the worth of the documents and the value of the restoration. If I'm occasionally critical, it's because I care deeply about both. mikaultalk23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one - it had a colourbox. I may have gotten it slightly off - I didn't have the exact colourbox to compare - but I'm pretty sure it can't be as far as you went without the colour box having the colours distinctly off from what they should be; and the way I did it is consistent with the Doré prints from about the same period which I own personally.
The adjustment of Ryu sho ten also looks wrong to me: Wouldn't the white ink have gotten a yellow cast as well if it was just the scanner? - but the bathhouse pic (which, ironically, you didn't change) almost certainly DOES need adjusted, because there the white ink used for the women's skin - typical of Ukiyo-e - has a yellow cast. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently started the Dermatology task force and want to create a subpage for the taskforce that addresses dermatologic photos, giving guidelines/recommendations for good images. On that page I was simply going to link over to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria, but also wanted to added a few comments specifically geared towards dermatologic photos (like something about always having a ruler, etc in the picture to keep size in perspective, etc.). I also found a paper online (see [2]) and thought I could integrate some of its pointers into the page. However, I am a dermatologist, not professional photographer, and therefore wanted to know if you, or any of your friends, would help me develop this page? kilbad (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi kilbad. Sadly, at the moment, I have even less free time than I have knowledge of dermatology. I'd be happy to review any guidelines you manage to get together though, just drop me a line as & when. Cheers, mikaultalk23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This page has been started to review, discuss, and propose changes to the current closure process of Wikipedia Featured picture candidates. The need for this discussion has arisen following complaints and suggestions raised at the FPC talk page in May 2009. This time I believe we are getting somewhere and would appreciate your participation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I cannot rely on him, I was wondering if you knew anyone around the FPC crowd who would be willing to manipulate the current image a bit, to fix the stitching errors and the line at the top. If you could direct me to anyone, I would be very grateful. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've had to withdraw that support. I didn't notice the stitching error and it's not, sad to say, something anyone can fix without access to the original scans. A real shame. I don't suppose you might have access to those scans? I'd be happy to do the work. --mikaultalk23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was never too concerned about the line at the top. I would have supported it with or without. The stitching error is a deal-breaker, I'm afraid, and AFAICS there are no available individual files with which to fix it, either here or online at the Museum. A great pity, but as I said on the FPC page, impossible to fix without them. I won't go and view it again with my outstanding concerns, I really don't want to press the point more than I already have. Cheers, --mikaultalk12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I was out the back :p I've been meaning to drop you a line about your recent noms to FPC. It's a bit different to FAC in that the improvements you can make aren't always just a matter of redoubled effort. Sometimes there is a fundamental issue with an image which can't be corrected; in this case, it's poor lighting, definition and composition. I'm afraid it's just a very average photograph of a very special subject, a fact that is borne out (magnified, even) with the bigger image size. Were it the only image possible of that subject, those critical issues would receive a very generous amount of mitigation, but it's a repeatable, vastly improvable shot without merit beyond its subject matter. FWIW (and you might already know this, but here goes) FPC is littered with the corpses of nominations based solely on subject matter. We're very lucky to have such a wealth of high-resolution images, especially of historical material for which subject matter is often a saving grace, but (as with the painting referenced above) featured content needs to be the very best examples of that material, or we end up lowering the standards of the whole project. I'm sure you'll recognise this rationale from FAC. It's the same ethos, in effect. --mikaultalk12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That's understandable. I just hope at least one of the images that I have nominated will pass. I would prefer that to be the rounded album leaf painting of that White Jasmine Branch, a 12th century Chinese nature painting. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Me too, it's very pretty, but I won't be holding my breath. Paintings need to show critical detail (ie surface texture etc) and that is basically missing in the jasmine painting, despite its large image size. Sometimes higher resolution simply exacerbates problems with the digitisation, in this case the fact that it's not well-focussed and hence looks worse the bigger it gets. This image has lower resolution than yours but even at that size you can see that it has much better detail. I guess you're noticing by now that it's really quite tough to get an image through FPC... wjhen you consider that a tiny fraction of a percentage of images on commons even make it to nomination, you might feel a bit better :) Half the battle is good critical selection. I like the stuff you're nominating, maybe I could help you find some viable material. Can you point me to a collection of paintings etc that you like? --mikaultalk23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Judy Garland Main Image Quality
Hi, as an apparent photo expert, might you have a view that you would like to express in the discussion at [3] and [4] as to the quality of the Judy Garland main image? Feel free, if so, to leave your thoughts there, whatever they may be. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had changed your mind on this shot given that it seems that most people are happy with the exposure? It is the most realistic. Thanks, --Fir000206:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – it's patently obvious that vote counting is but a tiny step in deciding consensus, per WP:VIE, WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:PRACTICAL. It's time to recognise all this as the WP:DRAMA it is and move on. mikaultalk 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mikaul,
I've tried to convert the two images you commented on to sRGB, but I'm not sure if everything went well.
I was wondering if you could check this for me, since I can't find it in the image's information and don't have Internet Explorer.
Thanks, --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was just about to mention that, the images are still in AdobeRGB. Using Photoshop you need to choose Mode from the Image menu and then select Convert to Profile.... I suspect that's where you're going wrong as it's easy to assume the Assign... option does the same thing – it doesn't. In the Convert... dialog, select sRGB as your destination profile and choose a conversion method; I always use Adobe (ACE) and Perceptual. Otherwise use defaults. Obviously, if you're converting your master file, save it as a copy, as (unike Assign) the change is permanent. Hopefully that'll do the trick. FWIW I use both Safari and Firefox and they both mess up Adobe RGB files on WIkipedia due to the odd way the site handles image versions, so a thumbnailed Adobe RGB file will always look different (flatter, lighter, less sturated) to a preview or fullsize version. Once again, after you convert, don't forget to "Save As..." or you'll lose a lot of colour info in your original file! --mikaultalk22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Heyo, just wondering what I can do to try and help your issue with the picture. I tried playing with the levels and curves for a bit, but I really feel like the original levels make Pettitte stand out and shine very well. Staxringoldtalkcontribs22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a subtle enough issue that the difference between our monitors and gamma settings would make a nonsense of, but even allowing for that I still think the shot could "pop" a bit more with a levels tweak. D'you want me to upload an alt? --mikaultalk23:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mick, I don't think I quite got the last part of your comment on FP talk Shooting for specific articles is always a good idea. Maybe that's where you're going wrong. Can you elaborate? (This is not me playing dumb to set you up for a suckerpunch argument, I really didn't understand it ;-P ). --Dschwen21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah no biggie, I was alluding ironically to your comment that your stuff hadn't had much success in recent noms. FWIW I thought they got a hard time, even if you didn't nominate them yourself... but if you're like me you have plenty of shots that are quality images, very useful illustrations etc but never nominated. I've shot things specifically for inclusion in articles and never thought of nominating them because they're quite mundane subjects, when really they have exceptional EV almost by definition. Maybe it was a bit of a subtle irony... FWIW, it does work :-) --mikaultalk21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the discussion on Cristal. Either I didn't see it, or glossed it.
I actually don't involve myself in edit wars...although in this one case I did replace my edit: and included with it a new discussion: [5]. I'm certainly not going to change it once again while there's discussion. The discussion is, to my mind, more interesting and important, anyhow. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Historic photo restoration
Here is the archived discussion. Jimbo is somewhat ambivalent about my question but strongly approves of work by Durova (talk·contribs), which I like as well. So it boils down to quality and a possible vetting process. There is also the issue of having any discussion on en.wikipedia become moot because images are hosted on Commons, and Durova feels strongly that any formal standard should be established on Commons rather than here. I am not so sure about that, because Commons basically has no standards other than a statement that images hosted there should have an "educational" purpose, see Commons:Project scope and also this plain statement about not honoring Wikipedia OR guidelines. So for now the discussion is where I started it at the HOP page. I am definitely interested in pursuing some method of stating on this project that certain standards should be applied to any retouching of museum and library free content historic photos. I suggest checking Durova's talk page for further discussion as well. Let me know how you think a standards discussion can proceed, i.e. on a subpage of HOP project or so on. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I share your concern, first and foremost, for the risk to historical accuracy posed by careless editing; I also agree that this is one area where Commons and Wikipedia have distinct and conflicting interests. My feelings are that image editing performed to create clearer, more descriptive illustrations is perfectly valid and desirable unless an image is important in its own right. This criterion is often relative to placement, ie whether the image is on the author's article page or the subject's. It seems to me the effort you put into captioning the lead image at John Quincy Adams is exactly what's required in most cases; declaring image precedence is often key to appreciating factual value and image page descriptions simply aren't visible enough to do that. It might be worth looking at digital preservation for guidance, also maybe digital reformatting as a baseline for governing principles. Another area needing some thought is the condition images are expected to be in, in order to become featured. It's possible that, in order to achieve maximum encyclopedic value (one of the key qualifications at FPC) a repaired version of (for example) the Adams image would be the only way of achieving it. But how far should you go? Dust and scratches only? I pointed you to this discussion because I saw the emulsion waterstaining not as damage needing repair, but an integral part of the history of the image. Not many agreed. This is likely to be a tricky area, as high-resolution versions of very important images are prime FP candidates, inspiring editors to make the repairs they deem necessary to get them promoted. Over the years at FPC I've seen the acceptable parameters of those modifications shift from none at all, to quite radical crop/rotate/levels stuff (inluding complete greyscale desaturation), back to much gentler edits. That particular example was quite interesting as a measure of current opinion. There are definitely enough sympathetic eyes on the wiki to make this all worthwhile, but raising awareness of there being a problem at all is the biggest hill to climb. Hopefully you can see that a complete "hands off" campaign is doomed from the outset... I'd suggest the issue of regulation needs to be brought up at the Village Pump or somewhere more high-profile than the HoP project, but not before we use somewhere (like the HoP page, why not?) to thrash out the nitty-gritty of how much, rather than whether an image should be edited. mikaultalk02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding this brief comment as a placeholder more than anything else; this is really a very complex issue involving quite a few factors, and having read the two articles you linked I am now even more interested in having something done. I just can't come to a conclusion on how to approach the structuring of the debate. You are an HoP member and have displayed a good grasp of the subject, so please let me know how you see the page I just created, Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography/Discussion of restoration standards. I did this for the sake of convenience. Rather than having the discussion of standards on the WP:HOPh talk page, having a subpage of the project specifically designated for the purpose will help maintain focus and allow for the creation of a shortcut such as "WP:HOPh/REST" or something similar that will be easy to remember and type when and if it gets going and editors want to point to it from other locations. What do you think, is that a good title, and what should the intro to the associated talk page look like? Sswonk (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Intro-wise I'd start with the hard part – demonstrating that there's an issue at all – and then move on to the scope of the proposal. Am I right in thinking you have a kind of informal discussion in mind for now, rather than a formal proposal? It might still be worth introducing it quite formally – explain the problem with examples, outline the scope of the "proposed proposal" and maybe even declare the ultimate aim. I agree it's important to name it right; this isn't just about restoration of images. If it's to be comprehensive as a discussion it needs to address proper documentation and demonstration of historical accuracy when images are uploaded, for example. While a related guideline regarding the aims and extent of historical image editing would be a good idea, the ultimate goal has to be a re-write or expansion of WP:OI to protect the veracity of factual detail in historical images. I'd suggest the discussion title should be something like "preservation of historical images". This is all just of the top of my head, maybe you'd rather take it a different way. I'd be happy just to see the issue properly thrashed out, but I do think more than half the battle is putting a convincing case together from the off. I'll have a think about the wording but I'd be keen to hear your response to all this verbiage first :) mikaultalk07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I am moving slowly on this to get it right. The first step, renaming to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography/Preservation of historical images ("PHI"), is done. To be clear, the desire is to have the editors involved in the JQA retouch discussion involved in a broader discussion at the talk page of the PHI page, with the PHI page itself used to place finished work from that discussion. Yes, of course this is a step towards expanding WP:OI, and it may take several days or weeks simply to get beyond the first step of creating an outline of goals. I am placing the JQA1 and JQA2 images side by side on the talk page for now, with links to the LOC source files. I come from the advertising and printing side of the appreciation of image content. I am not confident that the way I describe what I don't like about the changes, using the broader generic terminology such as "the image was fundamentally altered in exposure, contrast, detail, and finally to my eye appears almost like an engraving rather than a photograph", will make for good discussion among members of HoP. I am just now adding my name to the list of project participants. If you can easily expand on the italicized concerns above, please enter your text below my initial statement at the talk page. Or, by all means, start it over, I waive any objection to your altering of the discussion image placement and text I just started as a draft. Sswonk (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's a tricky beast, needs stalking with care :) There's no harm in starting it as it is now, but don't you think the original discussion should be copied, collapsed and summarised under it? The summary should probably expand on a couple of things that could save people a lot of time and confusion: preserving images vs enhancing detail, historical record vs illustrative value, that sort of thing, also outlining and linking to previous points raised in other places – I think the Jimbo reaction was very interesting, for example. It would then be easier for to contributors to weigh up the pros & cons and hopefully weigh in with ideas. What dyou think? I'm confident enough with the "technical" side to draft all this up but I don't have much experience setting up major discussions & don't want to plough ahead with it if it's not what you had in mind. --mikaultalk22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: (first extant photographic image of a US president), actual the image we are discussing is four or five years later than [6], the link in John Quincy Adams was broken so I apologize if that mislead you. Still, the basics of what you are saying apply to any image of Adams in my view. Warning: curmudgeon-like statements follow (like Dorothy Parker, "what fresh hell is this?"): I am basically an optimistic person, but if fear the IRC channels now ring with opposition to this effort to even begin discussion of guidance and standards. Before when I got too pessimistic about Wikipedia I threw a notice on my talk page which said my status was "on semi-hiatus" and linked to whistle past the graveyard when clicked. Now beginning to whistle, but still up for continuing this effort. I sometimes think that not being a member of the back-slapping barnstar-giving old-boy crowd makes the paradise of a free encyclopedia quite hellish. It's interesting that during the time I was mulling this over on the founder's page, this post contained a neat bullet point summary by 70.185.113.212. Now granted I am taking it out of context and don't know the history of the disgruntled contributor, who may be an unpleasant person to be associated with, but I find a grain of truth in the Lord of the Flies imagery it evokes. So, I think soldiering on in the face of concerted opposition is not going to kill me, and I can take it in stride. I love learning. Sswonk (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt I could care less what goes on in IRC circles. Personally, I always edit on conscience. I've been pissed off enough with it in the past to leave, but came to realise that a genuine need or problem will always ultimately end up being addressed by sheer weight of consensus. In the long run, in my experience, that's what happens. Sure, there are fringe issues and maybe this is one of them; you just need more patience and greater determination, like you say. --mikaultalk13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with the policy talk page is the crossover with MOS, otherwise that would be a perfectly good venue. It's been taken to the Village Pump more than once (long lost in the labyrinthine archives there) and I'd suggest that was probably the place to generate maximum input. Definitely ask Tim; one of the perennial fave objections is to suck air in through your teeth and mutter darkly about coding impracticalities... --mikaultalk08:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Mick, how long to keep open the image poll? It's six days now; are you happy with two weeks? I'm going to try to raise Tim Starling from the dead again, and I'll pass by Jarry too as to the best way forward. Do you agree that unless there's a significant change in consensus, we should make representations to have the default raised to 220? I'd prefer higher myself (even 230 or 240); perhaps I should calculate the weighted average and some kind of mediand? Tony(talk)12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, can think of a few media editors we've not heard from either and I'd like to gauge the related topic of forced and factor-based thumbsizing for further discussion, before we close. Two weeks should be plenty. I'd also prefer 230-250px but I'm conscious of a strong resistence to any larger increase; if you look at the 220 supports, many express this misgiving. Be good to find some specifics re the likely increase in page download times due to a larger default. Given the paucity of images among articles in general, I suspect it will be minimal, but it probably needs expressing in statistical terms. I'll be on the road for another four days or so (keeping up via phone...) so I really appreciate your diligence on this. mikaultalk20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Mick, You'll be back tomorrow, I guess. I wonder whether it's acceptable to ping those experts who haven't yet responded. I'm never sure about the boundaries established by WP:CANVASS. In any case, I've buzzed Tim Starling (again, this time with a hard-to-miss graph) and Jarry. I've updated the graph and inserted methodological notes at the related discussion section at the RfC. I will put a reminder it will be closing soon, at VP and FLC and the WikiProject. I think 200px is a no-brainer, but given the solid support for up to 250px, we might feel like arguing for 230px. What do you think? Tony(talk)03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added a notice at the Graphics Lab. Along with last week's FPC notice the net should now be cast wide enough to catch all active media editors. Do I remember you posting a notice at the techie Village Pump? That would be the only other must-do, I think. The graph is a great idea. I'm probably not right in calling it the "median", but we should probably accept whatever comes out of that graph as having the broadest support, ie at the moment it's looking like 225 or 230 rather than 220. Having said that, someone supporting 220 suggested we should just go for that size arbitrarily, with a view to reducing to 200 if there are problems or, if it works out, looking at increasing it pending a more thorough review. I'd go along with that, assuming the coding/practicalities are as insignificant as we've been led to believe. --mikaultalk12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Water heater
Hi Mikaul,
I've continued the discussion on the Solar water heater image request. Had a busy weekend last week what with mountain biking and watching live orchestral music, so Wikipedia came third ;-] --Slashme (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:MIckStephenson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
![[1]](http://www.kirklandoldtimers.com/dagwoods1.gif){kind=link}
