User talk:Arpingstone

Archived talk at User talk:Arpingstone/ArchiveMar3-2003

Hi Adrian,

re the images on Irish Houses of Parliament, unfortunately italics is a disaster because one browser in one version (Internet Explorer of course, who else!) turns them particularly when small into barely legible spiderly writing. I put the captions in in the way they are because they were the only way I could get didn't produce this effect. As to alternation, I've moved some but that too is highly problematical because some images interfere with headlines. That problem occurs on some versions of netscape because it does not recognise the <small></small> command and so text laid out as small which work perfectly on most browsers grow to full size on some versions of netscape, throwing everything all over the place and indenting some headlines, as well as crashing into other images if they are anyway close. (In putting on a lot of images with captions lately I have run into those problems over and over and over again and had to avoid the practice. Unless we get everyone to collectively bin IE and netscape - and oh god I wish they would. Of all the browsers I have used they are by far the worst! - italics (which I love using in professional documents I lay out) is a problem and alternation of pictures needs to be used very sparingly, and not with the <small></small> commands unless there are a clear two paragraphs between a left indent and the next headline. Even then all sorts of additional problems occur. I found these problems when using IE, then Netscape as a replacement. (I now use safari which is 100 times better!) I thought it was just a problem with my version of them, but others reported that different versions also produced the same problems. For some reason, it seems on netscape the newer the version the more it tends to screw up wiki images, or so I was told when I mentioned my problems. Older versions seemed not to have a problem. As one person joked, it seems bizarre that in every version of that damned browser they produce, things get worse not better! ÉÍREman 19:28 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Sounds like you're going to have lots of aircraft pictures to add after last weekend, eh? :) -- John Owens 09:00 16 May 2003 (UTC)

There won't be many aircraft articles to illustrate because lots of the aircraft I photographed last weekend at Kemble (in south west England) have no Wikipedia entry. I took 360 pics (!) at the Kemble Great Vintage Fly-in Weekend where four hundred British vintage light aircraft were on display. The first one I've added is a Piper Super Cub, look at The New Piper Aircraft, which was in a hangar at the time. I used up two 128 megabyte Smart Media cards on my digital camera, each card holds 180 pictures. Thanks for your interest, Best Wishes, Adrian Pingstone 15:03 16 May 2003 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable, Adrian. The distinction between a DC-9 and an MD-88, as you know, is more semantic than real, and as I recall the text of the entry takes the sensble line that they should all be regarded as one big family of aircraft. So go right ahead! Nice to hear that you have lots of nice new photographs. Maybe I can get my head out of the mammals long enough to write you a type entry or two to put them in. Cheers -- Tannin

Woops! I thought I had written a great long article to go there! Must be thinking of DC-8. No matter, the entry will take that line, once I get around to writing it. Tannin

Nice picture (as always). I have always thought that the DC-9 was one of the best looking commercial aircraft ever made. Nothing unusual or radical, they just got the proportions exactly right somehow. Tannin

---

The Peacock's Display

Just saw the large peacock photo by you. I've never seen peacocks so close in the zoos. This photo of yours is doubtlessly the most professional I've seen on WP so far. Because of this photo, I plan to translate the peacock article into Chinese. --Menchi 10:17 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment, much appreciated. I am just an amateur photographer with only a mid range digital camera but I have a firm rule that I will only put my best photos on Wikipedia and only if I have a large version as well. Nowadays, I do the big one 750 pixels wide so that an 800 pixel wide screen is not overwhelmed. The little one I do at 300 pixels wide so that text can flow down the side. The peacock was roaming free on an island in Poole harbour in south western England and was displaying to a female (not to me!) Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 10:44 25 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Replied to your query on my talk page as requested. jimfbleak 10:37 27 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your good work at Clifton Suspension Bridge. I thought the new versions were a bit too light when I looked at them at home, but on my monitor at work they're just right and my versions are horribly dark! The 750px versions look a bit fuzzy to me (you must have blown them up from my 600px versions), so I will go back to my original scans (nearly 4000px wide), try to recreate what you've done, and we'll see whether it produces any real improvement this evening. --rbrwr

You are quite right, I should have left the big pic at 600px wide. I blew it up to 750 px which was probably not a good idea. I did the blow up because I've standardised on a 750px pic, a size that doesn't overwhelm an 800 by 600 screen and is obviously OK at higher resolutions as well. I did all the processing in Photoshop. For your interest, I've discovered that any embedded thumbnail over 300px wide can squeeze the surrounding text down to just a few words in width, on an 800 by 600 screen (I use 1024 by 768). The effect is particularly serious if the reader has their Preferences set to have a menu down the left hand side. That's why I use 300px. All the articles I've illustrated are listed at User:Arpingstone

Cheers! Adrian Pingstone 08:28 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a go, and the first file is up at :Image:Clifton.bridge.745pix.jpg - my version ended up a little darker in the sky but lighter on the bridge. Does it look Ok to you? It's definitely sharper, but is close to half the file size. Mine's not as rotated as yours, either. I'm still not sure what I should take to be a correct vertical in the image... --rbrwr

Excellent picture, I don't see any need to change it any more. I took my vertical as a line through the bridge pier but I was being too fussy and the tiny lean really doesn't matter. Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 08:04 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll upload the other one tonight. --rbrwr

---

Thanks for the tip on portrait format, Adrian - I'd already spotted the 250 and 600 px sizes as you will see from University of Bristol... --rbrwr

---

Yes, I was a little unsure about the tilt on the university tower myself. I came to the conclusion that it's close enough to the angle where the nearest vertical edge of the tower (which goes right up the middle of the picture) should appear exactly vertical, and cropped it that way. By the way, today's uploads are the product of having got up bright and early on bank holiday Monday. --rbrwr

---

In response to your question, I'm using Photoshop 5.0LE for Windows, which came free with some piece of kit (scanner? printer? both?). Most of my recent JPEGs have been saved with quality setting 7 and "baseline optimised" format. I have picked up a few tips from Philip & Alex (http://philip.greenspun.com/panda/images), of which I think the use of unsharp mask is the one making the difference that you can see - it artificially emphasises the edges of things a bit. When working with my own photos I also have the advantage of always cropping and rotating the high-quality original before I resize it. Hope that helps... --rbrwr

Good reply, thanks for the hints. That website is most interesting. Thanks again,
Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 12:10 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I notice you like putting pictures on articles. I was just wondering is their any chance that you could find a picture to go on the Thrust 2 and Thrust SSC articles. By-the-way where do you get your pictures from. G-Man 2/6/03

I'm sorry I can't answer properly for 2 days but my computer is going for repair. I promise I will answer you when it comes back.

Adrian Pingstone 15:13 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi! My pics come from the following sources:

My own digital photography.

Long hours searching the internet using Google (I'm retired).

US sources such as NOAA, NASA, Navy, Army and Air Force.

The Canadian Air Force (I no longer use the Australian Air Force, I think their copyright message is too restricting for Wikipedia).

I have two photographers who let me use the pics off their sites.

That's it! The easy way to see exactly where a pic comes from is simply to click on it. I always explain, in great detail, my source.

I've added two ThrustSSC pics but got in a mess trying to correct a mistake you made. You called them Thrust SSC and Thrust 2 (which is wrong, it's ThrustSSC and Thrust2). So I made a Redirect from Thrust SSC and Thrust 2 to the correct titles but now, when I put Thrust SSC or Thrust 2 into the Search box there's no result and I can't understand what I did wrong.

Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 14:04 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Just out of curiosity, you seem to have been around the British aircraft biz a bit, albeit seemingly mostly on the civilian side... ever been to RAF Brize-Norton? -- John Owens 10:32 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, I haven't been to Brize, even though it's only about 40 miles from where I live. My interest has been photography at Heathrow since I bought a digital (Olympus 3020Z) camera about a year ago. For your interest, Brize has 19 VC10s, 8 Tristars and 4 C17s. Lyenham (about the same distance from me) has 51 C130s.
I love illustrating Wikipedia and I cast about endlessly over the net for public domain pics (now that I've used up all the pics I've taken myself). I won't use any poor images so it's a hard search (but fun). Luckily I've got double speed broadband (1 megabyte cable) compared to the 56K dialup I used to have (and I'm retired) so I have loads of time for the searches.

Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 13:33 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Huh, the C-17s are new. I asked because that's where I was stationed for about a month during the Kosovo dust-up, working on KC-135s that went there. I definitely remember the VC-10s, since those were our equivalent there, but I'd have noticed C-17s if they'd been there then. One of the curious aspects of that time was getting visits from one of the big Antonovs, I forget exactly which one, complete with the Russian tricolour on it. That seemed a little weird. ;)

Unfortunately, I'm still among the digital-camera-lacking unwashed, and to top it off, some of my prints are in storage (and I didn't have a huge store to begin with). So I'm waiting to use a friend's scanner sometime, and then I should have a couple of decent pictures to add. -- John Owens 21:26 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I've moved your photo comments onto my talk page. CGS 17:32 11 Jun 2003 (UTC).

---

Sistine Chapel ceiling

I showed my little sister in first-grade those photos, and she exclaimed, "How did he take those so close? Did he stand up there, like a spider or something?!" :-) --Menchi 20:57 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Didn't really take that long at all, I just used search and replace.

I've been kind of torn in such instances whether I should be replacing with &rdquot; etc., but I finally guessed it would probably be better to go with uniformity with most of the other articles. - Hephaestos 20:51 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adrian. I think this link to Swarovski (http://www.swarovskioptik.at/english/produkt/index.asp?cat=Products&type=Telescopes&model=18) ought to answer your question. :) I have heaps more on this stuff if you are interested. -- Beat Tannin

---

Adrian, I was using a different computer from my normal one the other day and I looked at those Winchester Cathedral photos, and suddendly mine did seem to be very dark. I always thought the PNG format compensated for this problem with a gamma correction field. I'm going to switch them (upload yours into mine). CGS 17:58 19 Jun 2003 (UTC).

---

Hi Arpingstone, I find the image of the Austrian town Kaprun really nice, but why did you put it on the "Austria" page? I don't see any relation to the article. Fantasy 08:11 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

moved discussion to talk:Austria Fantasy 09:18 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian, again me. Another question: It seems to me, that you are (apart from airplanes) also interrested in cableways, Aerial tramways and things like that. Are you often in Austria, have you been also in South Tyrol? Are you also interrested in trains? Fantasy 10:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, thanks for your reply on my page. I had just some friends from England that are interrested in trains and things like that, for this my question. I think this is a really good job, you are doing. A lot of the people that add "knowledge" to Wikipedia forget that you have also to enjoy the reading, and facts alone are "dry" ;-) I look forward for many other fotos you add to Wikipedia. Have fun with you digicam, I think i will learn from you and also start to add my private fotos to Wikipedia! Greetings from Germany, Fantasy 14:44 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian, saw your query re duck names. Individual species capitalised throughout apart from hyphenated bits, eg Barrow's Goldeneye[?], Green-winged Teal, but for article titles there must be a lower case redirect to the capitalised version. Groups of birds not capitalised. eg the water kingfishers, the tree swifts. Scientific names as Anas crecca. Any queries, get back to me or Tannin, jimfbleak 05:30 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hm, that's odd. I was using css to get the text smaller, but I guess IE's not picking it up. I went ahead and put it back to smaller in HTML, if you would have a look and make sure it works now that would be great. (Either css or html works in my browser; unfortunately I've done quite a few pages the css way, but I'll switch to the html tags from now on.) I put the parentheses in to differentiate between the rest of the text for flow, but I'm not adamant about it, if you'd like to change that back that's fine. - Hephaestos 13:17 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

NASA logo

Hello, I've found a logo from NASA and I've uploaded it here: :Image:Nasa-logo.png.

You seem to be the imaging expert here, so I'm hoping that you would process the image to a more manageable size.

Thanks. -- Erzengel 15:46 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nice work. -- Erzengel 21:43 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian. We have had a bit of a burst of articles about various duck species recently, which of course would be greatly enhanced by images. Those that occur in N America aren't too bad because of the US Fishery and Wildlife Service public domain images, but most European species (and Mandarin Duck) have nothing.

I remember you saying you had been to Slimbridge, and wondered if you had any images you could add to these articles. Alternatively, if you have images for which there are no articles, I could prioritise those species on my "to do" list. Thanks for any help you can give (incidentally, I'll be off-line for a few days after tomorrow morning, so if you reply and I don't respond, I'm not ignoring you. jimfbleak 08:19 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The following definitely exist

• Bean Goose
• Black Swan ? has some pics
• Mute Swan ? has some pics
• Snow Goose
• Whistling Swan (may be under Tundra Swan)
• Whistling duck (group article)
• Red-breasted Goose
• White-fronted Goose
• Shelduck could go under Tadorninae for now

I'll check the others, and write (eventually) those I know something about.

Many thanks

jimfbleak 14:18 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian, I replied to your question on my page. I think, it is easyer to keep a discussion on the same page (otherwise i get confused... ;-) Fantasy 14:01 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian, thanks for your pictures in the Bremen article. Photos are doubling the value of a city article. As for the pronunciation guide, I am sorry for forgetting to leave a comment on my deletion. There are two reasons: Firstly, it is not correct; if the first syllable would rhyme with clay, the city would be spelled "Brejmen". Secondly, it seems to me, that pronunciation guides rather belong to a dictionary than to an encyclopedia. We don't have pronunciation guides for all the other cities and places (at least I didn't find them). So it is somewhat strange to have it here and nowhere else. If you strongly feel that a pronunciation guide for foreign language places is necessary, then we should ask the community on village pump what they do think about it. Admittedly, I'd be quite unhappy with it. -- Cordyph 14:28 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, so Bray-mun is not quite right but surely close enough for a non-German speaker! And if we don't have pronunciation for the other difficult city names then we should, such a guide is perfectly well part of an encyclopedia (and a dictionary) However, lifes too short to worry about this, you and I just have different opinions of how much the reader should be told. We'll agree to disagree, and the reader can stay ignorant of how to pronounce the title of the article he/she is reading! I won't revert you.

Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 17:14 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, that you feel that angry. That was not intended by me. I would feel more comfortable with a phonetic alphabet, since there are some sounds in foreign languages, which do not exist in English and which can't be represented in English syllables. And in my own defence, it is not, that German city names are usually pronounced in a very strange way. Like in Italian or Spanish or several other languages, pronunciation is almost identical with the phonetic alphabet. I am interested, what other Wikipedians think about a pronunciation guide, so maybe I will bring this topic onto the mailing list. -- Cordyph 21:21 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a mild person normally but I felt strongly on this and obviously it came over that way. Thanks for your polite response to my unfriendly reply. I'll carry the discussion on just a little further please .....

Wouldn't a phonetic alphabet, with its specialised symbols, be much more confusing than my simple attempt to approximate to the pronunciation and a key would be needed to the phonetic alphabet. How would the reader access the key? I think the issue is..... how to give a rough guide in the rare case where the assumption a reader would make on the pronunciation could be wrong. Are you aware that most English-speakers would assume it to be Bremen as in lemon? It would be good to sort the matter out so by all means discuss it further in another area of Wikipedia. Best Wishes,

Adrian Pingstone 08:15 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a genyooine Wikipedia standard or not, but I usually see such things done around here with the SAMPA alphabet, q.v. See SAMPA/English for the English rendition; SAMPA Chart kind of covers other languages. Usually it will have a link to the SAMPA page somewhere near the pronunciation's representation. I do favour having a simple pronunciation tip for the casual reader as well, though. -- John Owens 08:29 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I just posted this to the mailing list. Maybe both of you want to join a discussion there? (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/thread) I regret again, that I was so fast in deleting the pronunciation guide, but I strongly feel, that we should not give rough approximations for correct spelling. So SAMPA might be a solution that I would not oppose. -- Cordyph 08:33 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Although it's easy to see the good intention behind the pronunciation guide, I too feel a transcription to English being a less than optimal solution, in particular as English as a mother tongue is pronounced quite differently in different parts of the world. Further I would warn against the clay-rhyme, as the last syllable in "clay" is a diphthong which both the English and US-Americans tend to insert falsly in their French (and sometimes in German) for stressed é-sounds. In my opinion both the "e" in "Bremen" is closer to the first "e" in "remedy", although the first "e" of "Bremen" is more than duplicated in length. Maybe some US-English pronounciations of "bear" would come close? -- Ruhrjung 12:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, I now accept that Cordyph and Ruhrjung are right i.e. that non-English words can't be accurately rhymed with English sounds. Thanks for all your inputs. Which means, Cordyph, that you were right to revert me. Best Wishes,
Adrian Pingstone 14:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Dump the drawings, they're just there on a better-than-nothing basis, and the taxobox is the standard place for the first picture/link to larger combination.

Thanks again for your help. I hope this is enough, because after tomorrow am I'm going to be off line for a few days. jimfbleak 18:47 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, I'll sort out how to do it by looking at other taxoboxes that have a "Larger Version" message. Have a nice break (or whatever).

Adrian Pingstone 20:01 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nice Bean Goose. We will make a birder of you yet. The two white-fronted geese might be an ID challenge. I realised what had happened with Black Swan, and just reverted it; I assumed you hadn't suddenly embarked on a campaign of vandalism!- -jimfbleak 12:59 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

No, I'm afraid you have jumped to conclusions. I am not a "troublemaker." Have a look at my 1900+ contributions (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mbecker&limit=50000&offset=0) if you need convincing. The fact is, no real explanation was given for the removal beside that jimfbleak didn't like my illustration. He jumped to the conclusion (much like you) that it was a "cartoon" or "parody." I find this insulting. There was no good reason to remove an illustration that is perfect for that article (it's a woodpecker finch, look at the images description!). I don't know what you have against people contributing original works, but it seems to be the consensus that my illustrations are not wanted in the bird pages. MB 14:37 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

As it happens, as an inveterate Recent Changes checker, I'd picked up on that and your excellent White-front and swan pics. Now, if you book your next holiday in the Galapagos Islands, I'll write the woodpecker finch article to go with your pics.

---

Hi Adrian. Your Snow Goose image should definitely be first choice, preferably labelled as blue phase. Whether it's worth keeping the other one for the tim being as well, to show the white phase, is more difficult given the difference in appearance - you decide what looks best, and I'll go with that. jimfbleak 05:28 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian. I,ve been off line for a couple of days with the builders in. Don't the waterfowl articles look better with good pictures? As you say, the Bewick's can wait. There are large numbers that winter at Slimbridge, can't remember if they feed them there though (they do at Welney WWT). BTW, despite the similarity, Ross's Goose is a different species to the Snow Goose. Keep up the good work! jimfbleak 07:28 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Please see Talk:Finch. MB 21:29 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Nice Shelduck pic. Common Shelduck is the politically correct version of Shelduck to avoid Eurocentricity. However, since it's a European bird...

When I get time I'll write a shelduck article, so we can use the pic again - there are none written in Tadorninae yet. to busy today though (ordered to make a bookcase) jimfbleak

---

It's a not quite fully adult Orange-headed Thrush, Zoothera citrina, tropical species from India across to S China and down to Indonesia. Likes thick forest, so not easy to see in the wild. (copied from Village Pump).

Amazingly, I'd already done an article for this species, on the strength of having seen it in India. The full adult male is brighter orange, greyer-backed and the face streaks almost invisible. Adult female similar to your bird, but face less marked. A super bird, but likes thick undergrowth, so takes some finding. jimfbleak 11:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian,

It is great to see you turning your photographic skills to the birds now. It really make a huge difference to articles to have a picture, I think - especially for fauna ones (as opposed to, say, Constitution of Belgium[?]).

I thought your 250px version of the Orange-headed Thrush seemed a bit blurry, and remembered the 750px original looking sharper than that. On checking, I saw that it was indeed nice and sharp, so out of curiosity I shrank it down to 250px myself using PMView (my usual image editor). Compare the old:

With the new:

(Hint: look at the wing feathers.) Interestingly, the new one is also smaller: both are 24-bit JPEGs but the old is 27.8k and the new 15.8k. Riddle me this if you can! I didn't do anything fancy, just used PMView to resize at the factory default settings. There is a new version of PMView out, called PMView Pro. Just for fun, I tried that one out too,and it does even better: 15.6k and a very slightly sharper picture (probably not enough difference to bother uploading and over-writing a third time, but I can pick them apart). Anyway, it occurs to me that maybe you could benefit from a top-class image viewer and manipulator, and though I have no commercial connection with PMView, I've been using it and recommending it for years, and in this particular case the difference is very visible. It's wonderfully easay to use so you might like to give it a whirl. You can download a 30-day free trial from their site (http://www.pmview.com). (End of free plug!)

Best -- Tony (Tannin)

Ahh, yes. I didn't think it was up to your usual superb standard, Adrian. Not a bad picture by any means (I've seen lots worse here), but with the consistent quality of your photographs here on the 'pedia, you have made a rod for your own back - we all expect perfection as routine!

But for this particular bird, don't worry too much. They are common as mud here. If, after all the money I've just spent on photography gear, I can't come up with a nice Australian Shelduck in the wild over the next little while, I'll put the camera, the scope, the tripod, and all the accessories into a big cardboard box and post the lot over to you, then start my new career as a coal miner or something. So long as the light is good - i.e., between about 10AM and about 3PM at this time of year - I only need to get within about 50 or even 100 metres of one. Doing birds without a long lens is seriously difficult!

On another matter, it's really odd to hear that Photoshop of all things is doing sub-optimal JPEG shrinks. It really shouldn't do that - as you know, it's supposed to be the big banana in graphics software. I imagine that there is some sort of setting that you have to change to make it optimise a bit better, but I have absolutely no idea what! It's too complicated for me. I'm strictly a hardware man these days.

Cheers -- Tony (Tannin)

---

Hi Adrian,

regarding APOD: All the images I "bookmarked" contain "Credit: NASA", and since NASA is a US government institution, I assumed the pictures to be in the public domain. Is this wrong? -- JeLuF 22:39 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)