User talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Valued picture candidates/Sandi Jackson
With the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandi Jackson, I think it would only be fair to make sure this got adequate consideration at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Sandi Jackson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher
Given the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brian Urlacher, can we get a fair consideration at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Redux
Please stop by at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/One Museum Park (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Chicago City Hall Green Roof (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
WP:ANI regarding User:Gniniv
User:Gniniv has filed another mediation request (this time through MedCab) regarding reversion of his POV disruptive editing. The Medcab request has resulted in an ANI report being filed from what could be another sympathetic admin. I'm reluctantly taking this opportunity to resume where we left off a month or so ago... and I figured I'd inform you in case you wish to take part. All the best, Jesstalk|edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010
- News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
- Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment
- Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration
- WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab
- Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
FP bottom of F and A
Hi, the Chicago River shot I've put at the bottom of F and A for next week: it's a composite of six pics, but what do you call the Fish-eye_lens effect (most obvious at the sides? I presume that was imposed on the composite as a further process. Tony (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he used a fish-eye lens, the distortion most likely was how he shot the images, probably handheld, and they wasn't perfectly parallel with the buildings, so when it was stitched together it probably made the distortion more. To get a perfect stitch that doesn't have distortion, specifically of very straight verticals like these buildings, is very difficult. One of the ways the stitching program matches up pictures is to "fish eye" them and on scenic shots of trees and mountains the slight distortion isn't noticeable, but on straight verticals like that picture it becomes noticeable. It's probably a worse-case scenario for stitching without perfectly aligned pictures taken from tripod with a panorama head. Not sure if theres a term for this or not... I'm not an expert, by any stretch, on panoramas. One of our excellent professional photographers that participate in FPC would be a better choice to discuss why there was a problem. — raekyt 01:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 September 2010
- From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost
- News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes
- In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
- Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Query
Hi there, I wonder whether there's any way we can display this gif file at F and A so that the reader clicks to start and stop the animation. The juddering would be distracting, I think, if continuous and unstoppable on the page. (That's the case in the newly promoted FA.) Tony (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's an antiquated technology, animated gif's, and personally I think we should do away with them completely. Problem is if you display it so that it animates its a nearly 2 meg file someone has to download to view the F&A page. It could in theory be converted to a movie that you click to play, but I donno of an easy way to do it without. — raekyt 18:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think we'll not put this one up at F and A, given what you say. Tony (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to pester again; I'll try not to do this often. The News and notes page has an awkward left–right arrangement of a graph and a logo in the first story. In may window-widths, it squashes the text badly. Will the multiple image syntax work here? They are of very different size. If not, is there a better arrangement, in your view? Link. Tony (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- It might be an unavoidable squash, which is against the MoS I think to sandwich text between two images like that. The image types and sizes are to big I think to justify the multi-image box. I tried to make the graph centered below the block of text, but there wasn't enough text on my screen to make that look right either. I think the logo on the left is so tiny that even in small screens it won't be overly squashed to make much of a difference. Only other option is to have an graphic editor make a new version of the graph that has the logo super imposed in a corner to combine them into one, or get rid of one or the other. Or you could expand the text portion maybe 1.5x larger then put the graph larger and centered at the bottom of the text that way it won't squash text between.... Not sure I was much of a help. And for reference I'm attending good ol' college again so I don't have a lot of online time to devote to wikipedia, so I may not be that prompt in responding. — raekyt 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to pester again; I'll try not to do this often. The News and notes page has an awkward left–right arrangement of a graph and a logo in the first story. In may window-widths, it squashes the text badly. Will the multiple image syntax work here? They are of very different size. If not, is there a better arrangement, in your view? Link. Tony (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think we'll not put this one up at F and A, given what you say. Tony (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by 
Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)