User talk:Saffron Blaze: Difference between revisions

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 10:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saffron,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Saint Augustin Church Paris .jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 29, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-03-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re perspective. I am aware. I have had this argument a number of times over Featured Image candidates for the Wikipedia front page. There is a lot of this silliness on Wikipedia where a notion of making things fit rules of some sort (Make verticals parallel!) over-rides any form of discriminating taste.

If you look back into the history of the Wells article, you'll find that it was laid out quite differently. There were very good reasons for the arrangement, but after I had explained all that, it was clear that there could be no flexibility, no deviance from the perceived set of rules. What we have now is apparently Wikipedia compliant. Some people like sets of clear rules that save looking and thinking. And some people really enjoy the process of rule enforcement.

Here is one of the most desperately awful perspective "corrections" on Wikimedia Commons. The uncorrected image (centre) shows the tall narrow proportions, in keeping with the image taken from further away. One result is that shapes are distorted, particularly semi-circular arches which become "depressed" arches. All the proportions of the building are destroyed.

• 
  Abbaye aux Hommes
• 
  ...then it poured again!
• 
  Postcard from a distance

And this is possibly even worse, because it was put up as an Featured Image on Commons... What has been done here is so hilarious to anyone who knows the number of theories there are as to how and why the columns are designed to lean inwards, the base raised up at the centre, and the columns closer together at the outside. There is not one straight line in the building. Look how image No. 1 diminishes both the height of the building and its sense of grandeur. Likewise, in the Abbaye Hommes, above, the middle pic conveys the sense of soaring height, which one gets when approaching the building from the narrow streets. Amandajm (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  The "perspective corrected" Parthenon!
• 
  I had to beg to get this version back, after the correction had been done. See Ancient Greek architecture

• I am having a hard time finding the RAW file for that façade of Wells. I'll find it on the old computer I suspect. As to perspective... it's all a matter of taste. I hate the top heavy look but at other times I think the corrections are warranted. Frankly I like the corrected Partheon, and I like the longer distance shot of the other church. Probably an internal bias from always trying to make things straight :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't forget to sign your talk contributions. regards --palmiped |  Talk  10:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will go anywhere, but I filed a request on Bugzilla for a change to the image size settings. That will at least increase the odds that someone who could act on this will see the request. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing that. I will monitor its progress with interest (to say the least :-). Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Sven, you're welcome to point out where I've "attacked" anyone on my talk page. If it turns out that, actually, I didn't, you're welcome to retract your comment... J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]