Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 7 December 2007

• WT:FPC

Archives
12 Feb 2004 — 15 Nov 2004 15 Nov 2004 — 23 Jun 2005 23 Jun 2005 — 17 Nov 2005 17 Nov 2005 — 31 Dec 2005 01 Jan 2006 — 09 Feb 2006 10 Feb 2006 — 15 Mar 2006 16 Mar 2006 — 12 Apr 2006 12 Apr 2006 — 30 Apr 2006 30 Apr 2006 — 1 July 2006 1 July 2006 — 31 August 2006 31 August 2006 — 24 November 2006 24 November 2006 — 18 March 2007 18 March 2007 — 3 August 2007 4 August 2007 —

Noms with short legs

We're starting to see an awful lot of noms from candidates with very little time in the encyclopedia, a good many nominated the same day as they were uploaded. I was about to raise this on the FPC page but can't seem to find any sign of the guideline advising against nominating images which have yet to "settle in" to their respective articles. Did I imagine this, or more to the point, are we now disregarding this as a pre-condition for nominees? --mikaul 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• You raise some good points, but keep in mind Template:FeaturedPicture encourages people to upload and nominate images, which I think is a good thing. The issues with too-soon noms would be that 1) it clogs up the FAC candidate page and 2) editors might get discouraged if the nom is not well liked, or if they get bitten. I can't say anything about issue 1, but issue 2 would be the responsibility of editors not to bite newcomers and politely explain the FP criteria. I think if an image qualifies under the criteria (adds value, technical quality, a good caption, suitable license etc.) it shouldn't have to wait for any trial period. FAC process can be a good way for wikipedians to welcome newcomers, and we may discover good photographers who would be willing to share more images! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues there: one, that newbies jump straight in and two, that old hands upload and nominate images in one fell swoop. I have no problem with the first one. Yes, they should read the criteria, maybe browse some old noms but it's never that obvious when you're new. No harm done in offering your best shot, regardless. The issue with no trial period for nominations is that the image may not survive in the article it was uploaded to and therefore not link to anything in the encyclopedia. Apart from the obvious enc problems, it has implications for suitability as PoD. Leaving it a month or so to see if its insertion will be reverted should be a necessary prerequisite for FPCs. That's to say, I thought it was a prerequisite.. --mikaul 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I should have written "candidate images" in my original post. Sorry for the confusion. --mikaul 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploading and directly nominating is BS in most cases as I've said before. This goes for newbies and old hands alike. Encyclopedic images need peer review by article authors and not only by photography nerds. --Dschwen 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no actual guideline for this though, that I can see. I'd say at the very least this should be mentioned in the introduction to the FPC page, or maybe become a FP criterion. --mikaul 01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline would be common sense. The criteria clearly state the picture has to add significantly to the article. So prove that it does! Prove it by having the picture withstand the scrutiny of the article authors, the scrutiny of the people who know the subject matter the picture is supposed to illustrate. I really don't see the need for yet another written rule here. --Dschwen 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest a whole new FPCriteria rule, rather elaborate the one you allude to. However it seems to me to be such a fundamental precondition that it should probably be more prominently spelled out. Looking at the FPC page intro, it could tag onto the end to target the self-nominators, who are after all the main culprits:

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Misplaced Pages but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. If you're nominating your own work, please ensure that it has been in place at the subject article long enough to demonstrate its relevance and allow the authors of the article time to evaluate it.

--mikaul 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets not be hypocritical now Dschwen. You both uploaded and nominated this picture on May 15th, 2007. And that wasn't the only time... this picture you both uploaded and nominated on April 30th, 2007. this picture you waited a full two days between upload and nomination, back in april. Or how about this one that you uploaded and nominated on the same day. I wonder, did you forget that you are much in the practice of doing this or do you feel entitled to different rules than other users. I here you say it is "BS" and that it should be self-evident. Just thought you should know, Dschwen, you lost a lot of respect from me just niow. : ( -Fcb981 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how it is to get carried away by your own pictures. So it happened to me, I know, and I reflected about it. But why are you making this about me, I certainly haven't started that. Why are you commenting on the issue but instead dig up dirt on a commentator. How is that contrbuting to a constructive discussion? And just because I did crap like this, it does not invalidate the whole point now, does it? --Dschwen 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do it too, and there have been errors in some of the information once in a while. So I don't disagree with the idea that pictures shouldn't be nominated right after they are uploaded. I was just surprised to hear you come out so strongly against it when you do it. I do it because it is less work load to do it at the same time, getting the information for a caption, etc. After thinking about it though I think I'll stop my own practice of uploading and nominating in the same breath. Maybe I did over react, just try to practice what you preach... : P -Fcb981 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right about the practicing what I preach. It would have been sensible to adjust the tone of my initial comment to my own record in this respect. --Dschwen 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is constructive discussion when it brings to light the hypocrisy of someone's policy... :-) I agree that in an ideal world, we should let an image run the gauntlet of being in an article for a while before being nominated here, but I do think that veteran contributors usually have a pretty good eye for what is going to pass and what is going to stick in an article. That's not to say we're infallible, but nine times out of ten, it won't be an issue. Besides, once an image is FP, it carries a greater clout in debates over whether it remains in an article, as long as it remains ecyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally agree there. I've posted up images to the wrong article or section before, despite being quite confident of the enc value and tech quality of the shot. A settled-in picture can only improve it's FP candidacy - what's the rush? What possible benefit to anyone comes of diving straight on in? --mikaul 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, an FP for the POTD a bit earlier? Are we running out of not-alreday-featured images yet? I heard talk that we were on the brink of running out. Not that I have the slightest problem with re-featuring them years later. Nobody will remember or care. I suppose we all get a bit excited when we have a great photo that adds a lot to an article though. But that said, I don't think any image of mine that has been FP has been withdrawn from the article shortly after. If anything, I have problems with, as I mentioned, silly people removing good quality FPs to replace them with their own happy snaps. Anyway, most people submit their images to FPC at least partially for the glory happiness that sharing brings - don't take that joy away!  ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give examples of images that were promoted to featured status, but then were later removed from the article after not withstanding the scrutiny of editors? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does happen occasionally, but I can't think of specific examples. My guess is it might happen when the article is full of images (I suppose that brings up the issue of whether the image adds significantly to the article...) and, rather than being because it is a poor image, it gets dropped to make room for some average Joe's personal photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, Jeff, you might as well ask to see a FP which has no enc value.. nominations often cite an article they appear in and, before the first comments are made, get removed from them. While this often isn't the only cited article, it confuses and weakens a nomination and benefits nobody. There's a case in point up for review right now, when a nominee hasn't properly identified a flower species. Having twice changed the ID (and therefore the relevant article) the nomination is complete mess and after four days doesn't have a single + or - vote. It's a good shot; left to settle into place a month or so, authors would both ID and place it correctly, reviewers would feel much more confident about the nom and it would probably pass. As it is, it's likely to fail, which is a both a shame for the pic and a waste of everyones' time. --mikaul 09:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But is it really a problem that a hasty nomination fails due to not proving itself first when it happens infrequently? I just don't think we should significantly reduce flexibility in nomination just to avoid a relatively rare situation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If that was the only issue, no, of course it wouldn't really be a problem. The fact is there are plenty of good reasons to hold off a nomination after uploading. Most important, the enc value of an image is best evaluated by authors of the article it appears in. As Dschwen says, encyclopedic images need peer review by article authors, not (only) photographers. Related to that, the tendency to "dump" a new image on an article, just to have the "appears in" section filled in on the candidate page, is disruptive and disrespectful to those who may have worked hard to develop that article. Then there's the poorly-identified flower/insect/insert-mystery-object-here problem I pointed out in my previous post. There's also the fact that these noms would be much stronger and more convincing if they were properly settled in to their subject articles, resulting in a higher pass rate, which addresses the shortage of of new PoDs issue you mention. Related to this is the need to re-nominate, once the nom has failed for whichever of the above problems and finally settle in properly, which clogs up the FPC process. Personally (what's this, reason #6?) I really take exception to the overall carelessness, disrespect, lack of vision and downright selfishness which foregoing this guideline/requirement openly encourages. Finally, for those who simply can't wait until christmas to find out what they're gonna get, there's COM:FPC. At the very least, candidates should be encouraged to nominate there first, ideally to the QI section before the COM:FPC process, after posting up the image in the encyclopedia, which (a) should buy the WP:FPC nom a good couple of weeks grace and (b) avoids the need to migrate the resulting plethora of lovely, new, PoD-bound WP:FPs to COM:FP. And with that, m'lud, I rest my case :o) --mikaul 10:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And a persuasive case it is.. :-) I agree with much of what you say, and while I will (playing devil's advocate), suggest that the whole issue still isn't a Big Deal, that it probably is something we ought to aim for since you're right that it does firm up the candidacy when it has survived placement in the article(s). And you're also right that hasty nomination probably does, for the most part, amount to wanting to open your christmas presents early. Good things do come to those who wait. I will keep it in mind with my future nominations... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the FPC process should be as easy as possible with as few rules as possible. While there a good points made about hasty nominations, I don't see it as that big of a problem. As far as the problem with the Leucospermum photo nomination, the Leucospermum article has had 25 edits in its entire history, so just because the picture is in that article for a few weeks dosen't mean that anyone has even seen, much less verified it. The problem with that image was discovered in the FPC process (which has a much higher level of scrutiny than a flower species page), not when it was added to the article. Cacophony 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'd like as few obstacles as possible to the FPC process and can only assure you that this is the motive behind this proposal. The "no more rules" argument is a fine appeal to that end but is really only rhetorically convincing. The fact remains that the process is currently being hindered by this issue and the proposal isn't for more rules, it's an appeal to uphold a long-standing, apparently unwritten convention. I'm suggesting we actually finally add it to the FPC page, no more. --mikaul 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I haven't actually read everything above - but enough to get the general gist. But anyway just my quick opinion - although it's nice to think that article editors will be able to tell whether a photo is good enc and quality and so should have a home on an article, IMO that is a bit naive. First of all a lot of article's simply aren't anyone's pet articles and so get very little in the way of interest and/or editing so basically any image will stay there for several weeks or months. Furthermore as Diliff suggested above there are numerous cases of people replacing high quality images in an article with rubbishy ones and this going unnoticed for considerably periods of time. So IMO it's great if a photo has been in an article for a while, but it doesn't really mean much at all --Fir0002 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a shame that again this appears to be complaints targeted mainly at further discouraging original contributors/self-nominators (especially when most of the people supporting this idea here are themselves original contributors/self-nominators).

There may be a number of reasons people immediately nominate after uploading. I never used to, basically for the reasons mikaul raises, but I have started to recently. The main reason I started doing so is that I forget about the images if I don’t nominate immediately (and I don’t think I’m alone here). I also do a fair bit of research and scouting of the article/s before I upload and nominate so am pretty confident that the image is correctly identified, belongs there, and is useful before it ever gets onto Misplaced Pages. (Although I have to agree that some other contributors may like to follow these guidelines, as there certainly are issues with the way some nominators dump their images in articles, with sloppy placement, inaccurate captions, or total misidentification; however, as others have already commented, sadly these problems often don’t get raised until the image appears on FPC, and there must be some that slip through there as well, which makes the whole argument about how long it's been in the article pretty redundant.)

Re Mick’s suggestion that images should be nominated on Commons QI and FPC first – please...give me a break! I have never, and will never be involved in this. Every time I look at commons FPC I am appalled at the lack of rigour in the voting process, with endless series of supports involving little or no analysis of the photos, and I therefore have no interest in wasting my time there. Whenever someone puts an image up on Misplaced Pages FPC citing its status as a Commons FP or current strong candidate, I simply regard that argument as having no value at all. I upload my images to Commons and place them into categories/articles there, but that is all; I only upload images there that I consider will be valuable for Misplaced Pages, so then come and place them into the relevant article here.

There are actually some reasons why quick nominations are a good idea, especially for the ‘seasoned campaigners’ who usually get it right re IDs and article use.

One of my recent nominations (that was eventually promoted) had stood the test of time for almost a year in it’s not insignificant article (at one stage it was shunted down to the gallery by some clown, along with an existing FP, but I moved them back up into the article proper months before the nomination). Upon nomination two or three FPC regulars proposed that my image was perhaps not particularly encyclopaedic anymore as it was now a year out of date, and the scene depicted may have changed over that time. So what is the incentive to wait to nominate here?

The other thing we need to be aware of is that more often than not images are voted on and ultimately end up promoted due to users that do not consider encyclopaedic value or other criteria properly (and don’t try feeding me any bull about their votes being discarded or anything, because they almost never are ignored). This is similar to the way political elections are often decided by the ‘swinging voters’ that don’t actually follow or understand politics much, if at all.

A case in point was this recent damselfly nom – a straight series of supports, then my vote that pointed out that the image was only used in the gallery of one article and thus didn’t fulfil criteria five properly, which was then followed by another support simply ignoring my comments and no reconsideration from others (hey, that’s an idea, fulfil Mick’s proposal by plonking your images in article galleries for a couple of months). Or what about this world map nom that has listed as one of its articles eye; well, no it’s not in the eye article, it’s on the creator’s userpage which he has linked to as Eye – and hey, guess what, not a single voter has noticed (so another loophole, I’ll just sit the photos on my userpage for a couple of months before nominating eh, and then list that as one of the articles with a dodgy link?). What about the noms that are promoted due to stacked voting (the current Wikepe-tan delist nom has reminded me of probably the worst example of this). Mick’s suggestion that "...the fact that these noms would be much stronger and more convincing if they were properly settled in to their subject articles, resulting in a higher pass rate" is therefore a complete fantasy, for the simple reason that most voters neither consider nor care about this stuff. And if we restrict votes to those that do, then we’ll be left about half-a-dozen voters on FPC.

My point is not to raise specific examples, but to say that a far greater concern than how long images have been on Misplaced Pages or in articles is the voting process itself that allows examples like those I’ve given above to occur (and occur regularly they do). I also still have a problem with how the FPC process is skewed towards non-Misplaced Pages originating images (e.g., the criteria exceptions granted for claimed historic images), and the way so many voters seem to automatically think ‘old = historic = support’, and ignore all criteria on quality, composition, etc. Where’s the ‘no wow factor’ or ‘good for it’s article but not FP quality’ arguments against these old photos that are so often thrown at Misplaced Pages original photos? They just don’t get raised.

But now I’m getting off the point of this discussion, so will leave it there. To wrap up, as I said at the start, I used to wait a good period before nominating, but don’t anymore for a plethora of reasons; Mikaul’s suggestion is maybe quite sensible, in fact even noble, but unless all the irregularities in voting can be fixed first (and that’s unlikely), as other’s have said, this quick-fire nominating is a pretty minor issue. And as I’ve pointed out above, it’s especially distasteful that the concept seems to be mainly directed at yet again discouraging original contributors, which should be what FPC is all about. --jjron 14:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isnt. FPC is about selecting and honouring the best images in the encyclopedia. It's not about outstanding wikipedian contributions (we recognise those with barnstars) nor (licensing aside) should it exclude images based on their origin. Fixing this issue wouldn't discourage self-nom candidates any more than outside ones. I hear & respect your qualms about COM:FPC and while I appreciate the role WP:FPC plays in identifying mis-placed, un-enc and bad-ID images, this and the other systematic failings you mention are really irrelevant to the issue of untimely nomination of FPCs. As is the problem of FPs getting replaced in articles with poor-quality stuff, for that matter. Ok, there may be some bigger nuts to crack, but we need to tackle them one by one, and this, IMO, will encourage more and better WP:FPs. There's one thing that WP:FPC unquestionably is all about, and that's choosing the best encyclopedic images. The contributions to this thread are enough to convince me that people do care enough about this, and I for one will continue to appreciate demonstrable respect for host articles and mark down those candidate images which blatently use them as little more than vehicles for their own glorification. --mikaul 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed this issue vehicles of my own glorification in the nomination of the image. I was very wrong to put the image at the top of the article. I did it in hurry. You were right to oppose the image for this reaon. I'll try avoiding doing such mistakes in a future.BTW it was done for my own glorification. I simply like to share my images with people. I moved the image to the climate section of the same article. In my opinion it belongs there and adds encyclopedic and informational value to the article. In my opinion it is a very good image. If you or somebody else belives otherwise, please remove it. I will not post it back to the article. Thank you.
I do not think the images should be nominated on Commons first for few reasons. One is the mega pixels count. Commons require at least 2 mega pixels. I believe that some really good encyclopedic images would get lost at Commons because of this requirement. The other reason is that Commons have way too many nominations. I'm not sure they need more. In my opinion voters on Commons care much more about overall quality of an image than about its encyclopedic value. In my opinion Misplaced Pages FP should be much more about encyclopedic value than about quality. I also believe that it is OK to upload and nominate an image in the same day(not in my case with the fall in Yosemite. This was wrong). A nomination lasts at least a week. Isn't this enough time to rewiev an encyclopedic value of an image?--Mbz1 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mila, your images are always good quality, carefully-considered shots and the encyclopedia is all the better for them. They're consistently better than the majority of images here and some of them have deservedly become featured pictures. You should bear in mind that these pictures weren't only judged to be top quality, they were considered to be unbeatable illustrations of the subject they depict. Whatever the problems we might have with the FPC process over at commons, the fact remains that here nominations have two hurdles to jump: the size criteria may be a little less strict but overall quality standards are at least as high and you have to prove the worthiness of the image in encyclopedia namespace. This, IMO, is even tougher for the accomplished photographer to get consistently right.
The purpose of this lengthy discussion is to decide whether an image being established in the encyclopedia adds to the credibility of a WP:FPC nomination. My contention is that it can greatly improve an image's proven enc value if authors and editors have been given every possible opportunity to assess, reposition, caption and even re-name images, maybe even add them to other, more relevant articles. Especially true of FAs like the Yosemite article. This has to increase your chances of FP promotion. So what if (worst case) you find your image removed from article space because it was deemed unsuitable? The chances are, this would come up at FPC and your nom would fail. A few week's grace saves yourself all this time and upset. The encyclopedia looks better, your images look better, you go into FPC more confident and reviewers can concentrate on the clear merits of your images.
The FPC review should be exactly that: a look at how the image has worked in main namespace, not how it might work, and the week it's allotted is barely enough to gather enough reviewers. It's certainly not enough to rename, re-position, re-caption and gather approving reviews, as I think you've discovered with a few of your recent nominations. If you want a higher proportion of successful FP noms, you have to get into the encyclopedia more, see where articles are visually weak, maybe even go out and shoot stuff especially for those articles. Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures is often a good place to start. --mikaul 09:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are right about few of my nominations like with flower and with Yosemite. I should have found the right "home" before nominating them. I guess it could be a good idea to let an image to be in an article for some time before nominating. I still do not think it is a good idea to force all nominators to go to Commons first.
I'd like to talk abut other concern I have. I nominated the incredible image of an amazing star with a tail few days ago. The image is not only highly encyclopedic and informative, but simply very interesting and absolutely unique. Who cares, if there is a noise in such an image? Yet so far I've got only one "weak support". Why?--12:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs)

Nominating without the pictures being established in an article is putting the cart before the horse. Don't make FPC something it isn't. FPC is to identify pictures which already do contribute significantly, FPC is not a discussionforum for individual articles. --Dschwen 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastern newt FP

Voters/editors may wish to re-check out the nom for the Eastern Newt picture here. The nom was passed for an edited version of the picture, but the creator has since added a note regarding the "fix". It looks to me like his note was added after closing and so might have been missed. We may want to re-open the nom and/or switch back to the originally nominated version. Given his comments, I think the original probably should have been left "as is". Not sure if this is worth a delist/renom, etc. Matt Deres 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The creator says "I'll probably go back to the original file and upload an update to Commons that goes about half-way in the correction at some point." Perhaps we should put this up for delist based on his own information, and then it can be renominated if/when his own 'corrected' version is uploaded. I think it's pretty clear that the original version wasn't going to pass the nom. --jjron 14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but I think the major issue was that people thought the colour was 'off'. I missed the nom, but if it was explained that that the colour was in fact accurate, I'd at least re-think my position. Matt Deres 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that now even the creator is saying the original colour was off, so it's not just that people 'thought' it. The thing is that he's also saying that the edit's colour is off, which means they're both wrong and probably shouldn't be featured. Knowing that, I'd change my vote (I did support it) and await the new version. --jjron 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about the colour being off. The shot was flash lit with AWB set on a Canon 10D; the likelihood of a WB problem is slim to none. The strong (almost memetic) suggestion of a problem which developed in the FPC nomination is what shifted credibility away from the original capture data towards the completely subjective idea of neutral WB in the minds of a handful of FPC reviewers - and retouchers. This is actually a fairly rare example of WP:NOR getting into an image-based contributon. Maybe it should be renominated, or maybe we should just improve the original according to some more objective criteria (have you seen the colour of these?). I'm interested in general in what we should do in the event that we need to "tweak" FPs: overwrite the FP version? Or delist/renominate, which (it seems to me) would be a promotion "done deal" in 90% of cases. I have to say, the ruddy newt looks like one of the 10%, but I'd still like to hear peoples' thoughts. --mikaul 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole nomination became so absurd I didn't even want to comment on it anymore. How can someone who was not present when the picture was shot and has no expertise on the depicted animal assert a whitebalance problem and dare to upload a presumably corrected version?! Sorry, but that's worse than OR, it is Original Guesswork... --Dschwen 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in all fairness, the picture certainly looks as if it had a severe red tint. But please, discuss any WB issues first before creating an edit. --Dschwen 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good idea - actually take a look at the photo rather than just shoot your mouth off. The point of an edit is for discussion - how much easier is it to show the improvement than discuss it? The image clearly has a white balance problem as can be seen from the histograms. Both the blue histogram and the green green histogram show that there is very little blues and greens. But what is most telling is the red histogram which shows by the spikes that white areas are tinted with red, and that the red channel is overblown - take a look at the red channel for a better idea. I've also included a version of the red channel which has had reds desaturated by about 50% showing heaps more detail coming through. Clearly there is a problem with the reds in this image. --Fir0002 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the original nom but the original looks heavily red shifted. The blown red is also telling. What is more, is that in the edit, the rocks are a realistic color. I see that it was 'flash fired' and AWB but is it possible that the flash was gelled or that the photographer attempted to bounce the flash off his (presumably red) hand or something? : / -Fcb981 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fir, I see what you mean, but the red histogram doesn't show a white balance problem, it just shows that the red channel has been clipped, presumably due to the bright red spots on the beastie's back being out of the sRGB colour gamut. It's a common enough thing in nature where the aposematism is so intense that the colour quite possibly ranges outside even human perception. Interesting that the same clipping can be seen with the red on the FP of a dragonfly which appears at the aposematism article.
You often get that other effect with images with one very dominant colour, where desaturating (or further clipping) that colour reveals colours and even detail not present in the original shot. The interesting colours and details that came out in your edit were never there in the original, but that doesn't mean they should have been there. The best way of finding out what was there is by reference to the species and by listening to the guy who took the shot. BTW, Fcb, they're not rocks – apparently it was on a tree, and that's Loblolly Pine bark in the background. --mikaul 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look at the red channel image it shows that it's not just the beastie's spots or back but the needles etc which are blown. The extra detail in the desaturation comes through from the green and blue channels. Also FWIW this is an image of a Loblolly Pine bark and as you can see it's not red at all but a neutral grey. --Fir0002 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The histogram shows nothing about any specific object, it just describes the red curve response to the scene in general. Lobolly pine bark is grey alright, but like any fallen pine, damage to the bark will most likely reveal the very much redder underside, which is visible even on unfelled trees. Look, I'm really not averse to a colour correction here: when you consider that AWB isn't foolproof by any means (a proper manual white balance is much more colour-faithful) and even with a flash (which I have to say, doesn't seem to have lit very much) it's quite possible that the camera freaked out a bit with all this red about. However, simply deciding the bark is neutral grey isn't the way to objective colour here. I suggest we take this to the image talk page and properly interrogate the photographer, as a fisrt step to renominating. --mikaul 09:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh - I was talking about the red channel not the histogram just then. This does reveal plenty about specific objects - check out the pine needles and the bark etc. But whatever - I'm going to have to leave it to you guys to work out, I've allowed myself to become to distracted by this as it is. --Fir0002 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a new edit to the FP image page. It's really not a big change from the original; about 800Kelvin cooler. Note left on the author's Commons talk page. --mikaul 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• The clipped reds in the histogram alone do not prove any whitebalance issue, just a dynamic range issue and the inability of the camera to fully capture the tonal range of the subject. Furthermore no edit can restore the clipped (that's lost) data. Fir, your reasoning here is simply wrong. You have no way of separating the contribution from the actual subject and the contribution due to whitebalancing in the histogram, as long as you don't have a color standard in the picture. And in the newt picture we don't. We just don't know the color of the needles or bark or the rock, there are too many uncertainties. My argument was simply to ask and trust the original photographer over flawed reasoning form histograms.--Dschwen 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No edit can restore data from the red channel but by utilizing the data stored in the other channels (which aren't blown) we can add a whole heap of data back into the image. But as I said above I'm going to have to leave this conversation for a while.. --Fir0002 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem right there: substituting green and blue channel data for lost red channel data will produce a more colour-detailed image of entirely the wrong hue. It will look a lot more balanced in terms of colour – there's a nice range of blues, green and reds – but that wouldn't be a desirable quality in a shot of a blue kite against a clear sky, for example.
But there's a more important point here: colours can "blow" if they're over-processed (which is almost always a bad thing) or they can simply lie outside of the colour gamut being used, which will produce a similarly incomplete histogram but be totally acceptable for viewing purposes. The eastern newt FP, like the dragonfly FP I cited earlier on, has colours on its body which lie outside the sRGB colour gamut. The fact that these blow the reds out in no way invalidates the colour rendering of the rest of the photograph. --mikaul 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh, out of gamut color won't show up as clipping on a histogram. Color space has nothing to do with luminosity, i thought. CRT monitors, based on technical limitations, cannot display as wide a gamut of color as a CMYK print, for example, but the dynamic range of both can represent anything that a camera can produce. So I think what we are talking about is dynamic range and not color space. Anyway, the red photosites on digital cameras generally have a ~1/8 stop smaller dynamic range then either the red or green pixels, so they have a tendency to blow sooner. I don't thinks thats what we are seeing here. I probably don't need to tell you that the farther a color channel is pushed right, the more the image will take that hue. As you said, a blue kite on a blue background would have a nice big blue hump. Heres the catch, in a properly corrected image, the arcs of the histogram should come together in the highlights. The light coming off natural highlights (those caused by the sun, or a flash) should be white, producing equal output in all channels. This histogram does not look like that. To me this is an obvious case of mis bounced flash or malfunctioning AWB, regardless the image was too red. -Fcb981 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know where you guys are getting this stuff... if a colour of whatever brightness doesn't fit into your colour space, the histogram will show you that. Prove it to yourself by switching colour space: open a colourful image in pshop, say in sRGB, make sure your histogram is visible and go Image>Mode>Convert to profile... and convert to "KODAK SWOP coated Newsprint" (or any CMYK newsprint, which gives you a very narrow gamut) See what happens to your histogram? It's clipped, because your colours are now way out of gamut. Just as a point of reference, CMYK (as used in newsprint) is hell of a lot narrower a gamut than the RGB your monitor shows you, which is (in turn) quite a bit narrower than you can see with the naked eye (Some colours, wavelengths and what have you lie outside even this visible colour space, which is why we run into predictable problems photographically) So if your lovely dragonfly pic is going into the LA Times nature section, you can kiss byebye to the red you see on your monitor.. what else.. white highlights on a blue kite will be non-spectral, ie irrelevant as far as colour is concerned, so you'll get a spike in all channels but it won't mean anything colour-balance-wise. No matter what you've read wherever, objective colour is not to be found in a histogram. It's a device-independent measure based on some kind of independent colour standard, either present in the picture or metered before the picture was taken, like a grey card or other manual white balance setting. If this is completely absent from the picture, then the only reliable reference is the eye of the guy who shot it, or similar shots of the same thing, or.. anything, except some arbitrary digital equivalence. --mikaul 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A non-full-color histogram in CMYK is useless. Look at all the channels and then look at the black channel. The black channel obviously has no latitude, there are plenty of areas where there is no black. Also, CMYK is a subtractive color space. It is a whole different animal than RBG. The limitations of color gamets are not with dynamic range but with tonal reproduction. hue. Anyway, thats off topic, at 255,255,255 there are obviously equal levels in the RBG spectrum, but 254,254,254 should also be a given. If you know what I'm saying. There is a cirtin amount of knowlage that can be gained about WB from the histogram. Enough, in this case for me to think that there is a WB problem. -Fcb981 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• As the author, Cotinis, has posted up his comments (moved to subsection below for clarity) I guess we now move to a formal delist of the current FP version, unless there are more comments or objections. --mikaul 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from the photographer

Oh, all very interesting--sorry I had not gotten back on this until now. I like that edit2 version--it looks about right, but without the critter in hand it is very difficult to say. I think the first FP version was a little too cold on color balance, but that my original was a little too warm/red, as people have suggested based on the histograms. The whole scene is lit almost 100 percent with flash, incidentally, and the some of the freshly-exposed pine bark is reddish--it is not all a neutral gray. Likewise with the needles, they are a little bit reddish. (I usually find the Canon color balance is fine with flash without adjustment, and did not alter it here, but of course, things can go wrong.) At any rate, thanks for the compliments and the FP nomination. I've no experience with the FP process, so I'll leave it to you more experienced Wikipedians to do whatever you think is best. It is really no big deal--illustrating the article was my intent. Best wishes to all, and again, I like the edit2 version, that looks about right based on my recollections. I feel, too, that color balance in a photograph is partly an aesthetic issue, and not just a technical one. To me, the edit2 version looks the "best". Thanks again, --Cotinis 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture 1000

It's likely that sometime within the next few months, an image will become the one thousandth Misplaced Pages:Featured Picture. My guess is that the subject matter of the image will be ... a bug. Spikebrennan 05:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a pool, it'd better close by the end of the month. I foresee hitting the milestone in early December, it could be earlier if we churn out those pictures quicker. Just make sure it happens before I go on holiday around Christmas time. MER-C 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image possibly incorrectly labelled as featured status

Image:Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.JPG is marked as featured, but it has issues which make me suspect it was not legitimately tagged as featured:

• The nomination discussions for the image on Misplaced Pages and on Commons are missing.
• The image does not look like an image that should be featured - it is almost completely blown out highlight.
• The image is not used as a primary image in any article, and doesn't really depict Shipka Pass at all, only snow covered trees.

--Ozhiker 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply:

• The original debate was Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Snow scene at Shipka Pass.
• Did you have a look at the histogram? Despite the large amounts of white, it isn't blown at all.
• I might concede this one, but it isn't sufficient for delisting alone. MER-C 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Entr'acte

I found this marvellous Victorian theatrical artist.

Problem: I found LOTS of stuff by this marvellous Victorian theatrical artist.

Anyone see anything they particularly like in commons:Category:Entr'acte? Adam Cuerden 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for a featured set! de Bivort 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

HA! Well, then! Let me get the last few up - I haven't done the W. G. Grace one and a couple others yet =) Adam Cuerden 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They're gorgeous. Amazing how they seem to portray their subjects more clearly than the photographs of that era. Great material for articles on the people they portray, though not sure how popular an FPC candidate the seventeenth one will prove... --mikaul 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye. the 17th is rather an extreme caricature - to be honest, it made it the cut simply by being on the same page as the Labouchere cartoon, and illustrating a person who had an article but no photo. Adam Cuerden 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

17th? I only see 9. de Bivort 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reload the page, lad! I kept uploading =) Adam Cuerden 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, are you done now then? I was being facetious about the 17th FPC, I actually think the W. H. Denny one is one of the best. But if it follows sixteen other Entr'acte FPCs, I can think of a few reviewers who might be less impressed ;o) --mikaul 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I thought you were referring to the current 17th, Image:Lottie_Venne_and_Charles_Brookfield.png - which, unfortunately, is of a type that would make criticism of it justified. Yeah, point taken.

Think it'd be alright to nominate these as a set? It'd be less monotonous and more fun. Mind you, I'll be gone this weekend. Adam Cuerden 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With half an eye on a PoD appearance, I'd suggest sorting out an article for them all to refer to, if not appear in. For some reason, Alfred Bryan points to a musician – same guy? – while the Entr'acte article is about the theatrical term. Either way, the group nom would be better for having a group article, so to speak. --mikaul 10:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What wonderful illustrations! Just look at the one of Charles Dickens; that's my favourite no doubt. It's a pity there isn't an article about the actual periodical... -- Chris B • talk 10:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This Alfred Bryan died in 1899, the musician lived into the 20th century, so different people. The National Portrait Gallery has a small online exhibit on him, maybe we can use that to make a stub. Adam Cuerden 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way: off to Devon for the weekend. will nominate when I'm back Adam Cuerden

When will the oldest of the Wall Street Journal portrait etchings start to fall into the PD? Spikebrennan 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Wall Street Journal is American, so if they're before 1927, they already are. Adam Cuerden 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will be of some use :) --mikaul 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, we do have {{Template:FeaturedPictureSet}} Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

retroactive guidelines and abuse of the fpc removal process

The removal guidelines are in place to rmeove images that clearly do not meet Misplaced Pages's standard but now it seems that they're being abused because of a group of people's quest to retro-actively apply FPC guidelines to every single FPC that's ever been and delist quite possibly hundreds of FPC's since back in the old days of FPC the rules were much different than they are today. Cat-five - talk

• First and foremost, I can assure you, at least on my part, that there is no "quest" or organized "group of people." Secondly, I think "possibly hundreds" is unrealistically high. All that aside, IMO the trends that are being observed in the delisting section merely reflect the changes (and improvements) made to wikimedia's picture collection. As the size and the quality of the collection increase, FP standards must inevitably also keep up. That's why a delisting procedure is outlined in the first place; to trim and maintain the FP collection so that the pictures within it still reflect Wiki's ever-changing, ever-improving "best work." To me it seems perfectly normal, especially given how quickly things grow and change on the internet, that FP standards from three or four years ago be far behind the standards today; that is, that many pictures passed in 2003/2004 clearly and obviously would not pass today. And why is retro-actively applying the up-to-date standard such a bad thing? Personally, I don't think the delisting procedure is being abused; I think it is doing exactly what it was designed to do. FP is not about politics and personal interests; it is about enhancing the encyclopedia in a way which some (esp. villain and mad scientist) pictures clearly are no longer able to anymore. --Malachirality 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Malarchirality. I don't see why evolving standards should not be applied to existing FPs. Our criteria should apply to all the FPs, regardless of when they were nominated. To try keep to our designated standards should be a positive thing, even if it means delisting some images that no longer pass. I think those that are nominating for delisting are (as a general rule) just doing it to contribute to the quality of our set of FPs, not because they have a particular personal agenda. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Now that that baseball picture is gone, can the Taj Mahal be next? That's been sitting on the candidates page for nigh on half a year now. It's 2½ months since any mumblings about a high-res version. Can it be closed, renominated, or whatever, but it seems pointless leaving it there any longer. --jjron 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second that motion; I'm all for extending a grace period to resolve some issue, but this is going nowhere. I'd prefer to see the nom simply closed, if possible, since people seem worried about 'failed FPC' tags becoming blackmarks. Matt Deres 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As negotiations for a hi-res version of this have come to nothing, I've today asked the nominator to do something with it. It should be out of the way really soon. --mikaul 10:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Have withdrawn the nomination. Please see the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. --jjron (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More whining and moaning about poor nominations.. today's topic: multiple-image noms

Following on from the earlier discussion about FPC nominations with little or no time in their respective articles, I'm on the warpath again (!) over nominations like the Leopard Tortoise one (and others) currently taking up vast tracts of FPC page real estate. I'm all for edits etc of nominations need a crop, or having minor flaws, colour casts etc: this seems to me a very positive sub-process. A nomination with four alternatives as well as numerous edits cannot be conducive to anything other than confusion, inconclusive outcomes and protracted, pointless wrangling.
It's simple: you nominate an image, it gets lots of "oppose" comments, you put it down to experience and set up another nomination. You don't keep throwing alternative images at the thing until (hopefully) one sticks. If political parties did this, the electoral system would quickly descend into a pointless free-for-all with no definitive winner, or end up woth one of relatively poor quality and value.. how we go about discouraging it, I don't know. Nor do I expect it to be a popular proposal, as a number of regulars seem to actually encourage it. I'd like to discuss it, at least.
Side topic: I've recently been trying to simplify the peer review process, where this sort of thing would be fine, even ideal, in sorting out a solid nomination from a collection of "maybe" alternatives. If we can attract weaker noms and first-timers we would certainly, I think, produce more, better FPs for considerably less effort. Any ideas about how best to go about promoting it without getting overly prescriptive on the FPC page?--mikaul 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it will self correct itself, especially in the instance you mentioned. I contributed to that issue a bit by offering an edit (hotspots bug me, the author asked for help on my talk page, and I was on the fence about the image enough to do so) - but agree on the alternatives and wall of thumbnails. I think the author mentioned his apologies for it at one point, and the inconclusive outcome I bet will ensure a more concise submission next time.
I haven't submitted a photo yet (mine are blurry and not encyclopedic on the whole and haven't spotted one in an article yet that just made me say "wow"), but I just went over the process and right up top is "If you are unsure if your picture will fulfill the criteria, or would like advice on improving your nomination, please consider adding it to Misplaced Pages:Picture peer review for initial assessment. ". I saw some on the FP page that had been entered and not seconded on the peer review page and some that are passing that did. Perhaps simply bolding that line would help a bit? Cheers, Ryo 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, edits are generally a good thing, so your conscience is clear ;o)
A good number of recent nominations have been quite earnestly looking for a critique of their work, first and foremost, with the chance that it might get featured. It appears to be a potential fast-track to FP on the face of it but the fact is, due to the chaos they cause, this sort of nom fails much more than than it succeeds, which needn't be the case. To steer inexperienced nominators in the right direction, the page needs the sort of thing you suggest (I've actually made that section more prominently pro-PPR quite recently, but it could do with beefing up, I agree) or at least preparedness on the part of regular contributors not only to point out and suggest PPR, but also move ill-considered nominations to the peer review page if they spot them, ideally prior to any votes/comments being posted. --mikaul 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody looks at the peer review page- FPC isn't crowded enough yet to need it anyway --ffroth 03:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This may sound crazy, but...

This might not even be the right place to put this - probably better on the village pump or something - but though it's nice to see Jimbo go around the world and make high def videos, does it really do that much for wiki? And yes this may sound insane, but wouldn't it be better for wiki to use some of it's generous donations to something which will directly impact the project? My idea is this: use some of the donations to set up a fund which can give out scholarships or prizes to applicants which can show that they could use the money to make a difference. Now obviously I have an ulterior motive behind this suggestion, and it's simply this: if wikimedia had such a system I could use the money to buy the 400mm f/5.6L (and promise to upload some full res bird pix!) :) --Fir0002 07:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Him going around the world? The only appearance of him in that video outside that stage is in India, and I doubt that footage was shot solely for this purpose, much less being fully paid for by Wikimedia. If you had a look at the donation page, you can see that:

If you and 99 other people donate...

• $200 – We can make Misplaced Pages available in developing countries through DVDs, books and pamphlets.
• $100 – We can pay for two Misplaced Pages Academy events in Africa.
• $60 – We can send three students to our annual Wikimania conference.
• $40 – We can deliver 100 million pageviews of free information!

Now, do you really think that a few more pictures of birds is more important than giving 100 million page views? --antilived 08:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right it was a half baked idea but I thought it was worth sharing and it was useful in confirming my suspicion that you were tracking my edits... --Fir0002 10:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(...or that antilived has WP:FPC, a page he contributes to frequently, on his watchlist...) TSP (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he frequents the FPC page but that was only his fourth edit to this page the last one being four months ago! So it did strike as being a little too much of a coincidence that he responded 20 mins after posting this topic (3 mins reading, 5 mins writing = 12 mins delay). But perhaps I am being paranoid... --Fir0002 01:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You do know that if you watch a page you automatically watch the talk page is well right? I don't have to comment on everything that I read, just the things that are relevant to me. --antilived 11:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup I do know that, but given the topic was my plan for overtaking wikimania funds it was unusual for you to make such a speedy reply to a page which you hadn't contributed to for some time. But whatever I'm sick of writing in small text --Fir0002 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And that geographically we're reasonably close so that our editing time overlap maybe? You're paranoid... --antilived 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

... Just because the whole world is out to get me doesn't mean I'm paranoid... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, he follows me around too q_q --ffroth 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• But what good is 100 million page views without any pretty pictures to go along with it?? ;-) That said, if a nice expensive lens was bought for the use of a contributor, I would hope it wouldn't be given to them outright, but rather as a loan. Perhaps as a subsidised comissioned photoshoot.. Then again Fir0002, you don't seem to be doing too badly on istockphoto. How long til you can afford the lens on that income alone? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh I'm not just thinking in terms of photographic but you know a grant could be used to allow some user who is really proficient in writing articles to buy a small laptop or get a better internet connection or a subscription to Britannica online or whatever. But yes if a lens was bought a loan system would be the way to do it. And yeah istockphoto has been going well, but the MT-24 set me back a bit - probably another month and a bit before I can get that lens :-) You haven't been going to bad yourself too - any new equipment? ;)--Fir0002 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm flying home to Melbourne for Christmas and stopping in Hong Kong for 4 days. Will be looking keenly at the local camera shops there as I've already spotted quite a few bargains (even cheaper than the US). If you're interested, have a look here - theres 6.8HKD to the AUD at the moment. I'm thinking of trading up from my 17-40mm f/4L to a 16-35mm f/2.8L (I'm not 100% sure why, as I tend to do multi-segment panoramas rather than single ultra wide angle shots...), getting a 24mm f/2.8, a macro flash (probably the ring flash but may get the twin speedlite that you got!) and I was considering getting a new gitzo carbon-fibre travel tripod that folds back over the head (GT1540T) because my current gitzo tripod is a bit bulky. I think I've been talked out of it though, as some people have said it isn't strong enough to handle a 5D and 70-200mm f/2.8L without vibration/leg flex being a pain. Its rated to 4.5kg and my camera/lens combo should only be about 2kg at most though.. I'll have a look at it and probably make an impulsive decision at the time. ;-) Besides, I'm not sure if I can justify two $500 carbon fibre tripods anyway, and I wouldn't want to get rid of my old one I don't think. I also bought a Markins Q3 recently which is an amazing ballhead. I don't know how much photography you do with a tripod but it is a huge improvement over my old one. Anyway, anything you want me to bring back to Oz with me for you? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well since you ask.... :-) Nah thanks for the offer but I couldn't really ask you to do that for me. Where do you get stuff from the US? Coz I get my stuff from BH photovideo and they're cheaper than that HK link you sent - check out vs . Yeah I've heard that the 16-35 is a beauty, but as you say not really you're way of doing a wide angle :) But given you're thinking of getting it, why the 24mm? Yeah the MT-24 is really good - a huge step up from my work around 580EX! I don't really do large amounts of panos so haven't really looked at ball heads or whatever, but it looks pretty useful bit of kit. Likewise the tripod looks pretty nice - I've only got a $150 slik (it's heavy but sturdy and I can usually get a sibling to act the sherpa :) Hope you have a nice flight - when is it because I'm planning on spending a week in Melbourne myself from the 2nd of Dec, might see you at the botanic gardens or something :) --Fir0002 11:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, you're right, in that case it is slightly cheaper in the US. But the thing is, I don't get my stuff from the US. I live in London, and in the UK, we have to pay shipping plus 17.5% VAT plus import duty of 5% or so (I think) plus £10 for DHL to get it out of customs. It ends up not being very cheap at all. And neither is buying locally. So the chance to buy it from a store in HK is something I'd jump at. Anyway, for some things it is significantly cheaper in HK. Eg this for the equivalent of USD$458 vs this at USD$559 plus shipping. Depends on the product. Anyway, I've heard of international buyers having a lot of problems with ordering from BH and Adorama as they're fussy about overseas credit cards. A couple of years ago, I was traveling in the US and tried to arrange to buy a 20" monitor from Dell. Each time I placed the order, they cancelled it without any notification AFTER they had charged the card. It turned out that they were suspicious about a non-US credit card being used to pay for it. When I finally managed to get through to someone who could actually explain that, I found that even when they agreed not to cancel it, the refund on my card would take up to a week, and my credit card didn't have enough credit remaining to place a second order. Very frustrating. Anyway, I digress. I won't be in Melb until the 15th of December, so I'll miss you by a week. Not sure if summer is the right time of year for the Botanic gardens though. Probably more spring or autumn. Will be interested to see what you come up with anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, ballheads are not really for panos (in fact you need a panoramic head to stick on top of the tripod head to get proper panoramas with no parallax error), they just make using a tripod that much easier because they lock and unlock with just a twist of a dial and give you complete freedom of movement. I suppose it depends how much you use a tripod as for whether its worth getting one though. They're not essential in that they won't let you take photos you couldn't take otherwise, they just make life easier. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)