![]() | 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. |
Please don't take offence, Chrisieboy, but you are getting very patronising about the article revisions you keep doing to every single entry! The actor I added is perfectly known and is a regular on BBC1's Eastenders. Just because you've never heard of this person, doesn't mean nobody else hasn't! You can't keep doing this, many people are getting pissed off with this and quite frankly, I am, too. This article isn't just yours so can we be fair about this? Can I ask for your permission to re-enter Patel's name in the sub-article? Pretty please?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.60.46 ( talk)
I've uploaded it for the Fu Xi figure. Is it worth adding the mural as a whole? It's entitled Bridge House Mural, Peterborough. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
PS - if anyone knows how to create a link to the image without showing the image itself, please let me know.
Thanks!-- GwydionM ( talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be difference between this article and the one on Medeshamstede, relating to continuity of settlement. This needs to resolved. Folks at 137 ( talk) 11:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Could this person be included within the famous Peterborians section? He's notable enough now...
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Guildhall, Cathedral and modern history pictures need replacing with better ones which have been uploaded to wikimedia (excluding modern history, will replace the house with Queensgate)
The two already uploaded images can be found here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
But the error being committed on the article is that of failing to then discuss the matter here, if disatisfaction still exists. Grumpyguts should have initiated a discussion on this page (in addition to the bald assertion made above) to get a wider range of views about which images are the better ones. Obviously this didn't happen, and I hope much is learned from this about better ways to procceed, but it might have been better if Chrisieboy then had initiated discussion here, given that Grumpyguts hadn't, and this may well have protected him/her somwhat from any future accusations of edit-warring.
Currently, unhappily, both of you are heading towards a 3rr violation, and one or both of you could get blocked (depending on who does what next) if anyone chooses to report this, or if the repeated adding and reversions get noticed by another passing administrator.
Can I suggest that you both put the images, side by side, on the page here, and invite others to comment on which looks the better one out of each pair. That way, the underlying principles concerning WP:CONCENSUS can be satisfied, and it stands a good chance of arriving at a better solution because more people can critically evaluate the relative merits of both photos. DDStretch (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried this, like above, but User: Chrisieboy obviously isn't interested and doesn't want to comment. GrumpyGuts ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the current picture in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterborough_Front.JPG
...and this is what should replace it
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg
This is the other current image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pbguildhall.jpg
...and this is what should replace it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg
are the replacements good enough? Comment! GrumpyGuts ( talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ||
Guildhall | ![]() |
Now everyone can immediately see them side-by-side to make a more informed judgment. DDStretch (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better if I ask the Flickr user if I can use those images?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() | |
Guildhall | ![]() |
![]() |
What do you guys think? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In terms of the Cathedral and Guildhall, in both cases I prefer the original images. Why do you think they need replacing and why do you think that yours are better? I have taken the liberty of adding the picture of New Priestgate House to the Peterborough Evening Telegraph article however, where it is better suited. Chrisieboy ( talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As their primary use is as thumbnails, I don't think size is as important as aesthetics. Although the Cathedral picture is improved, I do prefer the original and oppose the change. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to the file history, the exposure has been changed from 1/350 to 1/500, per Grumpy's comments above. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was replying to Nev1, per my edit summary. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to add these images or not? C'mon, fellas. I didn't take these for nothing, the Cathedral one has been editied again and will be replaced at a later date. I need a verdict GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, it's two against one because I support GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Nev1 please revert yourself, I have agreed no such thing. Chrisieboy ( talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought it was obvious, but in case further clarification is required, I was referring to my first impressions of Grumpy's second version, not the (then) current image. Chrisieboy ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to the policy that states images should necessarily be replaced ones of a higher resolution? The fact that the proposed image is taken from a better angle is (also) your opinion; in my view, as someone familiar with the subject, the version of the west front straight on is a better, more typical and realistic perspective. Chrisieboy ( talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough if the original was tiny, but it isn't and there are other images in the dedicated article, where this could be added to the gallery. The Cathedral is not "partially obscured," it is framed in the context of the adjacent buildings in the Minster Precinct, whereas, in the proposed version, it looks deceivingly isolated; that is the actual angle of approach. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, how about
this image as a compromise (the licence is commons compatible). The angle ensures the cathedral is not obscured, while showing some of the surrounding buildings. Also, it's hi-res and looks good in thumbnail form.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
After a slight slip up, I think I've found a very good picture [1]. Some benefits as last time, except it's not at night and the colours look right. Nev1 ( talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the cropped version [2] GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly better than the rather gloomy one proposed by Grumpy, but I still do not see the need to change it. Chrisieboy ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Two other people are up for the change, I don't see why you (chrisieboy) can't see the reason for the change. The new image has has been uploaded to the name of PBcath(dot)jpg GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't cropped the height of the image...the cathedral is so big the lense couldn't capture all of it GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that we have all these photos as options too. -- Jza84 | Talk 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The proposed image has been changed with a slightly more front angle, better colours and less of the left spire missing. Can we re-elect on this? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The population figure in the intro differs from the Peterborough info box...the intro figure is referenced but the info box one isn't, yet they are from the same year (2007). Can this be changed so it shows the 2008 figure? Both of them?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I made the exact change before but it was reverted, mabey because I didn't state 2006..I don't know but least it doesn't conflict anymore. Thanks GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article.
I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update! GrumpyGuts ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Peterborough Cathedral article isn't the place concerned. If it wasn't wanted it would have been reverted. Chrisieboy reverted the first time but not the second. It's a shame that it has some of the spire missing, yet that's a fraction of the cathedral missing compared to a large chunk because of a building GrumpyGuts ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I reckon we need to change the picture of the Royal Albert Hall. Although it depicts Peterborough Cathedral, the hall isn't in Peterborough. I have taken the liberty of photographing the Key Theater. I feel this image is better suited for the article
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
- The Arts | ![]() |
![]() |
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well how about if we add both? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that section to be expanded a wee bit to make way for a new image. What do you think, Chrisieboy? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
He obviously doesn't wish to comment. It'll be done in due time GrumpyGuts ( talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article. Chrisieboy believes the concensus before the previous section doesn't exist so I am creating another one.
I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update!
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Rerun time folks. Cutting to the chase compare the following two images:
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
The two images are similar, but the one on the right has better colour and isn't washed out. Also, although the angle is very similar, the building to the side of the image is no longer obscuring the cathedral. Opinions please. Nev1 ( talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's from the same angle and is alot better. Although it could be cropped from the left GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
England map needs updating to reflect 2009 structural changes. MRSC ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. |
Please don't take offence, Chrisieboy, but you are getting very patronising about the article revisions you keep doing to every single entry! The actor I added is perfectly known and is a regular on BBC1's Eastenders. Just because you've never heard of this person, doesn't mean nobody else hasn't! You can't keep doing this, many people are getting pissed off with this and quite frankly, I am, too. This article isn't just yours so can we be fair about this? Can I ask for your permission to re-enter Patel's name in the sub-article? Pretty please?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.60.46 ( talk)
I've uploaded it for the Fu Xi figure. Is it worth adding the mural as a whole? It's entitled Bridge House Mural, Peterborough. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
PS - if anyone knows how to create a link to the image without showing the image itself, please let me know.
Thanks!-- GwydionM ( talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be difference between this article and the one on Medeshamstede, relating to continuity of settlement. This needs to resolved. Folks at 137 ( talk) 11:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Could this person be included within the famous Peterborians section? He's notable enough now...
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Guildhall, Cathedral and modern history pictures need replacing with better ones which have been uploaded to wikimedia (excluding modern history, will replace the house with Queensgate)
The two already uploaded images can be found here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
But the error being committed on the article is that of failing to then discuss the matter here, if disatisfaction still exists. Grumpyguts should have initiated a discussion on this page (in addition to the bald assertion made above) to get a wider range of views about which images are the better ones. Obviously this didn't happen, and I hope much is learned from this about better ways to procceed, but it might have been better if Chrisieboy then had initiated discussion here, given that Grumpyguts hadn't, and this may well have protected him/her somwhat from any future accusations of edit-warring.
Currently, unhappily, both of you are heading towards a 3rr violation, and one or both of you could get blocked (depending on who does what next) if anyone chooses to report this, or if the repeated adding and reversions get noticed by another passing administrator.
Can I suggest that you both put the images, side by side, on the page here, and invite others to comment on which looks the better one out of each pair. That way, the underlying principles concerning WP:CONCENSUS can be satisfied, and it stands a good chance of arriving at a better solution because more people can critically evaluate the relative merits of both photos. DDStretch (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried this, like above, but User: Chrisieboy obviously isn't interested and doesn't want to comment. GrumpyGuts ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the current picture in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peterborough_Front.JPG
...and this is what should replace it
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughCathedral.jpg
This is the other current image:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pbguildhall.jpg
...and this is what should replace it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeterboroughGuildhall.jpg
are the replacements good enough? Comment! GrumpyGuts ( talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ||
Guildhall | ![]() |
Now everyone can immediately see them side-by-side to make a more informed judgment. DDStretch (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better if I ask the Flickr user if I can use those images?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() | |
Guildhall | ![]() |
![]() |
What do you guys think? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In terms of the Cathedral and Guildhall, in both cases I prefer the original images. Why do you think they need replacing and why do you think that yours are better? I have taken the liberty of adding the picture of New Priestgate House to the Peterborough Evening Telegraph article however, where it is better suited. Chrisieboy ( talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As their primary use is as thumbnails, I don't think size is as important as aesthetics. Although the Cathedral picture is improved, I do prefer the original and oppose the change. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to the file history, the exposure has been changed from 1/350 to 1/500, per Grumpy's comments above. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was replying to Nev1, per my edit summary. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to add these images or not? C'mon, fellas. I didn't take these for nothing, the Cathedral one has been editied again and will be replaced at a later date. I need a verdict GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, it's two against one because I support GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Nev1 please revert yourself, I have agreed no such thing. Chrisieboy ( talk) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought it was obvious, but in case further clarification is required, I was referring to my first impressions of Grumpy's second version, not the (then) current image. Chrisieboy ( talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to the policy that states images should necessarily be replaced ones of a higher resolution? The fact that the proposed image is taken from a better angle is (also) your opinion; in my view, as someone familiar with the subject, the version of the west front straight on is a better, more typical and realistic perspective. Chrisieboy ( talk) 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough if the original was tiny, but it isn't and there are other images in the dedicated article, where this could be added to the gallery. The Cathedral is not "partially obscured," it is framed in the context of the adjacent buildings in the Minster Precinct, whereas, in the proposed version, it looks deceivingly isolated; that is the actual angle of approach. Chrisieboy ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, how about
this image as a compromise (the licence is commons compatible). The angle ensures the cathedral is not obscured, while showing some of the surrounding buildings. Also, it's hi-res and looks good in thumbnail form.
Nev1 (
talk)
20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
After a slight slip up, I think I've found a very good picture [1]. Some benefits as last time, except it's not at night and the colours look right. Nev1 ( talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the cropped version [2] GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly better than the rather gloomy one proposed by Grumpy, but I still do not see the need to change it. Chrisieboy ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Two other people are up for the change, I don't see why you (chrisieboy) can't see the reason for the change. The new image has has been uploaded to the name of PBcath(dot)jpg GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't cropped the height of the image...the cathedral is so big the lense couldn't capture all of it GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that we have all these photos as options too. -- Jza84 | Talk 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The proposed image has been changed with a slightly more front angle, better colours and less of the left spire missing. Can we re-elect on this? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The population figure in the intro differs from the Peterborough info box...the intro figure is referenced but the info box one isn't, yet they are from the same year (2007). Can this be changed so it shows the 2008 figure? Both of them?
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I made the exact change before but it was reverted, mabey because I didn't state 2006..I don't know but least it doesn't conflict anymore. Thanks GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article.
I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update! GrumpyGuts ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Peterborough Cathedral article isn't the place concerned. If it wasn't wanted it would have been reverted. Chrisieboy reverted the first time but not the second. It's a shame that it has some of the spire missing, yet that's a fraction of the cathedral missing compared to a large chunk because of a building GrumpyGuts ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I reckon we need to change the picture of the Royal Albert Hall. Although it depicts Peterborough Cathedral, the hall isn't in Peterborough. I have taken the liberty of photographing the Key Theater. I feel this image is better suited for the article
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
- The Arts | ![]() |
![]() |
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well how about if we add both? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that section to be expanded a wee bit to make way for a new image. What do you think, Chrisieboy? GrumpyGuts ( talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
He obviously doesn't wish to comment. It'll be done in due time GrumpyGuts ( talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
I'm still proposing an image change as this new image has been used for the Peterborough Cathedral article. Chrisieboy believes the concensus before the previous section doesn't exist so I am creating another one.
I reckon this image is far more colourful than the current one, bigger and more informative in terms of not being mis-leading. The current image has a building in the way, smaller and less colourful. The Peterborough article needs an update!
GrumpyGuts ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Rerun time folks. Cutting to the chase compare the following two images:
Current | Proposed | |
---|---|---|
Cathedral | ![]() |
The two images are similar, but the one on the right has better colour and isn't washed out. Also, although the angle is very similar, the building to the side of the image is no longer obscuring the cathedral. Opinions please. Nev1 ( talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's from the same angle and is alot better. Although it could be cropped from the left GrumpyGuts ( talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
England map needs updating to reflect 2009 structural changes. MRSC ( talk) 07:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |