Archives

Archive 1

Hello there. Regarding this article, for an image change you need a good reason. We can't just change an image just because, "The white on the previous image was gray (it's likely either underexposed or has some heavy editing to correct some lighting issues), and there's very noticeable chromatic aberration." There was nothing wrong with the old image and the new image, it was just unjustifiable to change that image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering my opinion :). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my recent reversion - I will concede the old image has a better angle, and reverted to it. However, the old image's colors are visibly off (compare the white on it versus any of the other images in the gallery - it looks weirdly gray), and it looks out of place in the gallery compared to the other photos, which are generally better lit and show the EvoBlue livery's white as proper white. The color fringing is very noticeable as well when you open up the full-sized image, especially around the cockpit windows. Unfortunately images of United A321neo's are very few, and it has the best angle of the images on the Commons right now. I will make it a goal to replace that image once I can get a better side shot of a United A321neo, or if anyone else uploads a better quality image on the Commons. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do see where you are going with this grey and white color but that reason isn't enough with changing the image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a higher quality image without those issues, and from an equally good angle, is that not a perfectly valid reason to change the image? There's some other images quality issues in that gallery (e.g. the 737-900ER image has some very heavy heat haze and is noticeably blurrier than the other images as a result, and is also ripe for a higher quality replacement). I'm digging around the Commons right now for an EvoBlue 737-900ER image with a good angle without those issues. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see why improvements to images in articles (either in framing/angle, or in technical quality) aren't as valid a reason as any to edit articles, as much as improvements to prose are (and articles are routinely edited to improve the quality of the prose, be it in clarity or in accuracy, even in very minor ways). 4300streetcar (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGEQUALITY explicitly says to "Use the best quality images available.". MOS:IMAGES contains nothing about image quality improvements not being a valid reason to change images. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGEREL states, "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." MOS:IMAGEQUALITY says, "Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter". The image you added might have a slightly higher quality but the angle of the shot was not the best, unlike the original ones. Just because an image has a higher quality, it doesn't mean we have to change the image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Regarding my recent attempts to swap out the infobox image at Charles/MGH station on the MBTA Red Line, I noticed that you swapped out my most recent image in favor of one that I previously shot two days before. Seeing your comment on that reversion, I wanted to let you know I usually do position the camera with a large fencepost on the side in order to make it easier for myself to straighten out the image once it is taken.

I was not completely satisfied with how my camera was positioned for the first two images, because the train was not up close enough in the first take and off center in the second take. That was why for the third image, I wanted get a more centered shot of the train without sacrificing the view of the station's interior wall on the opposite platform. Below are all three of my shots at this station from this week.

I'm curious to know what positioning Pi thinks is best. Ignore the appearance of each image - I can change that according this admin's suggestions. IliketrainsR211T (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for reaching out.

Photographic composition is generally subjective, and there are no hard and fast rules for composition, though there's some common preferences and recommendations that usually make shots more pleasing (e.g. making shots level, visual balance, avoiding distractions, etc.). That being said, in my personal opinion I don't think there's much if any reason to center the train here, as you have a lot of converging lines (the tracks, the platform edge, etc.) that naturally draw the eye towards the train and the rest of the station, even if it's off-center. The issue with the rightmost shot compositionally is that the pole and the horn are visually distracting - it clutters the foreground, and pulls your your eyes there and away from the neat converging lines that draw the eyes towards the train and the station. IMO the fences and the platform in your rightmost shot also don't feel like they have as much balance in terms of visual weight. You could try cropping the horn and pole out, but the resulting crop gives a lot of visual weight to the northbound platform (which is brighter than the surrounding areas), and which probably isn't what you necessarily want for a photo illustrating the station.

The rightmost shot is the best lit though (in terms of lighting it's right > left > center).

If you want to learn more about photographic composition there are lots of materials and guides out there, though I don't have any recommendations specifically. Looking at other peoples' image galleries (perhaps at an art museum or similar) and seeing what makes their images work could be helpful though. Be aware though that Wikipedia images above all are meant to be a good illustration of article subjects (which often isn't the top goal with a lot of artistic images you see at art galleries and such), and so priorities may be somewhat different.

Hope this is at least somewhat helpful. Thanks for taking these images, and keep up the good work. 4300streetcar (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 4300 that there's no reason to center the train, and about the visual distractions in the rightmost image. Your preferred version of the lighting in the center image is poor, with a dull blue cast and low contrast. I believe my edits have better contrast and more realistic colors. In any case, it's frustrating that you keep taking nearly-identical images from the same spot and swapping them out every few weeks. That doesn't really improve the article or Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4300, hope you're doing well! Due to other obligations, I wasn't able to get as many MBTA construction photos as I intended this month during my trip. No pressure, but should you have the opportunity to get any, these were the active/recently completed construction I was aiming for:

• New platform construction at North Wilmington
• Mini-high platform construction at Franklin, Walpole, and Wellesley Square
• Recently completed mini-highs at Beverly
• Quincy Garage construction (there's a good view from the Quincy Adams garage)

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for the heads up - hope you're doing well as well. I'm unfortunately not frequently in those areas (unlike, say, Park Street haha), but I'll make a note to try to get some pics if I'm nearby or have the time.

Best, 4300streetcar (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to get some pics of the Quincy Garage construction:

There's a chance I get Wellesley Square in the near future (as it's not too out of the way for me), but the others are somewhat unlikely as I'm rarely in those spots.

Best, 4300streetcar (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Quite a bit of progress since I was there in September. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got a few night pics of the Wellesley Square station mini-highs, since I was passing through the area:

4300streetcar (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to get some daylight pics today:

Also thanks for catching some of the errors on some of the earlier uploaded files! (mistaking Courthouse for WTC, various categorization omissions) 4300streetcar (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(also thanks for catching me mistakenly saying titling those as Wellesley Farms - not sure what was going through my head) 4300streetcar (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I occasionally scroll through your uploads - it's always exciting to see all your photographs. And believe me when I say I've made that exact sort of error before. I've definitely uploaded a few dozen photos only to realize that I had the date off by a day on all of them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all - I do likewise follow a few other users including yourself. And thanks for the kind words! 4300streetcar (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got Walpole - I made a new Category:Renovations to Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts) and they're under there. 4300streetcar (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your recent edits on some aircraft types. You are kind of being hypocritical when you were saying "location should be left out when it's not visible" when in posts I had up were indeed visible. And if you were a frequent editor you would know that all articles have months next to the years they were taken in. There are 12 months in a year and people will wonder what year it is in and some might not even know how to scroll down or where to scroll down after clicking on a picture. Every category on this site such as transportation, sports, public figures all have months next to pictures of them as there should so if you're going to say things about discussions like these on talk pages please show me exactly what others were saying or try and work with me to come up with a solution because I am simply just trying to be transparent with things and specific but not too specific like any normal editor would. Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can dispute the inclusion of month in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Captions_-_mentioning_airport_when_airport_or_surroundings_not_visible,_and_mentioning_month. There seems to be agreement among the comments there that months is usually not relevant for aircraft (barring significant events, introductions into service, and so on), but you can dispute that in the comment thread there if you want to discuss it.

You added location into the infobox picture [1], which is against the sky and which shows nothing of Lisbon other than maybe the stray barbed wire in the corner. This is the exact sort of photo where there was agreement above not to mention the location since it's not depicted in the image at all, unlike like the photos where I kept location, such as one where the control tower at LAX was visible.

Re: your recent reversion - I will discuss this further in the Boeing 757 talk page, but the text next to the picture discusses Continental installing winglets in 2009, which was why there's a picture of a Continental plane with mention of the blended winglets in the caption. You removed this image without explanation as to why[2], hence me reverting it. There are plenty of pictures of defunct airlines and airlines that no longer operate the type in various aircraft articles, and Continental no longer existing is not a good reason to remove pictures of Continental Airlines on that reason.

You also didn't provide any reason to switch the other 757-300 picture, and it's not obvious why you switched the picture or what issues you had with the original picture (whereas I provided justification as to why I think we should use the original picture), which I will also discuss in the Talk page soon. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, changing images is almost never a minor edit, and you should not be marking those as minor edits. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that pic you are showing above i can understand but in the others if buildings are in the background then they are not irrelevant like the las Vegas one was perfectly reasonable like the LA one and we should not be using defunct carriers especially if they are very similar to what is already being showed higher and lower in the articles and it kind of is because people unfamiliar with aviation and planes might get confused to what is what so having a continental plane in this day in age is NOT a bad reason it is actually pretty reasonable given that it has been 15 years now since that name being non existent. I understnad the "winglet" description but as I said there have been multiple post merger pics up and down and adding a long gone image with a similar scheme but a different name might confuse those who are unfamiliar with the subject. I understand and appreciate your passion and contributions but we need to think more constructively here. Gymrat16 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.) I did not remove the Las Vegas location mention (see my edit diff [3], where I left the reference to Las Vegas McCarran airport intact. I later removed the photo entirely and restored the old photo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_757&diff=prev&oldid=1276505196 ).

2.) You can discuss the issue on the Boeing 757 talk page topic that you tried to delete.([4]) I disagree, but we can talk about it there. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not here? Gymrat16 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What difference would it make if it were here rather than there? Gymrat16 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For content disputes I prefer to talk about it in the article's talk page (which is exactly what it's for), since other people can more easily weigh in. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok i suppose you're right Gymrat16 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CFexpress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to variants is doing a disservice to the readers. For example what use to most readers is a link to de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter#DHC-6 Series 200 rather than de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter or Boeing 727#727-200 rather than Boeing 727? The fact that some other airlines do it does not make it correct. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Purpose) and not designed for the enthusiast. Almost all airline articles I see link directly to the main article and I have been trying to ensure that a link to the variant is included as well that way the general reader can see the information they require and the enthusiast can go directly to the section they want. Much better than removing relevant links to information. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Aircraft variants. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind linking to the overall page rather than the variant, but the Flair Airlines article used a strange way to describe variants, and linked both the variant and the overall article (e.g. the 737-400 was described as a 400 series Boeing 737). I mostly object to the weird way of saying "400 series Boeing 737" rather than just "737-400" like every other airline article does, and am agnostic as to whether the link is to the specific variant or to the overall page. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently acquired a Canon R7 crop-frame and an RF 200-800 lens, which together give 1280mm effective zoom. I've been surprised with the quality I can get with that combination, and have been chasing shots of aircraft at about 4000ft approaching Dulles in clean configuration. This is necessarily hit-or-miss, since it has to be hand-held (bracing on something is only marginally helpful), and acquiring and tracking the plane is challenging. If I use bird-following mode in the autofocus it helps a lot, and I must depend on the IBIS and lens stabilization to avoid motion blur from jiggle. And of course, atmospheric distortion over the four miles or so slant range is a big issue. Bearing in mind that the rate of stinkers is quite high, I've gotten a few decent shots of large planes like A380s 777s and 350s with the flaps stowed. The Alaska 737 turned just over my house. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Funnily enough my first instances of planespotting were watching planes go over my back yard at 4000ft and trying to take photos of them with a dinky little point-and-shoot. With 1280mm of effective zoom you're getting much better results than I was at the time haha.

Have you tried mounting it on a tripod using the lens foot, or are the angles too high? I recently tried mounting my 180-600 on a tripod and putting it into APS-C crop mode (to get 900mm effective) to do video and it worked quite well, though it was a very windy day so I was getting a lot of shake in the video regardless and the footage wasn't that usable. I could see it potentially helping a bit with the shake.

Also how does the lens fare wide open? I notice you're pretty stopped-down for a lot of these.

I have done a few shots of A380's in cruise with my 180-600mm , though the detail isn't quite there since I need to crop very heavily:

I also wonder if it'll be better in the winter. I went planespotting a few times in this hotter weather now, and have been noticing my pictures aren't as contrasty as when I was taking them in cooler weather (I've had to add quite a bit of contrast in post, which wasn't necessary for the shots I took earlier in the year). Maybe winter is the planespotting season (much like how it's stargazing season due to the clearer air), and maybe summer is mostly for trying to get building facade shots of north-facing buildings. 4300streetcar (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think winter would have more stable air, although when a front comes through it's plenty turbulent. The 200-800 is variable aperture, so it's at best f8 at 800mm. It's the price you pay for not being heavy and expensive, so you have to work within those limits. As for tripods, I'm relatively tall, and with the angle I'd probably need to sit in a chair - kind of a lot to lug outside and set up when you see the plane incoming on Flightradar 24. I've been getting better with leading a little and letting the plane fly into the frame. I have had to send the R7 in to Canon to help diagnose an issue with a lens, so I will work with the R5 and crop for a while, though its AF behaves differently. And thank you for reminding me, I have a list of places that I should be shooting for the northish illumination. Acroterion (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your A380 was up at contrail altitude, so you did pretty well considering. Now and then the weather brings the approach directly overhead at low altitude, which is interesting but hard to photograph, especially before tracking websites existed. The most unusual thing I've seen was a Russian IL-62 about 25 years ago. A couple of years ago there was a 767 that had gear problems after takeoff and flew back and forth overhead at low altitude with gear down to burn fuel (not all 767s have the fuel dump option), but it was 11 at night and I had to listen to ATC to figure out what was going on. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've redone the 717 image with a different denoising workflow and minimal sharpening to restore detail obscured by the noise reduction. What works for one livery or set of lighting conditions doesn't always work for all. I usually check the mid-belly and the lettering for trouble. If you see something that needs to be improved, please ask - I'm not touchy about that sort of thing. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent - yeah the new one looks noticeably better (much fewer jaggies and other artifacts). And will do! 4300streetcar (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been there more recently than I have, could you read through South Station Bus Terminal#Design sometime to see if there's anything that doesn't make sense? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a read through and it makes sense. Nice work! 4300streetcar (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have since replied to the R46 talk page. Sorry for the late response; I’ve been too busy at work. Davidng913 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, while the discussion is taking place with the User:~2026-51992 because this User:~2026-51992 is doing edits without typing in the edit summary i have used edit warning templates.

{{Uw-vandalism3}}
{{Uw-vandalism4}}

~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 23:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the results of your research to the talk page? Thanks! ~2026-85501-6 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]