Talk:Water/Image discussions archive

Image
I'm not comfortable with the image of an unnnamed underage girl being used to illustrate an article of which she is not the subject. I'm sure there must e lots of lovely photoes of water, without needing to use images of children. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the previous image, but I was not comfortable with not having any image there at all. There were images further down in the article, but a screen full of text should not be the first thing you see when you come to an article about something like water, so I added an image of a beach.  No people in it at all.  It can be hard to find images without people in them. ONUnicorn 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The new picture shows 40% sand, 20% sky and only 40% murky ocean water. There surely are better pictures focussing more on water (preferably purer water, too).--Dschwen 17:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think there are better pictures, then find one. I thought the Ocean would be good because a very large percentage (97.2%) of Earth's water is in its oceans.  Why would purer water be a better picture than an example of the most common form water takes on this planet? ONUnicorn 14:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it (the Earth picture)! Good choice. ONUnicorn 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, it conveys your idea of showing ocean water as a major part of earth's surface pretty well. And on second thought I like it better than showing pure water :-) --Dschwen 15:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An advantage that the Earth picture has is that it shows all forms water takes; it shows ocean water, it shows ice in the polar icecaps, and it shows water as a gas in clouds. This makes it about the best illustration of the concept of water and the importance of water to this planet and its life that you can get. The picutre of Lake Huron that was used to replace it has all the same problems as the picture of a beach that I used in May; it's only partly water, partly sky, partly land, and does not adequately illustrate water. Moreover, it is a picure of Lake Huron, a freshwater lake and it uses the caption from the picuture of the beach, stating that a large portion of Earth's surface is covered by oceans. It is a beautiful picture, and, with a more appropriate caption could easily be incorporated into the article, but that caption does not work for that image, and I still think (and I'm sure Dschwen would agree) that the image of Earth is a better picture for the main image in this article.

In addition, I see that a gorgeous picture of a waterfall in Australia has been added further down in the article. I love that image, it is beautiful, and it should remain in the article, but Australia is not in the Middle East, and the image is under the Middle East section of the Politics of Water Distribution part of the article. It should be moved.

Over all, with those few exceptions, I think the changes that have been made in the last 24 hours are good. ONUnicorn 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this one - I think this shows the presence of water to good effect - MPF 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was me!! :D I've changed the whole article a lot recently, adding photos, science and rearranging and whatnot. Glad you like it. I think the pictures now really make the article, even if there are perhaps too many. I like the huron pic, as well as the spiderweb and the daisy ones, just found 'em while perusing. The waterfall pic is a featured on, I thought it should deffo be in this article, but I wasn't sure where. I moved it, does it fit better now? - Jak (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the new location for the waterfall! And you're right, the new pictures really do a lot to improve the article. ONUnicorn 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image poll
What sort of image should be used to illustrate an article about water? Right now the article has many excellent images in it, as it should. The main image, however, seems quite subject to change. Just in the past couple months there have been 5 different images as the top, main image. Looking through the edit history there have been a good many more at various points in time. What's the best way to illustrate water? What should be the first image people looking up "water" in Wikipedia see? Should it be a diagram of the molecule? Should it be an image showing the way people use water? Should it be a lake? Should it be the ocean? Should it have other things in the picture besides water? Since this seems to be a point of controversy and disagreement, and since Wikipedia is all about consensus, I propose a poll.

Following are a selection of images which, at various points in time, have been used as the top image. There are also a couple which, although they have never been used as the main image, are also quite good and perhaps should be considered. Some pros and cons of each image will be listed. Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the image you think best illustrates the general concept of "water", preferably adding a brief comment to explain why that image is preferred over the others. If you have an image you think better illustrates "water" than those posted here, please add it at the end and explain why.

Image 4

 * 1) Johntex\talk 06:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) This is my second choice because everyone has seen water, but not everyone has been lucky enough to see an ocean. (Note: I took this photo)

Image 7
Comments:
 * This image does represents best water but it seems cropped. I've seen many similar images of this kind and they all look better. CG 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! The best we have- so far. But surely we can find a better copy (not image 9). The idea is perfect though. Form and function. User: cilstr 2.04, 12 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Image 8
Starting here, images have not been top images.

Image Option 12
No image at top. (There have been places in the history of this article where there has not been any image, perhaps I should have included this option when I first designed the poll.) (Also, the article in the French Wikipedia, while it has some stunningly beautiful pictures, does not have any until well into the article.)

Pros
 * Reduces conflict at this time
 * Article is too "cluttered" with images
 * Perhaps it is impossible to choose one single image that best represents the overall concept of something so huge and enormous and important to every aspect of life as water.

Cons
 * A picture is worth a thousand words
 * A screen full of text is unlikely to appeal to the average reader; one thing that separates Wikipedia from other on-line encyclopedias is the presence of images
 * Someday someone will come along and say "why on Earth isn't there a picture with the introduction to the article on Water?" and they will add one and then someone will change it, etc.
 * Not everyone will read the entire article; in fact, with the massive length of this article most people probably won't. They won't ever see all the other images in the article.

Supporters of this option:

Image Option 13
Take a look at Flower. The second image down changes and runs through a series of pictures of flowers. Perhaps we could do something similar on Water; we could have a selection of images that show various aspects of Water, and the image could change.

Pros
 * It would be cool
 * It would allow many images to have their turn
 * It would show several different aspects of water
 * It could cut down on image clutter in the article if we moved some of the images to it

Cons
 * How complicated is it to make somehing like that?
 * How many images would people see before they got tired of watching it?

Supporters of this option:

Water image vote & photo clutter

 * Note: this discussion refers to Image:flores.gif, an animated picture, similar to Image:Aves de Galicia.gif.

ONUnicorn contacted me on my talk page to ask me if I wanted to participate in the poll to pick an image to be the first, or main image on the article. I looked at the various nominated images, and as I thought about it I realized I don't think picking a "main" image is a great idea for such a broad topic. One could make arguments for a variety of different types of images, depending on what aspect of water you want to focus on. Somebody who likes boating or sailing might want a boat image to be the first one; a swimmer might want a pool image or photo of somebody swimming; a nature photographer might want a sunset over water image or a waterfall. All of these and many others are valid choices, I think -- but in the end, this is a living document. You might reach a consensus today only to find a promising new image tomorrow or next week or next month and be back in the same boat again (excuse the pun). So I'm going to abstain from voting.

To be honest, I think there are too many images sprinkled through the article. I debated for a couple weeks about whether to add my image to it, since that would only add to the clutter. However I think it complements the sections on color and solvation nicely, so I added it. Maybe instead of deciding which image should be the top image, we could trim some of the images out of the main article (place them in a gallery section, maybe?) and then tie the remaining images to the article sections they best match with. -- moondigger 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment, most of the images are tied with the sections they best match. However, I agree, the article does appear cluttered.  I'm one who thinks that a picture is worth a thousand words however, and I like having a lot of pictures.  Part of the problem is that some sections (such as the two I recently added on water life and water in sports and recreation) are so short that the images get bunched up and don't necessarily appear to be where they should be.  Those sections need expansion.


 * As for having a main image, what I'm talking about is the first image you see when you navigate to the article. You are a photographer, do you really think the first thing people should see is a screen full of text?  As for reaching a consensus today and then someone changing the image tomorrow and us being back in the same boat; if today we reach a consensus on no image, what's to stop that from happening?  If however, we can agree on one image that really, really does a good job of showing many aspects of this extremely broad topic (most of the images above only show a few aspects, that's why I support the image of Earth) then it will be less likely to change.  At any rate, it's worth a shot. ONUnicorn 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack, sorry -- I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting there be no image at the top of the article. I'm only suggesting that reaching a consensus on which image to put there will take a lot of time and effort that could be better spent doing other things, especially since this is a living document that could change again the day after the consensus is reached (if/when new images come available or new editors show up).  I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. Option 12 should not be attributed to me.


 * That said, I like the concept of option 13.-- moondigger 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After investigating the flower article, the second image down is an animated GIF. I think that creates licensing problems; isn't the GIF format copyrighted?  Also, GIF has a limited color palette, and so I think it takes a LOT of effort to prep each individual frame for inclusion. -- moondigger 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about misunderstanding you... I sort of thought I must be misunderstanding, but it seemed to be what you were suggesting.
 * I took a look at the 1993 World Book Encyclopedia's (paper encyclopedia) article on Water to see how they handled the question of picking a front image. They had a collage that took up the whole top half of the double page, and began the text of the article on the bottom.  It was really quite nice, and reminded me of option 13.  I experimented with PowerPoint and discovered that while I could copy and past images from Wikipedia into Powerpoint and make a nice slide-show presentation and save the same as a web page, I could only save individual slides as .gifs, not the whole slideshow as an animated gif.  I also experimented with photoshop and couldn't get it to do what I wanted at all.  A brief google search leads me to believe a person needs a special program to create animated gifs, which is too bad as I really think that's a good idea.  ONUnicorn 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded as an example for what the above users have suggested. I would like feedback as to which images to include, how long each image should appear (in milliseconds), etc., before putting this on the water page. --Muéro 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * GIF has a very limited indexed color palette which causes artifacts in the photos, especially when the same palette is called for use by more than a single frame. Those artifacts are evident in the sample you posted.  I'm not sure such an image would be a good choice, especially since placing it in the article would (logically) result in the removal of each of the higher-quality single-frame images used to make the combination image.  If somebody is aware of a graphic format that does this kind of thing without the indexed color restriction, maybe we could use that? -- Moondigger 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the artifacts until you mentioned them. But, if an animated GIF is okay for colorful flowers, why not these pictures? When the image is scaled down to make it fit better on the page, the artifacts are barely noticeable. Also, the links to the full-resolution images could be provided on the image's page so curious readers could view them. As for other animated image formats, like MNG and APNG, I don't believe there are any browsers that can view them without special plugins or extensions. --Muéro 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)