Talk:William Street (Manhattan)

Lede image dispute

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a dispute between two editors about which lede image is better for the article:

Other potential lede images can be found here. Opinions? BMK (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I've added a third image to the consideration, which is Image 1 with adjustments made to lessen the differences between the dark and light portions of the photograph. This is about as far as I can take it, but if the consensus here were to prefer the idea of Image 1A, I know a guy who should be able to make the adjustments more betterer. BMK (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose both images due to poor quality lens distortion from the sides and lack of tilt-shift. I recommend new camera gear and a short course in photography. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it may have escaped your notice that "oppose" is not an option here. You can prefer Image #1 or you can prefer Image #2,or you can suggest another image from the pool in Commons, but the article is going to have a lede image, whatever your opinions are about the photographs and the photographers. Unless, of course, you're willing to fly from Hawaii to New York City and take a photo and upload it - in which case I'll be sure to evaluate it with the same neutrality and lack of prejudice you brought to this comment. Mahalo, okole puka. BMK (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose both images for the reasons I gave. There is no "lack" of neutrality nor prejudice inherent in my comment.  Image 2 (the current image in the lead), which fails to adequtely illustrate the street (the topic), also demonstrates the classical leaning, falling back effect inherent in poor photos that don't use tilt-shift.  For those two objective reasons, image 2 is unsuitable.  Image 1 suffers from similar tilt-shift and distortion issues, although it illustrates more of the street, but not enough.  For those reasons, neither image is a good fit for this article.  Perhaps you can find other images to choose from instead of asking others to do your homework for you. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you clearly know nothing about the street, or what's on it, and since you failed to suggest an alternative from the Commons image pool immediiately available to us, or do any research about other possible CC images which we might use, there's no particular reason to take your comments into account at all, except, of course, that your obvious superiority to us lowly peons requires us to get on bended knee and kiss your ring. Since we actually live in a democracy, however, and since Wikipedia is more of an anarchy than anything else, I'll just ignore your bullshit and wait for the comments of other editors more interested in improving the encyclopedia, and less involved with the aggrandizement of their own egos. BMK (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Await all you want, but I must note that you 1) failed to address my points, 2) assumed bad faith and engaged in personal attacks, and 3) failed to offer specific alternative images to choose from. I hope you won't ignore these points again. Or to simplify it for you: what good reason is there for anyone to use these images?  I can't think of one. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you seem a little lost, let me make it somewhat simpler for you to understand: (1) Choose image 1, (2) Choose image 2, (3) Choose another image from the Commons, {4) Choose another CC image of your choice, from wherever you may find it.Is that something that you're able to understand, or shall I rephrase it in words of one syllable so you can take it in more easily? BMK (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's really not how an RfC works; you received comments on the dispute. If you wish to receive other comments on other images, you'll need to present them.  You're actually asking RfC respondents to do more than respond? That's a nice creative touch, but you're going beyond the framework of an RfC.  Since you've offered no reasons to keep any of these two images, I suggest you remove them both from consideration.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate. I'm sorry, but I have no further free time to invest in your dispute.  Thanks.  Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments, but since you seem to be unable to follow a simple set of instructions, I'll just file your input away in the circular file, where they can keep the majority of your Wikipedia comments company. BMK (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find both images to be inappropriate for the reasons I gave. You have not given any reasons as to why this article should include either of these two images.  Do no collapse my comments.  This is an RfC, and you don't own this article. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Without any prejudice toward any involved editors, I prefer image number 1. That image shows the street more fully, compared to image 2, which, although brighter, shows only a specific building on the street. Epic Genius (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I'd choose Image 1A, the one in the middle. Epic Genius (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 2 also for me, it's a clearer view of the actual street and not just a building on the street, albeit an important building, this page is about the street primarily. Mariamullins (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, Image 1 is of the street. Epic Genius (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, Epic Genius stop it with the put downs - image 2 is a lot better imo - going um is not taking my opinion away neither does it belittle it - Mariamullins (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "putting down" your comment. I am merely correcting you. Image 2 is the Federal Reserve Building, not "a clearer view of the actual street". Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If I had to chose, option 1A, but instead I'm offering to go out and try to take a better shot myself. I'm here at this location five days out of the week. If there's any intersection or vantage point in particular you want let me know. I can produce a few photos very soon with my old Canon DSLR and/or wait another week or so for my Nikon D7200 to arrive! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having another option would be great! I had just added it to my list of shots I need to do, but I hardly ever get down there, so go ahead and do it (with either camera).  I have no preferred vantage point, but it seems that the consensus here is leaning toward wanting a representation of the street. BMK (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'm waiting for my Nikon D7200 to arrive before going out on the field to snap these photos, which will hopefully be sometime next week. Compared to my old Canon the D7200's photos will be of considerably higher quality, so there's little value in me presenting imagery that will surely soon be replaced. In other words don't wait for my photos before closing this RfC! Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, no hurry. BMK (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Of the currently available options, Image 1 (or 1A) for this article. I also prefer Image 2 over the present lead image in Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with Image 2 for that article is that it's the back of the building, not the front. Perhaps MusikAnimal could take another shot of the building's front facade that is not dark/light and shows the entire facade (or as much of it as it practicable), since one end of the building is on William Street. BMK (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I had "my guy" who's pretty proficient at balancing images for light/dark go over Image 1A, and re-uploaded it, so what you're seeing after this comment is actually "1A prime". BMK (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Image 1 - The article is about the street, not the building - and Image 1 actually shows the street better. 1A is slightly better than 1. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of these three, I prefer image 1A, because it gives some idea of what the street looks like rather than focusing on just one building. But maybe MusikAnimal or someone else who lives nearby will be able to provide a better image sometime soon. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! My Nikon D7200 arrived today! I'm going to pop on my macro lens and do an extensive tour of Lower Manhattan over the next few weeks. I'll have an even more fitting lens before too long, but I digress. Expect William St along with many of the other streets/buildings/landmarks soon, let me know if you have any other requests for photos in the area. Cheers &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I wanted to make sure you saw the discussion here and on Talk:Federal Reserve Bank of New York Building about trying to get a better shot of it, perhaps from the "pointy" corner on William and Liberty.  BMK (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inserted image 1a - as per the consensus here Mariamullins (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Alternate images
Okay, so I've produced a few more more options. I went down the entire stretch of William Street and in my opinion looking south at William and Maiden offers the most picturesque view the street has to offer, with many notable buildings within frame. I will at some point go out and get more north-facing images along with some landscape views as I comb across the neighborhood. As I'm sure you know, getting street-level shots in New York City can be quite difficult. You've got traffic and people blocking the view, and meanwhile you have to make sure you don't get hit by a car. On top of all that I'm still getting used to my new camera. #2 and #3 are the same vantage point but one has more of the Federal Reserve in it, the other more vibrant colours. I'm sure BMK or someone can tweak them as well. Hopefully you'll find these useful! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) William Street, Financial District, New York City.JPG
 * 2) William Street, Financial District, New York City 2.JPG
 * 3) William Street, Financial District, New York City 5.JPG

and several others here.


 * @MusikAnimal: I hope you're happy with your new camera -- nice shots!I've looked at these and the other on Commons, and I prefer the one you've numbered 3 here (which is your picture 5). I think it would be a bit more effective if the top was cropped in a bit, but I don't think it needs much in the way of other adjustments.  Let's see what other people have to say about it.  Thanks again for making the effort to get these shots, and for any future ones you bring in. BMK (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree—out of the six pictures that are currently on this talk page, I prefer the one labeled 3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I quite like 1 here, although all would work well for this article. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was bold, and put in a slightly cropped version of image 3. Comments? BMK (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In regards to, the direction you are looking in the photo is indeed south (Federal Reserve is on the right) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, Ill correct it, if you haven't already. BMK (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)