User talk:Hassocks5489/Archives/2012/November

Replacement pics
Hey there. It's been a while since I criticized your replacement pics, uh? I noticed a common thread in several of those: bad backlighting. I'm not a photographer, but I seen to understand backlighting in general can be hard to deal with? It's leaving bad washout on several of the new images. Circéus (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * St Saviour's, Eastbourne: This is a case were I agree the new pic is much better colorwise, but the original angle is far superior. As I've noted before, I think images that shows the entrance or context are better than an elevation that is hard to interpret, I guess it's a bit of a "lesser evil", as the old pic is definitely poorly lit.


 * Holy Trinity, Eastbourne: The new elevation shows the entrance, but that big tree smack in the middle and the sign on the left are just as bad as the washed-out look. Plus the perspective shot reveals the nice triple aisle (or however that should be called) structure, which you could never suspect from the other image. If it weren't for the tree, I wouldn't suggest a revert at the list's size (though the other arguments I would make if it were for the infobox image).


 * Ceylon Place Baptist: The "tilting" of the new pics can probably be fixed with better framing, but my main issue is the "glare"-like in the areas receiving direct light. In a small shot, I think the original looks better.


 * Salvation Army Citadel: I remember you substituting a few pics because you had new ones without cars, so I'm especially disappointed here. That yellow car in particular is really distracting at the small size!


 * Christian Praying Center, Eastbourne: In this case I'd argue that huge wall jutting in the middle of the image is at _least_ as bad as the car in the original, taking over the church as the main element of the image, and I'm not sure that there's any good to be said about the entire right half of the image...


 * Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall, Hailsham: Strictly a backlighting washout issues. Though I agree the car is less than ideal, the colors of the original were far better at all sizes.


 * Gordon Road Evangelical, Hailsham: Another "lesser evil" choice... Here the original image is the one with the backlighting issue (and a huge glare too), but that SUV definitely takes away a lot of the replacement pic's value.


 * Emmanuel Church: Sad washed out photo is washed out. Although I would prefer an image without that cone and cars, the washing out does make for a worse replacement.


 * St George Catholic, Polegate: The washed outness (I did say it was a recurrent problem with this set of changes XD) is less visible at the smaller size, but still definitely present.

Category:Neighbourhoods in Crawley
Category:Neighbourhoods in Crawley, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of places of worship in Sevenoaks (district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Technical question about how to cite a particular "type" of website

 * Formatting problem with your archive box -- read all the way to the bottom.
 * Which database? Some databases such as imdb and gnis have specific templates that take care of that for you. With others you can embed a search query in the url if you are technically inclined.  Some databases use frames, so displaying "this frame only" will display the exact url.  Many databases create the display window "on the fly" and the only way to cite is to basically say run this search at this database. Here is an example of an embedded search url for GoogleBooks: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=p&q=aspasia#hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=aspasia+gynocolgy&oq=aspasia+gynocolgy&gs_l=serp.12...71769.82936.1.85546.10.10.0.0.0.0.1120.1954.8j3-1j7-1.10.0...0.0...1c.1.RGSQXZQ_0AM&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=f316b7445f503d95&bpcl=38625945&biw=1602&bih=963.  So if you'll disclose which database you are concerned about maybe we can provide you with more information. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I could not figure out all of the parameters. I did get a Britain and East Sussex search screen, but I couldn't get it to autoexecute:


 * http://www.jw.org/apps/index.html?option=FRNsPnPBrTZGT&selLocation=GBR&selCntctStateID=4982

You probably noticed that the map function for a particular location does display the url for linking. The following is for Red Barn Mews, Battle:
 * http://www.jw.org/apps/index.html?option=ZNCPrGPG&aPoints[]=14449*&aPoints[]=14450&aPoints[]=14451&aPoints[]=14432&aPoints[]=14433&aPoints[]=14434&aPoints[]=14435&aPoints[]=14436&aPoints[]=14437&aPoints[]=14416&aPoints[]=14452&aPoints[]=14453&aPoints[]=266239&aPoints[]=14454&aPoints[]=14455&aPoints[]=14456&aPoints[]=14457&aPoints[]=14458&aPoints[]=14442&aPoints[]=14443&txtExpiration=1353106172&txtMapCode=6379ee90f850b5de8488b416c63d3222&txtAction=MAP&txtMapIDType=CONG

I suggest that you contact the folks at jw.org with your goal and see if they can give you the information. Sorry I wasn't more help. --Bejnar (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Listed buildings in Eastbourne
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the corrections to List of works by R. H. Carpenter, especially the photo — I seem to remember getting in a bit of a tangle about those two churches. But it's now untangled. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Areas of Crawley
Thank you for your advice at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 2. I closed the discussion accordingly and set up Category:Areas of Crawley; please check whether it is complete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Camelsdale
Hi Hassocks, as promised I've taken some photos of the new Brethren's Meeting Room in Camelsdale and uploaded them to Commons:Category:Brethren's Meeting Room, Camelsdale. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)