File talk:Cleethorpes seafront.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
VFD discussion[edit]
- Delete. See Cleethorpes for the current usage of this image - it's a pretty image, but at 7199x367 the aspect ratio makes it nearly impossible to use in a web-based travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
- Modify and Keep. Unless we have a better image, this one is an excellent perspective on Cleethorpes, showing the mudflat, the tide out, and the tacky English seafront attractions along the waterfront. In fact the image says everything about the town, such that the rest of the article text should in fact be deleted, and just replaced with this image. --(WT-en) inas 20:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
- Delete - I'm not a fan of using panoramas in the first place, and this one is beyond extreme, such that even if we trimmed off 3/4 of it, it would still be unwieldy at a comfortable viewing size, and it would lose most of the advantages Inas mentions. Plus, at a comfortable viewing size, it's pretty grainy picture quality. I'd say it's better to dump this and find 2 or 3 reasonably framed shots from Flickr or something. (WT-en) texugo 22:40, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
- Keep, at least until we have a better image to replace it with. (WT-en) Pashley 02:13, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
- No comment on how to make it useable? At a size where it fits on the article page, it's microscopic, not even viewable-- you can't tell what anything is.(WT-en) texugo 07:53, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
- On the article page it is unviewable, but one click, and it is a really descriptive image. Took me a couple of seconds to have a look at it, and most people using WT can click on a image and have a monitor that can view it. It needs replacing, and the article needs development. Once that is done the image can be orphaned and removed easily enough. --(WT-en) inas 18:17, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- That completely ignores the goal of having a printable guide. Everyone so far has admitted it needs to be replaced, but if we don't do something right here and now, if we let this just go to "Keep" despite its poor fit with our goals, then it's back to being out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and it could actually be years before anyone gets around to replacing it. On top of that, this image is uploaded here on en:, and without any source.(WT-en) texugo 21:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- No it doesn't. It reaffirms that having a printable guide is a goal. I just think that this image has potential to be chopped up and used in the guide in preference to having nothing. So, I think it would be a bad thing to remove it before we have something else, because for all we know this may be the best we have. There may well be better images out there, and when we find them we move another step towards our goal. I've been to Cleethorpes twice, and I really, really don't want to go back there to take a picture of it. --(WT-en) inas 18:23, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
- I'd honestly like to see us set an upper limit on aspect ration. Nobody should have to click through to the image page to view anything.(WT-en) texugo 22:22, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
- No it doesn't. It reaffirms that having a printable guide is a goal. I just think that this image has potential to be chopped up and used in the guide in preference to having nothing. So, I think it would be a bad thing to remove it before we have something else, because for all we know this may be the best we have. There may well be better images out there, and when we find them we move another step towards our goal. I've been to Cleethorpes twice, and I really, really don't want to go back there to take a picture of it. --(WT-en) inas 18:23, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
- That completely ignores the goal of having a printable guide. Everyone so far has admitted it needs to be replaced, but if we don't do something right here and now, if we let this just go to "Keep" despite its poor fit with our goals, then it's back to being out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and it could actually be years before anyone gets around to replacing it. On top of that, this image is uploaded here on en:, and without any source.(WT-en) texugo 21:49, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- On the article page it is unviewable, but one click, and it is a really descriptive image. Took me a couple of seconds to have a look at it, and most people using WT can click on a image and have a monitor that can view it. It needs replacing, and the article needs development. Once that is done the image can be orphaned and removed easily enough. --(WT-en) inas 18:17, 30 October 2011 (EDT)
- Keep. Its initial aspect ratio made it unusable, but I have cropped it to make it viewable in the article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 11:25, 14 November 2011 (EST)
- Any further comment? The image is still somewhat unwieldy, but with Peter's change it's no longer completely unusable so I'd be OK with keeping it until someone adds more appropriate images to the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:56, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:27, 3 December 2011 (EST)
