Talk:Waterloo Bridge

[Untitled]

Would just like to say that there are actually 4 of these stones in Canberra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.56.107 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting a trim

Georgi Markov has his own article and the details of his execution probably are not needed. "Paddy" (1928—1939, Canberra) may be a little off topic. From the "Trivia" section incorporate anything worth saving into the text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'Carries' section

...a bit more than pedestrians and cyclists ! Add motor vehicular traffic !213.123.135.235 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Two panoramas one too many?

The article now carries two panoramas. One shows Waterloo Bridge, the other Blackfriars Bridge. In accord with the requirement to include only images "significantly and directly related to the article's topic", I suggest removing the picture of Blackfriars Bridge. The relevant Commons pages are "click through" already, using the link at the bottom of the page. Readers wouldn't be missing anything.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean File:London South Bank By Night (9%).jpg? I agree, as a view from the bridge, it isn't adding a lot to the article. In addition, it is a tiny panorama (0.6MP) so lacking any detail for the viewer. Colin°^Talk 11:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, all finished? No objections? Implementing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The panorama [[:File:London South Bank By Night (9%).jpg], in my opinion, added impact to the page – being pleasing and acting as an aesthetic delimeter between sections.

In order for a deletion to be made, it is common courtesy to inform the editor/uploader, of your opinion, prior to the deletion (through the user's talk page), so they are given a “right of reply”. Two people (both having a mutual interest), doesn’t make a discussion.

If you would have preferred a higher res. image, I may have uploaded it – I thought the image was illustrative enough in the format initially provided though.

It is behavior and attidudes like this that discourages people from joining the Wiki project.

Bloodholds (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be a picture with impact on your PC but the tiny picture you uploaded is merely a preview of a picture with impact. It has no detail and isn't very informative to our readers. Yes, please always upload the highest resolution image you can. A night scene with lights can look great, but we don't just add eye candy to articles: they have to illustrate the subject. And that's a view of another bridge and the south bank. This image is included in two other articles and I see its addtion to Royal National Theatre has also been undone: you've simply added it to too many articles. Each article only needs a carefully selected set of appropriate images: we link to Commons so the reader can view a gallery of related images if they want: for some subjects we have far more pictures than the article can support.

Your image hasn't been "deleted" so no notification is necessary or typical behaviour. This is a wiki, which means changes happen quickly. Anyone can edit. If the consensus changes to support the use of that image here, it may come back. Colin°^Talk 07:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I still think the uploaded image had impact, although I take your point about different displays rendering differently - the full size image is very large. I restrained the the displayed image to 850px on the page, the uploaded image was larger. It's funny you pointed out the removal of the image from the NT article - I suppose I should be grateful, that at least this page's contributors chose to mention it's removal at all. Even on a wiki, it is polite to inform a contributor of a major removal - you seem decent - you posted here, you could have dropped me a line in my talk page saying something in the first place. I never suggested my image had been deleted - I do know how the system works. Your "sunny 16" pano is grand, but don't you think a reader would like a fuller impression of the setting? I know I, or other people, could leverage the image back. It's a good shot, it's appropriate for the subject - however,so often there are just a few people who think they own the subject area. You don't have to patronise me by saying that there are an abundance of images uploaded to Wikicommons, I know this - but thanks for your reply, it's appreciated. Bloodholds (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Large pictures are not a problem. See File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg for an example of a large London bridge photo. I've uploaded 100MP images before (e.g., File:King's Cross Station Euston Road 2012-05-27.jpg) and WP provides Flash or JavaScript viewers to make it easy to look at such images in a browser (look at the links below the image description). So don't worry about your upload being too big. I don't know what you are referring to with the "sunny 16" pano. The pano I added to this page is rather grey but that was the weather!

The decision as to whether images or text appear in articles or not is up to the editors of the page. The inclusion or otherwise of an image is no big deal so editors really do not tend to inform the original editor or uploader about changes. Just like nobody informs me if they delete text I've written and may have spent hours researching. It is up to me to watchlist articles I'm interested in. Whenever it becomes contentious as to the inclusion of an image, it is best to defer to others as one always becomes biased wrt ones own images. Colin°^Talk 10:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will certainly take on-board your suggestion of watchlisting as a rule - I just don't like to do it - I guess it's assumed now, I'll have to change. I can also sympethise, regarding research time, spend six hours plus doing "real" original research - it can be removed in a click. By the way, although I agree it might be difficult to be disinterested in your own submissions - I don't always fight against an edit. I agree that consensus should lead the way, however, that's still not two people agreeing over a two day period (e.g. you and Old Moonraker), c'mon. I really don't believe that if I uploaded the image in question at full resolution, in the first place, it would make much difference to "your" consensus - I would still want to use it at exactly the same 850px restraint. Sure, there would then be an pin sharp (25000,3800px x32bit) night time pano of the subject, wasting space, in Wikkicommons, but for what? Anyway, without being facetious - it's a lot easier taking a stoped down photo in 14EV of light and taking one in 0EV. Not that it matters, the subject is the key. I do think you have taken a number of good illustrative images, however, shame you don't see the merit in mine. best wishes Richard. Bloodholds (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disc space is so cheap that even a 100MP picture only costs about a tenth of a penny to store. It isn't wasted space. If you picture has the detail, then someone can click on it and, using the Flash viewer for example, can zoom in and out and pan around. That's a lot of educational and interest to offer our viewers/readers. Plus, images on Commons will be used elsewhere, where the extra resolution is key. Your picture could appear on poster if uploaded larger. I do see potential in your picture but currently it is too small for anyone to judge. I agree that taking a nighttime picture is not easy. The main issue with this article is that it is not a picture of the subject. With some venues, a picture from the subject might be appropriate. If the article discussed the amazing view from the bridge, and said people flock to stand on it to gaze down the Thames... :-) Colin°^Talk 11:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Colin, I have just uploaded nearly the full version (wiki refused the full 430MB, so it's dropped down to 80% res. and only 8bit/channel colour)) - I'm being accommodating. To test your click theory - click on St. Paul's. Let me know your thoughts. I accept most of your other points, except the view from Waterloo Bridge is famous and noteworthy - it features in songs and film, not to mention the many Londoners that walk to/from the South Bank - it is iconic. People do flock to it, for the view at night. Bloodholds Bloodholds (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Two reasons. Firstly the value of the image is hugely improved thanks to the larger upload. There's a wealth of detail for anyone who wants to study the view. Secondly, after a bit of googling, I think I was wrong about the view from the bridge lacking notability or popularity. In fact, I've been to the bridge myself to take photos (and nearly got blown away). Colin°^Talk 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to the frequent high wind I was forced to go back to the bridge three times in order to find an evening where I wasn't worried that my bike and bags would be blown-off the bridge (I still locked them to the railling, just-in-case). So I understand being "blown-away".Bloodholds (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waterloo Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121020816/http://www.peterlind.co.uk/ladies_bridge.htm to http://www.peterlind.co.uk/ladies_bridge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)