Talk:Yellow-crowned night heron

Taxonomy

The American Ornithologists' Union taxonomy has the Yellow-crowned Night-Heron in the genus Nyctanassa, not Nycticorax. - Aerobird 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

In the infobox, I've replaced the image of a heron feeding at sunset, File:YCNH.jpg, with a more complete view of the bird in daylight, File:Nycticorax violaceus (at beach).jpg. While the sunset image is aesthetically attractive, it is not as encyclopaedic or as well-suited to illustrating the bird itself. The resolution is lower and there is not nearly as much detail on the bird, and the legs are hidden from view by the water. A crop of the image, showing the feeding behaviour, is in the feeding section. Maedin\^talk 07:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The resolution is low? I took that photo with a top rated lense. The image you insist on using, while acceptable, just shows a bird standing there, while my photo (yes I understand that I'm biased here) shows the YCNH in a primary behavior. I don't see that you are a bird enthusiast, so I don't understand why you insist on using the other image. Unfortunately I don't have the time to make several hundred edits a day, nor do I have the inclination to discuss this any further. If you want to remove an image that has won a prize in a bird photography contest (no kidding), then so be it. But I repeat, you are completely wrong about the lower image resolution, and your insistence on using a prosaic image over one that has some aesthetic value. Terry Foote (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your response has not helped your position; the lens has nothing to do with the resolution, and, in fact, neither does the camera if you have chosen to downsample the image. The resolution is 1024 × 1001 (1 megapixel), and the image I am replacing it with is 2,275 × 2,904 (6.6 megapixels). Whether or not I am a bird enthusiast is irrelevant; I am familiar with photography, with images on Wikipedia, and with infoboxes and I am sure that the image I am replacing yours with is superior. As I said, your image is aesthetically nice, which explains why it won a competition (congratulations, :) ) but that does not guarantee its suitability for the infobox of the article. As an illustration of behaviour, your image remains in place, in the appropriate location, so I don't see where you have an issue. If you feel it necessary, I will ask for a third opinion. Maedin\^talk 11:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so to prevent a protracted edit war, I will acquiesce, however I would really like some explanations of your reasoning, because for the life of me I don't understand your decision. First of all, you were so busy reverting my edit that you missed that I replaced the original image with one that's 2,106x2,508. Secondly, you don't need to explain resolution to me. As you know from your knowledge of photography, the quality of the lense is one of the essential factors in determining the overall quality and clarity of the image. My lense is a top of the line that cost several thousand dollars. Moreover, the image that you insist on using frankly looks like a snapshot. A guy just happened to be walking on a beach, a low-and-behold, there's a Yellow-crowned night heron - SNAP! The photo I took, I'm crouched and hiding so as not to scare the bird and capture it actually doing something, which takes some skill. Another point - why is the image which you are opposed to "unencyclopedia?" Please back-up your claims. Frankly, while you seem like a nice person and an exemplary editor, this smacks to me of you simply disliking the fact that I reverted your edit, and nothing more, and you feeling like your opinion somehow supersedes mine simply because you have more edits. Now, if you can show me how I'm wrong, then I will as graciously as possible accept your decision. Terry Foote (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for teaching you to suck eggs, I thought your comments referred only to size/resolution (as mine did) and therefore thought it best to explain. I know what you mean about lenses, I have poor and good quality lenses and the difference in image quality is significant! I certainly appreciate the higher resolution version of the image, but it doesn't really address the main point, which is that the legs are missing. Yes, the composition and environment for the "snapshot" is much simpler than yours, and may not have required as much skill, though I hope you can appreciate that there is a lot of detail on the bird and the quality is still very good. It also benefits from not having the harsh, direct flash lighting that yours does, and from not having "wasted space", where yours requires a fair portion given over to the reflection. The major point, however, is that the replacement image is a clear, typical, natural, daylight, full-bodied shot of the bird, and that's what makes it so encyclopaedic. At a glance, one gets the best impression of the bird itself. Here, in this particular wikipedia/encyclopaedia environment, composition is superior simply by virtue of it being complete. The point of taxoboxes and infoboxes is to be at-a-glance summaries and the images to represent typical specimens. Prettiness and skill are sometimes (but not always) sacrificed to the better illustration. Behaviours aren't typically shown in the taxobox (unless there aren't any better options) and such shots are usually put in their respective locations in the articles.

Now to more personal things. I definitely do not think my opinion somehow superior due to the number of edits I've made (or anything else); in fact, the idea that you thought that kind of embarrasses me. I also don't have time for several hundred edits per day, I think my average is twelve or something like that, and my total edit count is minuscule compared to lots of editors! I've also had my edits changed or undone before and it's never bothered me, I don't have issues with such things. The only reason I reinstated my version is because, having thought about it, I still felt that the more complete image was the more appropriate. As we're talking about perception, I got the impression that your opposition was due solely to you wanting your image to be the main picture in the article, and maybe I reacted somewhat harshly due to that suspicion. My first edit was only to move the crop, not to replace it, and therefore I was somewhat perplexed myself by your insistence that it remain in the taxobox, even though it illustrates the feeding behaviour of the bird much better than it illustrates the bird itself. I did view your Flickr stream (at least, I'm pretty sure it's yours) and you have some really lovely stuff. I've been involved with Flickr myself and know that there is strong emphasis on art, composition, colour, imagination, and HBW, :) Things are a little different here, and what's best on Flickr is not always suitable on WP, and what's suitable for WP would often be abysmal on Flickr. The communities have different goals; and none of this exchange is meant as any sort of slight or criticism. I hope you understand. Maedin\^talk 07:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maedin, thank you for your very detailed and thoughtful response. Also, please forgive me, and don't take personally, anything that I wrote that embarrassed you. What I should've done was assume good-faith, one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia, and I didn't do that. I hope we see each other again around WP, and I promise that next time, I'll be friendlier - and assume good faith. All best, Terry Foote (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)