Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Wilson Peak, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I've put a comment on the FPC page. Check it out, and, if you agree, please correct what I think is a factual error. Thanks! --Janke | Talk09:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming (so I could be wrong) that the photo was taken looking north from Loon. Is that correct? If so, I'll give you the peaks (I hope!) and a reference. JJ16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indispensable reference: Scudder, Brent E. Scudder's White Mountain Viewing Guide, High Top Press: Bellmore, NY 1995. He has drawn panoramas from many of the major peaks in New Hampshire, including Loon. You are more familiar with the exact direction when you took the photograph, but I believe the peaks are, from left to right, Mount Lincoln, Mount Flume, North Twin (in the distance), Osseo Peak, Whaleback Mountain, and Potash (right foreground). Send me your image (to john-at-whitemountainart-dot-com) and I'll label them for you so that you know what I'm talking about.
If the vantage point is low, your identifications may be right. I confess to being pretty confused myself! Let's see if anyone else pipes in. JJ18:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible FPC discussion
Thanks for taking the time to look at and comment on this image in preparation. I was hoping to gather your opinion (well informed as it is about FPCs) regarding the potential of this image. Obviously, to date, the Margin and Venation sections aren't done, but I've done one example for each of those categories. I will complete it either as 1) a set of 3 images illustrating variation in leaf shape, margin, and venation, or 2) a poster-like compilation of all three, as in the mock-up above. Do you think it would be favorably received as an FPC in either of those forms? neither? Do you think it should adorn articles as a single image or as parts? Thanks for any thoughts. - Debivort09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it is certainly well received by me :-). Hard to say how the response on FPC will end up. Look at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart where part of the discussion was about how the pic would look as a thumbnail on the main page. What are you using to create the pic? Looks vector based and thus would suggest using SVG as a file format (postersize printouts would be possible) plus you could even hyperlink words to WP articles. Well, it looks like this is becoming a pretty valuable contibution anyhow, let's worry about FPC later :-) --Dschwen10:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts on the morphology image. I am making it in Adobe Illustrator. I am not familiar with the SVG format, but would be happy to format it that way, assuming I dont have to do it all again from scratch ;-) Do you know about Illustrator and SVG? Also, is it possible to set the thumbnail manually? If so, several close ups from the image could make attractive thumbs, like Rosette or Whorled or Tripinnate. Thanks again Debivort10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Illustrator can save as SVG, so no additional effort needed. Not sure about adding hyperlinks though. --Dschwen11:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me! I don't see any major problems that might prevent it from becoming an FP, though I think an SVG version would be preferable. The second, 'poster', form is my preference. This really does look like a great diagram; visually attractive and very informative. Raven4x4x09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great diagram! Very clear, and good looking, too. (Not to mention - superbly encyclopedic!) By all means, do finish it and put it up on FPC (but don't forget to put it in an article first... ;-) However, and I'm sorry to say this, but I may abstain from voting, since I don't think diagrams in general look very good when featured on the Main Page, in that small size - and it really should "grab you" even that small... That's why I opposed the drug chart, and was neutral on the tranformer - but, to be honest, your graphic design here is far better than that, so there's no way I can oppose it.--Janke | Talk13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job. Since I wrote substantial parts of the article Leaf, I've been looking in vain on the web for a GFDL image like this. JoJan09:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems kind of late (sorry!), but I'll give my feedback here anyways: I like it, but the only thing that's bothering me is the font. It's not bothering me that much, but something about it I just don't like. Would it be possible to create another image with more standard font (i.e. Times New Roman or such) and compare it? I still can't finger what's bothering me, but I like it overall. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Math Collaboration of the Week
Heya Debivort!
I completely agree about Multiple comparison, but I was thinking that if we're going to get people really interested again we should start off with a fresh slate. I would either wait a week, or if you're really excited about it maybe just put a new nomination up. In theory multiple comparison just finished being "collaboration of the past three months", so I'm not sure people will be too thrilled about it.
I was much impressed by your picture on leaf morphology. I wonder if you could also make such a drawing of the different types of radula (the "teeth" of a mollusk) for the article Radula. Without such an image, this article is hard to explain to an outsider. I've been looking in vain on the internet for a GFDL image.
A new drawing of the types of radulae and one of a schematic view of the mouth would greatly illustrate the article. Any thoughts ? JoJan14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer. I had the following in mind :
a first illustration showing a transverse view of the radula in the buccal cavity in a retracted state and then in a protruded state (with the radula in a different color to enhance its visibility), each time also showing the cartilaginous base, the odontophore protractor muscle, the radula protractor muscle and the radula retractor muscle.
a second schematic illustration with the seven different types of radula, with different colors for the central tooth, the lateral teeth and the marginal teeth.
I hope the links I provided, will give you enough guidance how to proceed. I know it is a technical and somewhat obscure matter, but it shouldn't be too hard to draw. I worked hard on that article and with these illustrations it would be complete. JoJan14:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done it again ! This draft shows in a simple and informative way how how the radula works inside the buccal cavity. As to the placement of the muscles, there are small differences between the genera. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that. But I have two suggestions (if you could still alter slightly the picture) :
there should be a maxilla in the upper jaw, and a cartilage under the rasping part of the radula. Look for this on [2]. It is the letter B (B = Kiefer) and D (D = Radukakorpel) in that drawing.
at the entrance of the mouth, there is a continuous line between the upper part and the lower part, giving the impression that the mouth is closed. This black line should be removed.
I realize that it must have been hard for you to make this simplified schematic view of the buccal cavity. And I appreciate this. As to the second scheme with the different types of radula, the article Radula and the drawing on [3] should give you ample indications how to draw. JoJan15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cartilaginous base is indeed the odontophore. My mistake. But looking at the drawing again, could you alter the color of the "teeth" (perhaps a light gray...) ? JoJan19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: current MCOTW
Hello Meekohi - Is Small World Network the current MCOTW? If so, it should be labeled and and advertised as that to get work going. Currently the nomination page says that the next COTW will be chosen on the 14th. If any article will be chosen between now and then, it will have less than a week available to work on it as a MCOTW. Ready to get my collaborate on, Debivort13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Debivort - currently there is no MCOTW, since the program was just restarted last Thursday. We'll pick the first new MCOTW (looks like it's going to be Small-world network) on Saturday, and from then on we'll have a MCOTW every week. I think we'll make an excellent article next week. Looking forward to getting my collaborate on as well ;)
Hi Debivort
Nice leaf morphology chart, and very informative. That made me think of something similar. A mushroom gill morphology chart would be very very welcome and you have the skill to make one. The type of gills is critical to determining mushroom species and words simply won't do to explain. The current article on gills is a stub and there must be a clear illustration of gill types if wikipedia is ever to be used for identifying mushrooms.
Jens Nielsen09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the chart is finished. I'm impressed, it looks very nice and it's exactly what we need. It can still be a bit improved though. The boletoid showing the pores could look more convincing, particularly the pores. Order of appearance could also be changed - subdecurrent right after decurrent, for example.
Where to put it? Mushroom hunting for a start, but as mycologists also need to identify mushrooms without being out to 'hunt' them, I think it should eventually find its permanent place in an article to be named 'mushroom identification' or similar. Eventually, all species pages should include information on gill type and hyperlinked to that diagram (or a small inset of relevant gill type would be highly educative). As I am still new to the mushroom pages, I'll think of where to link to it or put it. As a side comment, I sense a strong American POV on many mushroom pages. But not all grow on other continents, and all should be able to benefit from the information. Since I suppose you are north american, I can properly ask you this specific question: does your mushroom book mention anything about that Galerina could possibly be confused with Armillaria and Psilocybe? If so, which species are we talking about? My book about scandinavian mushrooms has no such suggestion, and particularly the galerina vs psilocybe seems very far off. Jens Nielsen08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-annotated "Leaf morphology no title.png"?
Do you have a graphics-only version of Image:Leaf morphology no title.png that could be placed in Commons for use in other language Wikis? TIA, RickP19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I meant; thank you so much.
I uploaded it to commons and plan to use for the Hebrew wikipedia.
I saw your comment on how you were unable to save the leaf diagram as a SVG because of font rendering. I recently encountered this problem myself. It is because Wikipedia renders the svg into a png before displaying, but does not keep the original font. A way to fix this is converting the text to a path. Unfortunately I don't know how to do this in Illustrator (I use Inkscape). If you can't find out how to convert the text into paths, you can always send the file to me and I'll try doing it. (PS, great pic by the way.) DynaBlast
After you've converted the text into paths it should render perfectly on Wikipedia. (See a Before and After here.) The only downside is that it will be difficult for other people to edit the text. DynaBlast19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radula teeth types chart
I've been very busy lately. And then I have been pondering your question. I've colored the teeth on the chart in different colors, so as to distinguish them. But I don't want to put this (clumsy) attempt as an image in Wikipedia. Therefore, if you could send me an email (see toolbox : email this user), then I'll send you the image by email with some instructions. JoJan09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russula species
While trying to be the one to publish the 1,000,000th article I've added 6 Russula species including your taxobox. Since you have some proper English-language literature + maybe some information on US mushroom geography, please have a look if you can add something. Jens Nielsen23:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia photographer and illustrator. I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an email interview? Thanks, — Fernanda00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | talk[reply]
Brilliant photograph
Todays Featured Picture of the Bunsen Burner flame is brilliant, congratulations. What did you use in taking it? Loom9109:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a lot of interesting fungi pictures from your wiki pages.
I suggest to you to develope them on WikiCommons so they will be available to all..
thx --87.1.88.20416:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
I, Primate, hereby award you this Photographer's Barnstar for the 3 million pictures you've uploaded.
Sure, that's reasonable. I removed it because it's generally not standard on pages with parenthetically disambiguated titles to link to the disambiguation page (e.g., Graph (data structure), Madonna (entertainer), Ace (tennis)). However, I don't feel strongly about this point, so I've restored (a standardized version of) the disambiguation link. —Caesura(t)15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I thought your work was so illustrative and beautiful, that I have added it to the list of featured pictured candidates. Thanks for the wonderful work you do for Wikipedia. --HappyCamper02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)](/wiki/User_talk:Debivort#c-Rickjpelleg-2006-01-18T19:07:00.000Z-Non-annotated_"Leaf_morphology_no_title.png"?){kind=link}
![07:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)](/wiki/User_talk:Debivort#c-Raven4x4x-2006-01-20T07:39:00.000Z-Non-annotated_"Leaf_morphology_no_title.png"?){kind=link}
