Talk:Scarriff
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Spelling
[edit]Despite the fact that the 'official' name of the town is 'Scarriff', it can be seen that virtually every source other than the CSO spells the name with one 'r'. I think that the article should be moved back to Scariff, and the single 'r' spelling should be adopted on Wikipedia. Even the official website uses the single 'r' spelling! Dark Fire 00:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does anybody want to agree or disgaree with me? Please share your opinion on the problem. Dark-Fire 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Image
[edit]Firstly, the sky is overexposed in both images. Secondly, today I brightened and manipulated the colours of the original image to match those in this one (see the file history). Thirdly, the image is not blurry at thumbnail size - what you're seeing is the lack of JPEG artefacts, which give a false impression of sharpness. Fourthly, the low quality image contains useless metadata. Also, edited images should be uploaded over the original image to prevent constant editing of the article, and thus any further discussion should take place here. If it makes you happy, you can edit the image yourself and upload your edited version (over the original), provided it is of similar quality. I, personally, have never seen images deliberately reduced in size or quality on Wikipedia, although I have seen larger images cropped. Anyway, my main points are that the metadata should be preserved and that you should upload edited versions of the image over the original image (rather than in random places), and that you didn't notice the fact that I copied your image edits anyway (i.e. I uploaded a brighter image over the original dark image). Dark-Fire (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I didn't pay any attention to the technicalities but just looked at the results. It's a picture not a maths problem; kinda self-defined in terms of what it looks like! Anyway, it's a minor issue and if you live locally I'd say get a better one asap! Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- As a computer scientist, I'd like to disagree with you, but I can see your point. I think I've got some pictures from the Scarriff Harbour Festival which are much better quality and show what Scarriff is like when there are actually people around (unlike the current picture). I'll have a look for them soon and upload one. By the way, do you have any idea of what I should take a picture of for the Mountshannon article? That settlement is so small and sparse that it's not clear what I should take a picture of - as you can see, I've uploaded a picture of the only notable thing (the telephone exchange plaque). Dark-Fire (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the plaque; but in this case I would get my editing software out to make the writing look clearer to the average eejit like myself. Also you could add "Click to read" (I do that sometimes when I add signs to articles). Anyway, a picture of a road leading into the village with the village sign is always a useful shot if there is nothing distinctive inside to photograph. Take it preferably when the sun is shining! Regards Sarah777 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha. Good idea, but the sun only shines in the summer (and even then, only rarely) - maybe I'll wait until summer to take the photo. I've uploaded a photo of the Scarriff Harbour Festival 2007. If you like it, keep it - if not, just revert my edit. I've realised that my opinions are useless because I'm clearly biased about Scarriff, my photos and my photo editing skills, so feel free to do what you like. Finally, I'll try to make the plaque easier to read when I have time. Dark-Fire (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly a much livelier picture - doesn't have the "deserted village" aura of the other one! Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha. Good idea, but the sun only shines in the summer (and even then, only rarely) - maybe I'll wait until summer to take the photo. I've uploaded a photo of the Scarriff Harbour Festival 2007. If you like it, keep it - if not, just revert my edit. I've realised that my opinions are useless because I'm clearly biased about Scarriff, my photos and my photo editing skills, so feel free to do what you like. Finally, I'll try to make the plaque easier to read when I have time. Dark-Fire (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the plaque; but in this case I would get my editing software out to make the writing look clearer to the average eejit like myself. Also you could add "Click to read" (I do that sometimes when I add signs to articles). Anyway, a picture of a road leading into the village with the village sign is always a useful shot if there is nothing distinctive inside to photograph. Take it preferably when the sun is shining! Regards Sarah777 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- As a computer scientist, I'd like to disagree with you, but I can see your point. I think I've got some pictures from the Scarriff Harbour Festival which are much better quality and show what Scarriff is like when there are actually people around (unlike the current picture). I'll have a look for them soon and upload one. By the way, do you have any idea of what I should take a picture of for the Mountshannon article? That settlement is so small and sparse that it's not clear what I should take a picture of - as you can see, I've uploaded a picture of the only notable thing (the telephone exchange plaque). Dark-Fire (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I didn't pay any attention to the technicalities but just looked at the results. It's a picture not a maths problem; kinda self-defined in terms of what it looks like! Anyway, it's a minor issue and if you live locally I'd say get a better one asap! Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)