Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Control Tower 18 and loop junction

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

CTA Control Tower 18 and loop junction

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 00:01:30 (UTC)

 
Original - Chicago Transit Authority control tower 18 guides elevated Chicago 'L' northbound Purple and Brown lines intersecting with westbound Pink and Green lines and the looping Orange line above the Wells and Lake street intersection in the loop. (viewed facing northwest)
 
Edit 1-attempted perspective correction by nominator in GIMP (TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs))
 
Edit 2-attempted perspective correction by nominator in GIMP (stretching bottom instead of squeezing top) (TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs))
Reason
Although I added this article to almost every page it is currently at, I feel it truly contributes to each. Although it is not the main image in any article, the image has high illustrative value in its uses. I feel this is the definite EV nominee.
Articles in which this image appears
Grand union
Control tower
Rail transport
Junction (traffic)
Junction (rail)
The Loop (CTA)
Traffic
Train order operation
Centralized traffic control
Railroad switch
Level junction
Urban rail transit
Chicago 'L'
Chicago Transit Authority
Orange Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Green Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Purple Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Pink Line (Chicago Transit Authority)
Transportation planning
Rapid transit
Public transport
Intersection (road)
Rail tracks
Infrastructure
Lake Street (Chicago)
Wells Street (Chicago)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator
Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any version—especially Edit 2 (which is rectilinear and maintains X-Y aspect ratio) The light interplay and reflections off some of those pieces of wood is just gorgeous. The composition is interesting. The image is eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 The light interplay and reflections off some of those pieces of wood is just gorgeous. The composition is interesting. The image is eye-catching. In the Edit 2-version of this wide-angle shot, the buildings don’t appear to be tilting away from a vanishing point. Greg L (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great encyclopedic photo -- mcshadypl TC* 04:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, could we please have a single article in which to judge the EV of this image? Ideally, it should be the first on the list, but it's hardly super-high in control tower. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I am not sure how to judge EV. This is a picture of a junction at a control tower. The current control tower is very poorly written and almost totally ignores control towers for any form of transportation other than aviation. A properly written article would have a major section on rail transport control towers and movable bridge control towers. It is also likely that high volume shipping docks (e.g., Port of Los Angeles) have control towers, but the article does not really clearly address any of these. If this were say a GA-quality article this would be a valuable image as the only depiction of a non-aviation control tower. You could maybe judge EV by the second use. I am not experienced at assessing relative EV in the way you are requesting, but I honestly did my best. In short, this is a picture of a control tower and the WP article is quite deficient.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure this image adds a whole lot where the other one already is. Nominating a few articles with highest EV would probably make assessments go a bit smoother. Photographically I think I might have gone a little wider. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Mainly for the picture quality - everything is leaning in different directions (the building on the far left looks like it's at 45 degrees almost!) though I'm not sure what this is called... Really spoils it for me as is very distracting. The background is also blurred in many places... But secondly including this picture in SO many articles when it is clearly not relevant in most just seems pointless... It may have a slight something in connection with the articles but it doesn't need to be used as a representative of each one... Especially when high quality pictures are already available in them... It's like taking an image of the word "the" and placing it in loads of articles as at some point during the article the word "the" is mentionned... Gazhiley (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on control towers: At first I didn't look closely at Control tower, but Gazhiley is right, this image doesn't belong there. For railroads, the control tower is called an interlocking tower or signal box, discussed in Signalling control. Furthermore, as railroads have become computerized and centrally controlled, these towers have become historical curiosities, abandoned or relegated to a niche role. That would explain why the Control tower article makes only passing mention to railroad control towers. I believe only a "See also" link to the railroad article is needed. As for Centralized traffic control, if the interlocking tower in the picture is being used, that implies the switches are not under centralized control; if they are under centralized control, that implies the tower is not needed. I'm not an expert but I don't see how it can be both. I suggest it be removed from Control tower and CTC, and while I am quite frustrated with the number of articles this picture has been stuffed into, it's probably appropriate for Signalling control. In fact, this particular tower has a lot of history to it; there is a very extensive discussion about it at http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/towers/tower18.html. Fletcher (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not an image guy and am here as much for the feedback on image placement as I am for technical issues. I thank you for taking time to consider this matter. This particular tower is in a ton of articles, but it was once the busiest rail control tower in the world and has a rich history. A high caliber photo of it should be in many locations. I appreciate your feedback and now that I understand the terminoligy for rail control towers and the existing article, I understand this suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the image from Intersection (road), which is clearly about roadway junctions; Traffic, which is about roadway and pedestrian traffic and does not discuss rail except for at-grade crossings, whereas this image depicts an elevated track; and Transportation planning, in which the the adjacent text had nothing in common with the image. The other image placements may have weak or arguable EV, but I haven't check them all to see if they are objectionable. I do think the image has great EV for Grand union and also Level junction. Fletcher (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that each of these fixes reverted WP back to being more deficient. The fact that an article is incomplete does not mean that an illustration should not be added to the article. A proper illustration could prompt correct movement toward more complete knowledge on WP. For example, this is clearly a picture of a control tower. However, previous to my involvement in the page, the control tower article made no mention of control towers for rail transportation, moveable bridges and what I suspect is an omission of sea ports. I added both the image and a simple sentence that states the obvious "Control towers operate to control the traffic for other forms of transportation such as rail transport or moveable bridges." Rather than say the current deficient article does not have text for this illustration that is relevant to the topic at hand and leaving out the image, I improved the article and added the relevant illustration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my believe that the crossing of rail transport vehicles form a type of WIKT:traffic (falling under definition 2 "Commercial transportation or exchange of goods, or the movement of passengers or people.") The current article on traffic is deficient in the sense that it ignores air traffic, rail traffic and water traffic. Adding an image depicting rail traffic takes us in the proper direction rather than cleansing the article of non-road traffic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly rail transportation is a type of transportation that needs to be planned and may give rise to complicated traffic flows, such as the one depicted here. Again, the fact that WP is deficient in current content should not prevail to the exclusion of illustrative content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is a red herring, as I did not object to the placement in Control tower, so your defense of that placement draws attention away from what I did criticize, your placement into Intersection (road). That article, as you can tell from the very title, is about roadway intersections; we have a separate articles for various types of railway junctions. So in this case I consider your placement to be very inappropriate.
As to your second point, Railway signalling, Centralized traffic control, and a number of related articles serve to discuss traffic on railroads; Traffic discusses roadway traffic. If you think Traffic is deficient you should bring that up on the talk page, or expand the text yourself. Placing an image unrelated to the topics discussed in the article is not helpful at all. You need to develop the text to support the image, and if you can't or won't develop the text, you shouldn't place the image.
As for Transportation planning, you added the image to a section discussing contemporary transportation planning in the United States. The Chicago Loop was apparently built over 100 years ago and thus has no relevance to what was being discussed. An appropriate picture would be of modern light rail, bike paths, or some similar product of "smart growth".
In sum, your thought process behind these image placements seems cursory in nature, and I'm puzzled why still think your noms should be added to as many articles as possible no matter how tenuously they support the text. Fletcher (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misplaced the image in Intersection (road) not realizing rail transport uses the term junction as a substitute. This image belongs at junction (rail) which has a low quality image as illustration.
This image does not belong in Signalling block systems from what I understand as a different type of communication system than what I believe to be in place at this control tower. I think that system has ambulating personel assisting in the communication, which I think is absent here.
I believe I have placed the image appropriately at Train order operation although this again may use a slightly different form of communication. I have also placed it at Centralized traffic control.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight, your not even bothering to READ the article your slapping an image into? And putting a picture of railroad tracks in an article like Intersection (road) is completely irresponsible. The article's name clearly indicates it's a ROAD article not a RAIL article. So not only did you not even bother to read the opening lead of the article you didn't even take two seconds to fully read the name of the page. I think in your over-zealous approach to slap an image down in as many articles as possible is doing FAR more harm to Wikipedia than good. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be the first or last time I was wrong about adding content. However, I have added it to Junction (traffic), where there was no illustration and Junction (rail), where the prior main image was very low quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But now if you go to Junction (traffic) and click the link over to railway junctions, you see the same image twice, which reduces its value to the reader and looks tacky. There are many acceptable pictures of railway junctions on Commons - why does this image need to be sprinkled all over the encyclopedia? (Hint: "Because it's the one I nominated" is not a good answer). Further, I doubt the grand union is a good representative image for railway junctions; it seems to be overly complex and expensive, used where space is at a premium. I may replace it with a more common one. Fletcher (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your railway junction point, but at Grand union it is depicting a rare 3/4 junction, of which there are few in the world.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image would augment Railway signalling, but am not sure where in the article it actually fits because I do not know the subject. I have left a talk page note.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still pondering Transportation planning and Traffic. In my mind, anyone pondering transportation planning is considering both rail, bike, pedestrian and road planning simultaneously. I am going to go get my nightly online poker fix. Wont' be online much in the next 12-18 hours although I will peak in while multitasking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, had a chance to reconsider Transportation planning and decided to go with a different image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that as written Traffic is only for road traffic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will review its placement in public transport, later. I don't have time right now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No review required - it doesn't fit there. period. Gazhiley (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had it in the wrong section because of image crowding. It did not belong in commuter, intercity because it does not depict intercity travel, but does belong in the section above on trains.

Comment I will look at the article placement tonight. However, with respect to the perspective. I have thought about two things. 1. I did the correction by adjusting the top (a squeeze of both sides). I could invert the image and stretch the bottoms, which would probably give us a different result retaining rectangularity. Also, User:Dschwen is visiting Chicago this weekend and he introduced me to Hugin, which might do a totally different perspective correction if I can learn how to use it. Do people want to see either of these corrections attempted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I have taken the time to add it back to control tower a little more correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a second perspective correction in GIMP and may try hugin tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please do not try to correct the perspective. The perspective is already correct ;-). The fact that the vertical edges of the buildings are not parallel to the pixel columns on your monitor is not an error, it is how it must look. The image is taken from quite a downward angle. Applying simple blanket rules such as all verticals must always be vertical !!one!!11!!eleven is damaging to photography. --Dschwen 23:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for degrading your fantastic photography, but given the existent opposition, there are concerns to be addressed. I am just giving the voters the options to support what they want. It seems that they like lines of perspective to be vertical rather than converging at FPC, so that is what I am giving them. I have never tried hugin and it gives me something to try to do. Regardless, of whether it is artistically correct, it is sort of what is preferred here at FPC. None of the supporters have switched to any of the edits so it looks like you are in good shape, but so few people have voted, I am thinking that people are on the fence. I am giving those people options.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll give you a hint - it's because you have shoehorned this into so many irrelevant articles and refuse to accept anyone else's opinions when they point out (providing quotes to support) that this image shouldn't be in all the articles, that many people are probably not interested in this nom any more - I may not be 100% right about this but the usual crowd on here seem to be sticking clear of this and most of them have already objected to your edits so far... I myself am considering boycotting any nom you have an involvement in as IMO you are cluttering WP with irresponsible editing... Gazhiley (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do what you want to do. I am not a picture guy, I am an editor. I am involved from the article improvement perspectiive. I am trying to figure out what high quality images WP:CHICAGO has and am trying to use them to illustrate WP. If you don't want the CHICAGO stuff I nominate and incorporate into articles to be promoted that is your choice. I will continue to view FP as a chance to notice the finest illustrative work on WP and try to encourage including these top images in the encyclopedia as much as possible. I don't really much care whether you like me, like my work, or like the images I nominate. I am here to determine which images are good and to incorporate those in the encyclopedia. I will never look at FPC as a POTD factory where the objective is to determine what will look best on the main page. I am an editor. You are free to debate whether people like me are going to be the downfall of WP or FPC, but I will continue to be here and continue to do what I do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's great that you want to improve Wikipedia, we all want that. Where we have an issue is your approach, attitude and willful disregard to take other peoples advice. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. you have not officially supported any one version yet yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job, Sir Tiger, with Edit 2. You have taken a non-rectilinear fisheye shot and made it rectilinear and maintained the X-Y aspect ratio. I love it. Greg L (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhm, it is neither a fisheye-shot nor is it non-rectilinear. It is a single shot taken at the 24mm end of the 24-105mm Canon L lens, which is rectilinear. I am a little astonished about the comments on this nomination. --Dschwen 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, just what does one call the effect where one has to put their eyeball some two millimeters in front of the screen to see rectilinear buildings that don’t look like they’re falling over or ballooning out the top? Greg L (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd call that extreme myopia. --Dschwen 20:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • On a more serious note, it seems that you have both a lacking understanding of what rectilinear means (basically that straight lines are mapped to straight lines. no straight lines are bent into curves in the original. so: check. A fish-eye projection would not have this property) and lack an understanding of basic perspective (sorry, I'm aware this sounds arrogant). The image is taken at approximately a 45 Degree downward angle. There is no reason the vertical building edges should be parallel to the pixel columns on your screen. Both edits are a gross distortion of how the thing looks like, and your assessment of having maintained the X-Y aspect ratio is simply a misjudgment. People are more than welcome not to like pictures here, but these arguments are just really bad on a technical level. --Dschwen 20:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are of course right about it not being a fisheye, but I don't get your resistance to perspective correction, which is a common practice. Are you against it in general? The sensor may be at a downward angle rather than upward, but I don't see why that makes a difference. To the naked eye, buildings do not look like they are tilting. The wide angle lens is making them tilt, providing a wider field of view in which you can notice converging lines compared to what you see with your eye. Correcting problems introduced by lenses is not considered cheating. Tony's second edit doesn't look all bad to me, although it has cropped out a valuable piece of train. Fletcher (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I'm not against perspective correction in general, but I am absolutely against generally applying "perspective correction" without thinking about it, and I am against knee-jerk strong opposes based on that line of thinking. --Dschwen 23:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec) Yes, I’ve read the definitions of “rectilinear” and agree with you, Dschwen. When I pulled the word from recollection without looking it up, I had thought it fit this issue. The visual effect here is caused by taking a photo with a very wide field of view and projecting it into a very small field of view (far less than one radian) here on the computer screen on this page. The only way to make this image look undistorted is by enlarging it to full-screen and getting the eye real close so the field of view matches that of the camera lens. I just did it on my 27-inch iMac and the result is stunning, with 3D-like effect and the buildings no longer look like they are tilting. But few, if any, people are going to go to this effort. The image will most commonly span roughly one radian corner to corner after people click on the image. Accordingly, the Edit 2 modification looks more natural for viewing on computers. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, do you know the subject? Have you seen it? The image covers a moderate angle of view, certainly much less than the naked eye is capable of seeing. The edits simply cannot retain proper proportions as they must distort the natural image by a great deal to fulfill the unreasonable verticals-parallel-to-pixel-columns requirement. Calling them looking more natural is making my toenails roll up. --Dschwen 23:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh for God’s sake. Don’t get all wound around the axle. Sheesh. This isn’t all that complex. I am an R&D engineer, have 15 technology-related patents, was taking photographs since the late 60s, and know my way around the simple geometry of photography, which isn’t all that complex, really. Notwithstanding your protestations of how the image covers a moderate angle of view, the picture is right there and its obvious that it is a very wide-angle shot and that accounts for the buildings looking like they’re leaning over like that. Your choice of over-the-top words to respond to what others are saying here (makes your “toenails roll up”) certainly demonstrates that you have exceedingly high self-esteem that unfortunately translates into a crap-pile of arrogance. It makes me realize that arguing on the Internet is quite the buzz-kill and is—for me—a futile exercise and I want nothing more to do with you. So goodbye to you, sir, and happy editing. Oh, and by the way, I still vote “support”. Greg L (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am actually not wound around the axle, which you can see by the absence of emotional outbursts such as Oh for God’s sake. or Sheesh.. Your hobby-psychological analysis is pretty far off as well, apart from being completely inapropriate here. Or is there a need to take this to a personal level? I was actually asking if you are a user from Chicago, as I saw a sentence on your userpage about having met a friend on Navy Pier in Chicago. --Dschwen 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/CTA_Control_Tower_18_and_loop_junction&oldid=1087755650"