Talk:Fog bow

Images

I'm disputing not the page itself, but the images only.The images, which you see at the page are more than good, they are very,very good, yet there is a negative side of keeping the images. Rare people, who go to the page will look at these images and probably never hit the important link, which explains how fog bows form, where and when to look for fog bows, how to take pictures of fog bows, what lenses to use and so on. By different users (Fir0002,Dschwen, Cacophony) I was told that my images are not interesting, low quality, horribly distorted,confusing and so on. For some unknown to me reason user Cacophony is now fighting to keep not interesting images at the page. Maybe somebody will look at my images and will loose his interest for atmospheric optics for good. It is not what I want. Atmospheric Optics is too fascinating to miss on it. I really wish people, who are interested in atmospheric optics instead of looking at my images went to atmospheric optics page and read about fog bows and other phenomenas there. That's why I strongly believe my images must be removed from the page.I believe I would keep that talk page for a week or so and, if the only opinion at that talk page is mine, I will remove the images from the page.--Mbz1 22:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

If they are good images than you are admitting to vandalism by removing them. If you are being a crybaby about your freatured picture candidate not passing, then you are going about it in the wrong way. I never said your images were horrible, I said they don't meet the featured picture criteria. There is a big difference between a featured picture and a normal picture. The standards for a featured picture are extermely stringent, but they are extremely loose for inclusion on a normal page. I would say the image is above average, but nowhere near the top .01% of all images on Wikipedia. Nominating a picture at featured picture candidates is inviting critism, that is the whole point of the process. If you can't take it then don't nomiate your pictures. If you don't want others to follow you around, then don't act like a 5 year old. Cacophony 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never said you said the images were horrible, I said "horribly distorted", which was almost exact quote from Fir0002. Then it was your turn and you've started your oppose with the words: "Oppose per Fir" and then you continued:"I agree that a 17mm lens would be plenty wide enough to capture this phenom and would reduce the distorsion significantly. As Dschwen commented on another candidate: "Lack of votes = lack of interest = not an interesting picture = not FP material". I also think that sometimes it is a good thing to not be a subject matter expert when voting on an image. Cacophony 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)". Now, when we know what you said and what I did not say, I'll tell you what: I cannot care less about FP. My only goal was to evoke interest in Atmospheric Optics in broader poulation. I strongly believe that a bad image of a dificult subject is better than a good image of a common subject. I also believe that encyclopedic value of the image should prevail over its artistic value. My images are not bad. They are as good as it gets for fog bows. I doubt one could find anything much better at the NET. Yet, if Wikipedia community were so much not interested in voting(I agree with you about that) and 2, who were interested opposed the image, I startted to believe that for people, who've never seen not only a real fog bow, but eve a picture of fog bow before, the images could look not interesting and confusing. As I said I'd like more people to learn about Atmospheric Optics and the best place to do it is Atmospheric Optics page that somebody posted link to. That's why I believe my images should be removed from the page. In my opinion it will force people who are interested in the subject to learn more about it by clicking the links. On the other hand, if the pictures are displayed at the page most people will never click the link, because according to you my pictures are not interesting(Did I quote you right?) Now, I consider your statement "If you can't take it then don't nomiate your pictures. If you don't want others to follow you around, then don't act like a 5 year old." as a personal attack. That talk page was created to discuss the images only.--Mbz1 01:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Fully endorse Cacophony's points. You have to understand that FPC is a very difficult process, and comments there apply only to the picture's qualifications as a potential FP. Your picture is a good contribution to the article and should stay there - you're just being childish in using FPC comments to say the image "could look not interesting and confusing" and hence should be removed from the page. Wikipedia doesn't want people to get the info from another site, it wants to give the people the information.

Mbz1 please stop digging yourself into holes and get a little more familar with wikipedia. As admirable as your intention is, Wikipedia is not a place for people to spread interest in a pet topic to the broader population. Please do not disrupt wikipedia in your attempts to do so. I would suggest a bit of a break to be honest, you seem to be rushing around getting into a range of conflicts over your images. --Fir0002 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

fir0002 you have no right to teach me what to do. better stop flooding fp with nominations like that:cropped common cat or like this shaded lizard or like this no rain shown I would have been ashamed to nominate any of these pictures. All that nominations are only for the last week or so. How many empty, no value pictures did you nominate before? Half of your FP have no value at all. Why did you fight so badly to keep that no value rose? And you know what I do not like most about you and freind of your Cacophony? I do not like, when people, who has no any idea of the subject make unvalid and unfair comments on the nominated picture. It is a very, very bad practice and it is a really big hole that you put yourself into. By the way i'm not sure why you called atmospheric optics "pet topic". I'd say it is you, who floods FP with pet topic including, but not limited to :cropped common cat --Mbz1 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Hmm, I don't know whether I should be upset over that little diatribe or amused. Upset because you are directly attacking me, or amused that you are doing exactly what you reprimanded (an innocent) Cacophony of doing - That talk page was created to discuss the images only. I fail to see any relevance of your comments to the Fog Bow image. Upset because you are disparaging my photographic skills, and indeed photos which I hold dear; or amused because your key example of my apparent "no value" FPC noms is one which I didn't even nominate/support (which nevertheless is currently holding the hotly contested lead position in the Cat article), amused because the nominations you listed are in some cases a month old and none are even in the last two weeks, amused because of the "unvalid and unfair" claims you are making on those examples, amused because you think I "flood FPC" (FPC has no photos of mine on it) with "pet topics" which actually have little connection beyond the fact most are of nature/animals, amused at having my (one) comment on the rose delist described as me "fighting so badly" in light of your own commenting style. Hmm.. I guess I would have to say overall I'm amused by it all --Fir0002 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I read and reread your response few times, but it was really hard to follow your thought. Are you sure you had one? I tried even to use eyeglasses, but they did not help to understand what you wanted to express. Anyway I'm leaving you right here at that very boring (after your friends touched it) fog bow page with all your amusement and "(an innocent) Cacophony". Is my spelling correct today?--Mbz1 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 25, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A 360° fog bow, an optical phenomenon similar to a rainbow that occurs when a spectrum of light appears due to the Sun's rays shining through fog. Because of the very small size of water droplets that cause fog—smaller than 0.05 mm (0.0020 in)—fog bows have only very weak colors, with a red outer edge and bluish inner. In many cases when the droplets are very small, fog bows may appear white, in which case they are known as "white rainbows".Photo: Mila Zinkova

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fog bow. 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/20110106073252/http://www.meteoros.de/bildarchiv/view.php?gallery_id=52 to http://www.meteoros.de/bildarchiv/view.php?gallery_id=52

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) 03:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)