User talk:SaarPro

Welcome!

Hi SaarPro! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Mellk (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa Park station

I've reverted your change to the infobox photo for Balboa Park station. It's better to show one mode well than to show multiple modes poorly (with both platforms blocked by fence and utility pole). Other than an aerial shot, I don't think there's any good angle to show both the BART and Muni platforms - believe me, I've tried.

Side note: the short name of the system "Muni", short for "Municipal Railway". "MUNI" occasionally appears in non-official publications, but it's not correct. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with Oakland Coliseum station. The BART and Amtrak platforms are 600 feet apart; you're not going to get both in one shot in a useful way. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted another of your photo additions from today. The Richmond photo did not show either train well enough to be useful at thumbnail scale, and the extremely wide aspect ratio and accompanying distortion also made it less suitable for article use. The Pittsburg/Bay Point image isn't great either since it's facing directly into the sun. I recommend using a narrower aspect ratio (4:3 is pretty standard) and shooing away from the sun. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Richmond photo work better as an infobox image then if we swap it and the entrance building photo? Or does it at least show the BART platform at ground level along with the northern part of the Amtrak platform (or rather what's on it) well enough as a thumbnail?

Also, could you please elaborate on why images with wide aspect ratios are less suitable for article uses? I thought a wider ratio wouldn't be detrimental when the thumbnails are scaled to the same width as long as the width is the bigger dimension, just like for 4:3? SaarPro (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but no, it would not make a good infobox image. The purpose of an infobox image is to illustrate the station, typically either a platform shot or the station building, often displaying any distinctive elements of the station. The current infobox image centers the distinctive entrance canopy, with the platforms just behind; as a bonus, the background shows the surrounding neighborhood and geography. With File:BART and Capitol Corridor trains at Richmond.jpg, your camera was pointed down, so most of the image is just bare platform and foliage. The elements that you usually want to center in an infobox image - structures and trains - are in the background at the fringes of the photo.

If you want to use a platform shot for the Richmond station infobox, something more like File:BART train at Richmond station, April 2018.JPG would be better. The distinctive canopy and the train are prominent in the foreground. As I said earlier in this thread, it's better to show one mode well than to show multiple modes poorly. I would encourage you to look to Emeryville station, Martinez station, and Fruitvale station for some infobox images I've taken that I think well-represent their subjects.

There's a couple things that make wide aspect ratios less than ideal. The default thumbnail size is 250 pixels wide, so a 4:3 image will display at 188 pixels high. Your photo, on the only hand, will display at just 105 pixels high. That's barely half the real estate to actually show anything. The human visual field is something close to 3:2, so a 4:3 ratio approximates what you'd actually see. A very wide ratio is fine if the subject is inherently wide (such as panoramas), but it doesn't work well for typical thumbnail use. If you look at any random article, most of the images will be fairly close to 4:3. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]