This HTML5 document contains 6 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Avatar Wiki:Profile image change/Archive 24

rdfs:comment

The current is actually not bad, but I'm suggesting this proposal for some key points. Firstly, I feel the shot is a little too close up. You don't really get the sense that the temple is situated on a mountain. Secondly, because of the closeness of the im Sourceage, the large rock pillar in front of the temple takes away focus from the image, and even blocks a small portion of the temple. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, I'm proposing the new image as it gets rid of the Oogi tail, which was also a distracting point in the image. DrDman20000 (wall • contribs) 02:28, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

n3:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n4: n6: n7:

n8:abstract

The current is actually not bad, but I'm suggesting this proposal for some key points. Firstly, I feel the shot is a little too close up. You don't really get the sense that the temple is situated on a mountain. Secondly, because of the closeness of the im Sourceage, the large rock pillar in front of the temple takes away focus from the image, and even blocks a small portion of the temple. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, I'm proposing the new image as it gets rid of the Oogi tail, which was also a distracting point in the image. DrDman20000 (wall • contribs) 02:28, February 26, 2014 (UTC) Approved for discussion. However, I don't agree with the proposal. I think given that the temple is surrounded by mountains and near their peaks, one can reasonably conclude it is situated on a mountain. While that rock pillar might be a little distracting, I prefer the current in terms of the zoom. The SAT looks rather distant in the proposal. I didn't even notice Oogi's tail until it was pointed out, and I don't think that's a problem - if anything, I like it even more as it gives indication of new activity around there. 02:41, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I agree with most of the OP's points about the image except for oogi's tail, like psu, i didn't notice it until it was pointed out to me. However, i think we should keep the current image b/c the coloring is better and the aesthetic appeal is better. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 03:20, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I also say keep it the way it is. And I didn't notice Oogi's tail as well till now. The proposal one is too small and far away. I say keep it unless you can enlarge the proposal one that is. Hopemon (wall • contribs) 03:35, February 26, 2014 (UTC) Even though I think I like proposal number one more, I added a second proposal that was more cropped and zoomed in on the temple. I don't think I did too good of a job though...DrDman20000 (wall • contribs) 04:09, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I added proposal 3, as I feel it includes the sought qualities that have been stated above better than either the current or proposal 1. The temple is clearly seen to be situated on top of a mountain and the pillars in front are neither distracting, nor do they block the view of the temple. Additionally, the image is not too distant and is in the center, making it the focus of the image, as it should be. Also, the lighting is astonishing, in my opinion, and illuminates certain aspects of the temple that may otherwise be overlooked or remain unnoticed, so the attention of the viewer is even more so drawn to the temple, which is the purpose of having a profile image. 04:15, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I share many of PSU's sentiments, such as zooming and the pillar. I can't bring myself to like those more than the current. That color scheme in the Peacekeepers' images makes the temple look so washed out to me. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 04:17, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I also agree. I think the current image is adequate, and definitely looks nice with the brighter colours. 05:09, February 26, 2014 (UTC) By taking a good look at the two new ones. I say the 3rd proposal look better, and it look like it dusk. I would either go with the 3rd or stay with the current. I am in both of those two. Hopemon (wall • contribs) 05:18, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to support proposal number #2. that piller does kinda get in the way... Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 05:31, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I'm supporting the current. I don't see the need to change. The current is vibrant in appearance and is most representative of a revived cultural center. What the proposals positively offer in one area (and from the arguments brought up it seems largely centered around zooming and the removal of a pillar, both of which are largely irrelevant in my opinion) is countered by several negatives, particularly in quality and lighting. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 06:22, February 26, 2014 (UTC) Current, per Spout. 07:23, February 26, 2014 (UTC) The current looks fine to me. 23:57, February 26, 2014 (UTC) I also support the current, for the simple reason that I don't see any of the proposal points as problems. It doesn't look that close up to me, I'm barely disctacted at all by the rock pillar and I don't even notice Oogi's tail. -- 02:21, February 27, 2014 (UTC) I think the current looks fine. I didn't even notice the Oogi tail until you mentioned it. 1 is too zoomed out. 2 looks akward with that squeezed look. The sunset in 3 doesn't seem to fit well imo. AvatarIonathan (wall • contribs) 02:54, February 27, 2014 (UTC) I agree, the currant is perfectly fine. Snivystorm (wall • contribs) 20:57, February 27, 2014 (UTC) I have a slight preference for proposal #3. SuperAvatar (wall • contribs) 19:09, March 1, 2014 (UTC)