Talk:Black-winged stilt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Auto (software) thumbnail

I have a problem with the new thumbnail code. It just doesn't produce a quality result. Compare the two images. The difference speaks for itself. Tannin 12:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Errm... click on enlarge: the large image already looks fuzzy to me... Lupo 12:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Is that better? I sharpened the large image marginally. The small image (software generated) should also improve now (seeing as it has a sharper original to work from) but it still won't be nearly as good as an image generated by a system with a human being in the loop. (You may have to clear your cache to see the differences.) Tannin Ah... "it still won't be nearly as good as an image generated by a system with a human being in the loop" — you are aware of that. Apparently I had misunderstood; I thought your problem was that a human could outperform the software on a visual task... I don't think the SW is to blame in this case: its task is to produce thumbnails, and of course those will be fuzzy if the original is fuzzy. It's not the task of the SW to automatically sharpen an image. So, where's the problem? :-) Lupo 12:52, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Quite so: a re-sized image nearly always needs sharpening and the software can't sharpen the image, as the required amount of sharpening varies from one image to the next. It needs the eye of a human being to judge the correct amount, and also to apply any other corrections needed. For example, in the stilt thumbnail at right, I also upped the gamma just a fraction, to give the image a visual lift. (Obviously, a serious PhotoShop jockey would do a good deal more than that, but that takes a great deal of time and/or skill - what I did took about five mouse clicks.) Also, a human can select a good reduction ratio, as even-number shrinks produce the sharpest, clearest thumbnails (i.e., a 50% or 33.3% shrink looks better than a 54% or 29% shrink) and it's often possible to find an even % shrink number that is close enough to the desired size for practical purposes and yet still retains as much quality as possible.) That's my point: I don't like having the software do the shrinking. It was a great idea, and doubtless some very clever coding) but the images it produces can't compete with the images you and I (as humans) can produce. We are better off not using it. Make sense? Tannin 13:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, but I still like it. The software seems to do an adequate job on most images. Maybe it's not perfect for photographs, but other images (diagrams, flags, and so on) should be less problematic. The above is also an extreme case, because it started off with a fuzzy big image. With reasonably sharp originals, I have so far not come across a software thumbnail I found unacceptable—but hey, maybe my standards are just too low :-) About the resize ratio: you do have control over that. Just specify the width in pixels as a reasonable fraction of the original image's size. For instance, the big image is 600 * 624 px. I'd try scaling this down to 300 or maybe 200px, but probably not to 250 or 252px (41.67% or 42%):

Auto thumbnail (252px)
Auto thumbnail (250px)

Using an integer shrink percentage (252px = 42%; on the right) already gives a slightly better result than the fractional 250px (41.67%) on the left. (Although the shrink factor is fractional then: with 250px, the factor is 2.4, with 252px, it's 2.3809... so what is important here? Factors or percentages?)
When it matters, I play around with the thumbnail sizes until I get a reasonable result. The auto-generated thumbnails for this picture for instance look acceptable to me at 300px (50%) or 270px (45%). And when it really matters, I'd just do what you did and produce a manual thumbnail. Lupo 08:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have replaced the picture of Black-winged stilts in flight with one that shows a lot more detail. The new picture was taken in Rajasthan, across the country from Kolkata. The birds, however, look pretty similar so I see no reason to keep the older picture. See comparison below:

Old one
New one

Rushil2u (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My book gives the southern breeding limit of Black-necked Stilt as southern Chile, S Argentina and the West Indies. Is there a split I don't know about, or is the range just wrong? If the latter, the "where to see bit becomes very parochial". jimfbleak 06:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very confusing page. The range map is for stilts generally, but the page is for one species. The map had me wondering why I'd never seen one. Well, because they're N American vagrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:9C08:E030:3F08:26BB (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most sources?[edit]

I don't know about this bird's taxonomy yet, but BirdLife International is a funny definition of most sources. —innotata 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha, as far as I recall, there is some difference of opinion over how many taxa should be included under this speices or split out. Not sure where we're up to with it. Worth fleshing out though. I am not familiar with the bird myslef Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Himantopus himantopus - Pak Thale.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 16, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black-winged Stilt
The Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) is a widespread wader which feeds mainly on insects and crustaceans. They breed near marshes, shallow lakes and ponds.Photo: JJ Harrison

"It is widely distributed"[edit]

Does that mean worldwide and if so where? Or is it just limited to Thailand? Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 12:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's a bit of a mess, but the main text clarifies the distribution. Exactly how widely depends on the view taken as to whther the American and NZ forms are subspecies or full species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed that. Thanks. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Grey Plover which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]