User talk:Chiswick Chap

Mathematics and art: the Fraser spiral illusion (made of concentric circles) says something about visual perception, and is a forerunner of Op art.

Archives

2006…11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 -

The Council of Elrond

Did you mean to switch out the map overlaid with arrows for just arrows? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. All Middle-earth maps are being deleted, so I've devised unmapped diagrams for the places where that was at least vaguely possible: the alternative being simple oblivion. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh my, copyright issues? SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Tolkien drew the maps from JRRT's sketches, and died in 2020, so they become PD in 2091. Wikipedia is taking a hard line on 'derivative' works, viz that any artwork that relies on a fictional map is out of order, even if redrawn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Picea abies

Picea abies - Köhler–s Medizinal-Pflanzen-105

Hi Chiswick Chap - I'm happy with most of your edits after mine at Picea abies, but a bit mystified by your edit summary "but it was unhelpful to remove the botanical illustration, we normally have one and it's definitely helpful to ordinary readers" - is this really right? I've never seen any policy recommendation to include these old 19th century illustrations. Mostly they appeared in wikipedia articles in the early days of wikipedia because at the time, there were no, or very few, and very small, photos available; being PD-old, they were the only free license material that existed apart from a handful of poor quality USDA thumbnail-size pictures. Subsequently they have tended to be replaced as photos became available. I'd dispute that they are "definitely helpful to ordinary readers"; I find they make the articles look old-fashioned and outdated, 'only there because there's nothing better'. Also, while many of the artists who drew them were good, not all are; the detail in them can be poor quality. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. A botanical illustration has encyclopedic value for several reasons. A good botanical drawing brings together all the key aspects of a plant needed for study and identification, something that is hard to achieve in a photograph – photos are good for showing individual features in a living context, so the different media are usefully complementary. You are certainly right that not all such drawings are equally good; some of the very old ones are interesting historically but are too coarse to be useful botanically.

The illustrations in Köhler's 1897 Medicinal Plants on the other hand are extremely clear and accurate, down to microscopic detail: his Picea abies includes a pollen grain and a cross-section of a needle leaf, for instance, as well as details of the seeds and cone scales.

As Köhler's title states, his drawings are directly relevant to an understanding of the uses of plants as medicines, which is definitely encyclopedic.

Early botanical illustrations of a species are in addition of interest as part of the history of study of a species, something that clearly makes them encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion.

For all these reasons, (and I haven't even mentioned their beauty and artistic value) I'd say that good botanical illustrations like Köhler's are undoubtedly of value to Wikipedia's plant articles. Very few photographs could have as much said in their favour as Köhler's Picea abies plate, for instance. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2026 (UTC)