Info Possible competitors: two diagrams and a montage combining different views (not as valuable as I had imagined...). --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I can't decide but I can narrow it down. The one nominated, and File:Trumpet mouthpiece scheme.svg. Edit: But File:Trumpet mouthpiece cut-away numbered.svg has a better info page. Normally, I'd pick the illustration, however I don't know how useful it is in this case. But I'm not a wind instrument player. Are those names really important? If I was reading a general article on it, I think I'd rather see a good photo like the one above. Rocket000(talk)03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will nominate the schema and set up an MVR. The information page can be improved, not a problem. About the name, I'd say they're informative but not "vital", I've played the instrument for 20 years without knowing them. The section view can be interesting though. --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's difficult. The picture you're pointing is outside the current scope. Do you think the scope should be widened to something like "Brass instrument mouthpiece", or do you mean it would be valuable to make a similar photograph with the trumpet mouthpiece, trying to show the inside of the cup? With the trumpet mouthpiece I'm afraid it might be less obviously illustrative (than with a horn mouthpiece) because of the cup shape and size. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to change the scope to "Brass instrument mouthpiece"because a mp of a saxophone as example is very different. And I would change the scope of the cut-away into "schematic drawing of a mouthpiece" --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, currently the scope is "trumpet mouthpiece", it is actually narrower than "brass instrument mouthpiece", and neither include the sax. The question is, do you think restricting to the trumpet is too narrow? I must think about that idea of having a scope for the photograph and one for the diagram, I am currently unsure of my opinion about it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually sax is a woodwind. The kind of mouthpiece (i.e. is it your lips that vibrate to produce sound), and not the material, is what defines a brass instrument (a wooden horn is a brass instrument, for instance). I should work on improving the categorization of mouthpiece. --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At german Wikipedia there is a difference between brass instrument mouthpieces and woodwind mouthpieces where saxophone is WW. The scope should be only representative for one type of construction - how about "Brass instrument mouthpiece" ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) If we go for "Brass instrument mouthpiece", how do we decide that a horn/trumpet/whatever mouthpiece is more representative than a flugelhorn/tuba/trombone/whatever mouthpiece? They are all based on the same principle but they can be visually distinguished from each other. A collection picture would be great, but we don't have any at the time. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In german they called this kind of construction "Kesselmundstück" - (trans. kettle mouth part ?) how about the construction definition for a appropriate scope ? --Richard Bartz (talk)
ha ha :-) this kind of trumpet mouthpart has in german language a name for it's construction which is called "kesselmundstück" translated in english it means kettle-mouth-part .. kettle or bowl for the inner shape of it - i'am not shure for the correct translation - is there a definition for the construction in english ? (bowl shaped, funnel-shaped)--Richard Bartz (talk)
Oh ok. Brass instrument mouthpieces are classified according to the shape of the cup (trumpet is more "round", horn is more like a cone, cornet has an almost flat bottom). My mother tongue is French, I know there are technical names for it but I know only the one for the cornet (cuvette) and I'm not even sure of it. I've no idea about English terms. We'd need a professional (or a very well documented wikipedia...), should we categorize the different brass instruments (and I probably should see one from time to time in order to make this mouthpiece produce a sound, but that's another problem). I'm personally unable to do this classification (right now). --Eusebius (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after working on Mouthpiece to get a better idea, I think the scope should be "Brass instrument mouthpiece". Now that I know that saxes are definitely woodwinds. :) "Trumpet mouthpiece" is too narrow. Yes, there obvious difference between a trumpet's and a French horn's, but it's not that more considerable than the variation between trumpets themselves. Usually I view VI scope in terms of "would this be the first image I choose to illustrate it's encyclopedia article?" In this case: en:Mouthpiece (brass). Yes. However, that also makes the illustration more appealing. So I'm still undecided. (Sorry guys, it's tough.) Rocket000(talk)16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
I strongly suspect the best picture for the scope would include at least the three most important types of brass mouthpieces; trumpet, french horn and trombone/tuba. And as especially trumpet mouthpieces go there are a wide range of cup depths etc.--oskila (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the first sentence, not on the second one: I'm afraid the variations in structure for a same instrument wouldn't be that noticeable on a picture. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Support This image is much more detailed; although there are differences between trumpet and other brass mouthpieces, they all have come with the same principles. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO because Commons VI is not excactly the right place to sell horses, I would rather stay with current, much more natural VI image. It also has a higher resolution. BTW may I please ask you to add geotag to the image you're trying to promote? It is one of the criterias. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
It is geotagged or is there a problem I didn't notice?
I don't want to sell a horse, but I want to see the charakteristics of a breed - and for this you need exactly the same kind of Foto as for selling it.
What is more natural in the other photo? Grazing is natural behavior for horses as well as standing around with heads up. And both photos are of free roaming Ponies in Dartmoor.
CommentI did not notice geotag. Sorry about this. Under more natural I ment that the horse hair, the horse position look more natural in current VI IMO. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I changed the lighting slightly and though the competing image is better quality (as a photograph), this one slightly has the edge for me for the scope. Lycaon (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made your oppose a "comment", because I think it is more fair for you not to vote, since you're nominating a competitor. I hope this is ok with you. --Eusebius (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is indeed a close call. It has the best image quality but it is IMO not quite as good for illustrating the scope. I think Kersti has a valid point there. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral Nothing wrong with the nominated image, though I do prefer the middle one of the three alternatives. Reasons are lighting, sharpness and feeding position. Maybe we should set up an MVR? Lycaon (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Note that the first image in the competitor list could not be nominated (not geotagged), but can still be opposed to any of the candidates. --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
