Talk:Rockefeller Center

image
I give up on finding an image fulfilling the guidelines. In 10th Doctor comic stories, there is one that is tall and thin, as befitting a skyscraper, which just got deleted because it is not widescreen. There is another, only showing the bottom of the building, which looks like any other building in New York and, thus, fails to be characteristic. Amorkuz ☎  07:54, December 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I might argue that this is one case where an image should be allowed to be somewhat tall in its dimensions; like a mid-way point between just showing the whole building and cutting most of it off. Is there no way to keep a good amount of the height, while adding as much width as possible? Is there more to the left of the building in-frame? Personally, I'd put priority more on the area towards the top, and sacrifice some of the bottom and perhaps the immediate top as well.


 * Anyway, the point I wish to make is, as Shambala actually worded it in her deletion of your image, it needs to approach widescreen. I do agree that the image as it was...was definitely pushing it. If we can get an image that's around the dimensions of a book cover, I think that's a job well done, as, just like with covers, you really have no choice here. 08:10, December 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * I chopped off another 50px, and daringly put it on the article. In truth, pretty much all book covers are in fact taller than this. 08:15, December 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Cropping this way did not cross my mind. To answer your question above, this cannot be widened. The panel is roughly 252x1518: it takes roughly the left one fifth of the whole page, top to bottom, and the deleted image was not cropped horizontally at all. I'm quite content with your current crop, actually. The top does not look much different and the extra long balloon tail becomes more distracting with the sky on the background. At the current image, it can be mistaken for some steam wafting up, and I hope that's alright. Amorkuz ☎  09:01, December 11, 2016 (UTC)