| Revision as of 03:06, 2 April 2009 editRotational (talk | contribs)9,031 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:09, 1 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,250,024 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Stub" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|living=no|listas=Fitch, Walter Hood| | ||
| {{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Right-facing images == | == Right-facing images == | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| #The botanist template {{tlx|Botanist-inline}} is problematic on 2 counts - firstly the phrasing is clumsy, secondly it assumes that all botanical authors are botanists, which Walter Hood Fitch was not - he was a botanical artist. ] (]) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | #The botanist template {{tlx|Botanist-inline}} is problematic on 2 counts - firstly the phrasing is clumsy, secondly it assumes that all botanical authors are botanists, which Walter Hood Fitch was not - he was a botanical artist. ] (]) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :#But number one in the MoS list is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." It is a reasonable presumption that the section you quoted applies to extra images. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | :#But number one in the MoS list is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." It is a reasonable presumption that the section you quoted applies to extra images. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::The photo should be aligned on the right side per ] point 1: ''Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox.'' I've never heard of the "facing the text" issue but I believe that it looks unaesthetic on the left side. When it comes down to it, I'd go with the manual of style first and possibly symmetry the photo in a photo editing program so that it fits both people's criteria. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | :::The photo should be aligned on the right side per ] point 1: ''Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox.'' I've never heard of the "facing the text" issue but I believe that it looks unaesthetic on the left side. When it comes down to it, I'd go with the manual of style first and possibly symmetry the photo in a photo editing program so that it fits both people's criteria. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::I uploaded a left facing version of the photo. I then moved the photo to the right per the manual of style. Win-win? As for point 2, I don't know anything about the Hodgsonia heteroclita or Victoria regia so I'll stay out of that. As for point 3, the wording is trivial to me. If you have a problem with the wording, work on the template as it will improve many pages (all pages that use the template). As for the botanical artist/botanist issue, I don't see that it implies either. It simply says that it's his "botanical name" which may imply something to an expert (which I am not).]'''<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | :::I uploaded a left facing version of the photo. I then moved the photo to the right per the manual of style. Win-win? As for point 2, I don't know anything about the Hodgsonia heteroclita or Victoria regia so I'll stay out of that. As for point 3, the wording is trivial to me. If you have a problem with the wording, work on the template as it will improve many pages (all pages that use the template). As for the botanical artist/botanist issue, I don't see that it implies either. It simply says that it's his "botanical name" which may imply something to an expert (which I am not).]'''<sup>]</sup> 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Also, I don't mean to accuse anyone but the template was put up for deletion without any reasons cited from an anon IP today. It seems sort of weird that someone would not like a template's use then it gets put up for deletion by an IP in the same day. If anyone from this discussion is involved, deleting a template because you don't like it and it proves your point is childish. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ::::Also, I don't mean to accuse anyone but the template was put up for deletion without any reasons cited from an anon IP today. It seems sort of weird that someone would not like a template's use then it gets put up for deletion by an IP in the same day. If anyone from this discussion is involved, deleting a template because you don't like it and it proves your point is childish. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I think you're hallucinating - if you read the discussion on deleting the template, you may see that I favour '''keeping''' it ciao ] (]) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | :I think you're hallucinating - if you read the discussion on deleting the template, you may see that I favour '''keeping''' it ciao ] (]) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Because point 1 suggests starting an article with a right-aligned lead image, doesn't mean that you should stop reading. There are a whole bunch of ifs and buts that follow. It also plainly states '''"However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines"''' for OlYeller's benefit. and '''"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."''' It is ''not'' a reasonable presumption that the section applies to extra images. There is also a long-standing controversy about why lead images should be right-aligned when there is no compelling reason to do so - look up the debate in the MoS archives ciao ] (]) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | Because point 1 suggests starting an article with a right-aligned lead image, doesn't mean that you should stop reading. There are a whole bunch of ifs and buts that follow. It also plainly states '''"However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines"''' for OlYeller's benefit. and '''"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."''' It is ''not'' a reasonable presumption that the section applies to extra images. There is also a long-standing controversy about why lead images should be right-aligned when there is no compelling reason to do so - look up the debate in the MoS archives ciao ] (]) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| We start with a right-aligned image because starting with a left-aligned image makes the article look like shit. The average person notices when the article layout looks like shit. The average person ''doesn't'' notice pretentious wankery like whether or not the subject of an image is looking towards the text. ] 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | We start with a right-aligned image because starting with a left-aligned image makes the article look like shit. The average person notices when the article layout looks like shit. The average person ''doesn't'' notice pretentious wankery like whether or not the subject of an image is looking towards the text. ] 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{hat|Hidden comments unrelated to improving article}} | |||
| :Silly of us arguing about such trivia when all we needed to do from the outset was to consult you and benefit from your immense experience and mastery of English. ] (]) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | :Silly of us arguing about such trivia when all we needed to do from the outset was to consult you and benefit from your immense experience and mastery of English. ] (]) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ::I'd like to start by saying I saw wrong and that I should have read the rest of the guideline. I'll do my best not to make that mistake again. That being said, even though you're being facetious Rotational, you're right. This seems like a trivial argument (silly as you put it). It looks like crap the way it is (right justified). The photo facing right or left is trivial when it comes to the overall look of the article. Don't you have something better to do? Also, your attitude isn't going to convince or persuade anyone. I'll leave (and take this article off my watch list) with this quote. You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, your attitude sucks. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ::I'd like to start by saying I saw wrong and that I should have read the rest of the guideline. I'll do my best not to make that mistake again. That being said, even though you're being facetious Rotational, you're right. This seems like a trivial argument (silly as you put it). It looks like crap the way it is (right justified). The photo facing right or left is trivial when it comes to the overall look of the article. Don't you have something better to do? Also, your attitude isn't going to convince or persuade anyone. I'll leave (and take this article off my watch list) with this quote. You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, your attitude sucks. ]'''<sup>]</sup> 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{hat|Hidden comments unrelated to improving article}} | |||
| :::Don't I have anything better to do? Yes, I think so - I'd like to get on with writing new articles without having to waste time fighting off posturing, foul-mouthed editors or win popularity contests by putting out more honey. ] (]) 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | :::Don't I have anything better to do? Yes, I think so - I'd like to get on with writing new articles without having to waste time fighting off posturing, foul-mouthed editors or win popularity contests by putting out more honey. ] (]) 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{hab}} | |||
| '''Ignore''' the MOS. Just do whatever looks better. ] |
'''Ignore''' the MOS. Just do whatever looks better. ] ] 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I didn't mean to edit conflict you Prodego; I came from AN, saw the TOC floated right, and just edited it out of instinct. In general the TOC should not be floated anywhere, just left to hang out in the place mediawiki puts it, so I usually just fix these when I see them. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | :I didn't mean to edit conflict you Prodego; I came from AN, saw the TOC floated right, and just edited it out of instinct. In general the TOC should not be floated anywhere, just left to hang out in the place mediawiki puts it, so I usually just fix these when I see them. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Personally, I think it makes more sense to put the image on the right ande ignore the eyes, or upload a reversed version if the eyes are too worrisome. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the image is going on the left, the TOC needs to go right. Personally I think putting the image on the right would be the easiest solution. ] ] 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:LEDE is quite clear the TOC should not be floated, so that leaves the image to move. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That clear thing you did is far worse than floating the TOC, and over 5000 articles do exactly that (float the TOC right). So I've floated it right for now, probably should just move the image back to the right though. ] ] 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How long are you guys going to muck about trying to make the article layout accommodate that left-aligned image without looking like shit? The left-aligned image is the problem. ] 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agreed. In general: the image should be on the far right, and the TOC should not be floated. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Hidden comments unrelated to improving article}} | |||
| :::::::Perhaps layout policy should be shaped by people who know how to spell aesthetics. ] (]) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Spelling competency is irrelevant. What matters is an appreciation of aesthetics, as opposed to an irrational attachment to vexillological quibbles. ] 04:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Stubborn conservatism vs irrational attachment - it's all so subjective, isn't it? ] (]) 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Lead image goes on the right. What you have here looks awful. If the eyes bother you that much then upload a flipped image. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Left: Rotational.<br/> | |||
| Right: Cygnis insignis, Jenuk1985, OlYeller21, Carl, Prodego, CBM, OrangeDog, Hesperian.<br/> | |||
| Sorry, Rotational, the mob has spoken. I'm going to move it right in accordance with consensus. Kindly note that this is my first such edit, so one can hardly accuse me of edit warring. ] 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::OrangeDog beat me to it. ] 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also mirrored it. Needs a caption though, maybe made a frame instead of a thumb. I'll leave that up to you. All further layout problems will be solved by expanding the text (the important bit). ] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for reiterating my point about expanding this short article. I restored my version, my sources and explanation can be found above. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 05:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Hidden comments unrelated to improving article}} | |||
| ::::As you quite rightly said, mob rule ] (]) 11:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"If enough people act independently towards the same goal, the end result is indistinguishable from a conspiracy."<ref>]</ref> ] 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"If sufficient fools follow a loud drum, they soon believe they are marching toward a higher purpose." ] (]) 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Whatever. ''Majority'' is to ''mob'' as ''minority'' is to ''crank''. I'll take mob rule over crank rule any day. ] 23:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You've certainly made that clear. ] (]) 07:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| I've moved the mirrored version of the image to a new filename and put it into an infobox. It's best not to overwrite original images on Commons except for minor retouching work - there may be other wikis using the image (e.g. arabic), which would prefer the lead image "looking" to the right. ] (]) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well now it looks terrible again. Images should alternate left-right placement and should be of relative size to the amount of text. Also, simply flipping a headshot is not "misleading the reader". I'm undoing Cygnis' unecessary reversion, which also removed text and introduced a TfD template. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This portrait problem is just so wrong. A reversed image of Vincent van Gogh would show he was missing part of his right ear, when he actually cut off part of his left ear. Peoples faces are NOT symetrical and a mirrored image is a false face, except if you are looking at yourself. -] (]) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have already restored the image back to its un-mirrored state. Such edits are unconstructive and go against the MOS. If people wish to change the MOS, then it can be bought up on that talk page. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::True, I hadn't thought of that. However, there is no way of knowing which is the "correct" way round for this, as some photographic methods, particularly old ones, result in a mirrored image. Not really important IMO anyway, I was only attempting to placate all parties in the silly edit war above. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apologies, I was going by your gloss and not actually reading the guideline myself. I will no longer flip any images, no matter how good the faith (reserving the right to ] if necessary). ] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Be nice === | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi everyone, it's disturbing to read how personal some of the comments above have become. Please remember that this page is ''only'' for discussing the improvements to the article. If you have an issue with another editor, please take it up on their own talk page. I have collapsed all the comments which don't relate to improving the article (see ]) to avoid further disruption. | |||
| Now, please go and have a nice cup of tea and then stick to discussing the policy. ] (]) 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Article improvements == | |||
| Why did you remove the infobox, shorten the lead and put all the images back on the right? The Biography section probably needs splitting up, as author abbreviations for example is not a biographical detail. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reinstated the infobox, I'll leave the rest up to someone else. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] | ]</span> 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::CI reverted again (while dealing with Rotational's disruption). The information isn't inaccurate, and said far more than "Artist b. Scotland". Infoboxes are eminently appropriate for biographical articles. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It displayed the four facts (two poorly) of the article's lead. And that is merely your assertion; why provide a substitute for content? Judging by your 'Scottish artist' summary, you could not have glanced at it twice. | |||
| ::::The summary was yours, taken from the edit summary. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a little over 450 words in this article! I moved some of the content to a more appropriate section, the only other text added to the lead was . I gave my reasons in my edit summaries, and on this page. | |||
| ::So expand the article instead of removing things. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The infobox is unnecessary and misleading; the data it might contain is better given in a proper and referenced context in the article. It grabs the reader and erroneously summarises his biography as "Nationality: Scottish. Field: drawing." ... Why add that, or anything like it, because the template exists? | |||
| ::It is not misleading - everything in it has provided references. Infoboxes to not pretend to contain the content of an entire article. They are to easily present simple common facts so a reader doesn't have to search in the prose for them. They do no harm and are actively encouraged. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Images should at be commons, unless they enhance the article's text. They are not decorations, encyclopaedic text precedes the image. The images and templates distracted the reader from the text, and provided no additional information; they were uncited, unsightly, and were a barrier to new editors. They did not enhance, explain, or improve the content in any way, nobody has bothered to discuss how this trivial inclusion would. | |||
| ::Then move the image to Commons, if it has a compatible license. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :His abbreviation ''is'' a biographical detail. Placing the fact next to mention of his son is a useful disambiguation, both are also named and abbreviated in publications of their field. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::A biography is an account of a life. Explaining how he was assigned the abbreviation would be a biographical detail. Biographies should probably be in chronological order (I doubt his son was born after his death). Separating into sections (Early life, career, death, etc.) would give more structure and allow more easy expansion. The ] should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129190957/http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/fitch.html to http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/fitch.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:09, 1 February 2024
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Right-facing images
- "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."- MoS The reason for this is that portraits facing away from the text are extremely unaesthetic.
- The image of Hodgsonia heteroclita is superior to that of Victoria regia.
- The botanist template
{{Botanist-inline}}is problematic on 2 counts - firstly the phrasing is clumsy, secondly it assumes that all botanical authors are botanists, which Walter Hood Fitch was not - he was a botanical artist. Rotational (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- But number one in the MoS list is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." It is a reasonable presumption that the section you quoted applies to extra images. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The photo should be aligned on the right side per MOS:IMAGES point 1: Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox. I've never heard of the "facing the text" issue but I believe that it looks unaesthetic on the left side. When it comes down to it, I'd go with the manual of style first and possibly symmetry the photo in a photo editing program so that it fits both people's criteria. OlYeller 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I uploaded a left facing version of the photo. I then moved the photo to the right per the manual of style. Win-win? As for point 2, I don't know anything about the Hodgsonia heteroclita or Victoria regia so I'll stay out of that. As for point 3, the wording is trivial to me. If you have a problem with the wording, work on the template as it will improve many pages (all pages that use the template). As for the botanical artist/botanist issue, I don't see that it implies either. It simply says that it's his "botanical name" which may imply something to an expert (which I am not).OlYeller 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I don't mean to accuse anyone but the template was put up for deletion without any reasons cited from an anon IP today. It seems sort of weird that someone would not like a template's use then it gets put up for deletion by an IP in the same day. If anyone from this discussion is involved, deleting a template because you don't like it and it proves your point is childish. OlYeller 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're hallucinating - if you read the discussion on deleting the template, you may see that I favour keeping it ciao Rotational (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Because point 1 suggests starting an article with a right-aligned lead image, doesn't mean that you should stop reading. There are a whole bunch of ifs and buts that follow. It also plainly states "However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines" for OlYeller's benefit. and "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." It is not a reasonable presumption that the section applies to extra images. There is also a long-standing controversy about why lead images should be right-aligned when there is no compelling reason to do so - look up the debate in the MoS archives ciao Rotational (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- 1. The text should precede the image in the lead. If there is an earlier image of the subject, and the article is expanded, the image could be placed further down. Faces are not symmetrical, images should not be reversed. Not the place to discuss these issues.
- 2. My source, given in one of my edit summaries, says:
"The great Amazonian water-lily Victoria regia merited four dedicated monographs. Walter Hood Fitch employed the new technique of chromolithography to create the great English series portraying this enormous flower in 1861. ... 10,000 botanical drawings in his lifetime, of which this is one of the most spectacular examples." LuEsther T. Mertz Library of The New York Botanical Garden
- If you read this article, compare Sharp's later swipe of Fitch's illustration.
- 3. Not the best place for discussion of the template. He is noted as an "author" at IPNI. I expanded the article slightly, hope it gets some more useful contributions. cygnis insignis 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You say "the text should precede the image in the lead", and so it did here - why did you find it necessary to change it to this? The image of Victoria regia might be interesting historically even though it appears drab on the page. Even so, it was included in this version - why did you change it? Rotational (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
We start with a right-aligned image because starting with a left-aligned image makes the article look like shit. The average person notices when the article layout looks like shit. The average person doesn't notice pretentious wankery like whether or not the subject of an image is looking towards the text. Hesperian 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
| Hidden comments unrelated to improving article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'd like to start by saying I saw wrong and that I should have read the rest of the guideline. I'll do my best not to make that mistake again. That being said, even though you're being facetious Rotational, you're right. This seems like a trivial argument (silly as you put it). It looks like crap the way it is (right justified). The photo facing right or left is trivial when it comes to the overall look of the article. Don't you have something better to do? Also, your attitude isn't going to convince or persuade anyone. I'll leave (and take this article off my watch list) with this quote. You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, your attitude sucks. OlYeller 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
| Hidden comments unrelated to improving article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Ignore the MOS. Just do whatever looks better. Prodego 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to edit conflict you Prodego; I came from AN, saw the TOC floated right, and just edited it out of instinct. In general the TOC should not be floated anywhere, just left to hang out in the place mediawiki puts it, so I usually just fix these when I see them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it makes more sense to put the image on the right ande ignore the eyes, or upload a reversed version if the eyes are too worrisome. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the image is going on the left, the TOC needs to go right. Personally I think putting the image on the right would be the easiest solution. Prodego 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:LEDE is quite clear the TOC should not be floated, so that leaves the image to move. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- That clear thing you did is far worse than floating the TOC, and over 5000 articles do exactly that (float the TOC right). So I've floated it right for now, probably should just move the image back to the right though. Prodego 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- How long are you guys going to muck about trying to make the article layout accommodate that left-aligned image without looking like shit? The left-aligned image is the problem. Hesperian 03:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. In general: the image should be on the far right, and the TOC should not be floated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
| Hidden comments unrelated to improving article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Lead image goes on the right. What you have here looks awful. If the eyes bother you that much then upload a flipped image. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Left: Rotational.
Right: Cygnis insignis, Jenuk1985, OlYeller21, Carl, Prodego, CBM, OrangeDog, Hesperian.
Sorry, Rotational, the mob has spoken. I'm going to move it right in accordance with consensus. Kindly note that this is my first such edit, so one can hardly accuse me of edit warring. Hesperian 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeDog beat me to it. Hesperian 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also mirrored it. Needs a caption though, maybe made a frame instead of a thumb. I'll leave that up to you. All further layout problems will be solved by expanding the text (the important bit). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for reiterating my point about expanding this short article. I restored my version, my sources and explanation can be found above. cygnis insignis 05:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also mirrored it. Needs a caption though, maybe made a frame instead of a thumb. I'll leave that up to you. All further layout problems will be solved by expanding the text (the important bit). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeDog beat me to it. Hesperian 04:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
| Hidden comments unrelated to improving article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I've moved the mirrored version of the image to a new filename and put it into an infobox. It's best not to overwrite original images on Commons except for minor retouching work - there may be other wikis using the image (e.g. arabic), which would prefer the lead image "looking" to the right. Papa November (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well now it looks terrible again. Images should alternate left-right placement and should be of relative size to the amount of text. Also, simply flipping a headshot is not "misleading the reader". I'm undoing Cygnis' unecessary reversion, which also removed text and introduced a TfD template. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This portrait problem is just so wrong. A reversed image of Vincent van Gogh would show he was missing part of his right ear, when he actually cut off part of his left ear. Peoples faces are NOT symetrical and a mirrored image is a false face, except if you are looking at yourself. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have already restored the image back to its un-mirrored state. Such edits are unconstructive and go against the MOS. If people wish to change the MOS, then it can be bought up on that talk page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- True, I hadn't thought of that. However, there is no way of knowing which is the "correct" way round for this, as some photographic methods, particularly old ones, result in a mirrored image. Not really important IMO anyway, I was only attempting to placate all parties in the silly edit war above. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was going by your gloss and not actually reading the guideline myself. I will no longer flip any images, no matter how good the faith (reserving the right to WP:IAR if necessary). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- True, I hadn't thought of that. However, there is no way of knowing which is the "correct" way round for this, as some photographic methods, particularly old ones, result in a mirrored image. Not really important IMO anyway, I was only attempting to placate all parties in the silly edit war above. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Be nice
Hi everyone, it's disturbing to read how personal some of the comments above have become. Please remember that this page is only for discussing the improvements to the article. If you have an issue with another editor, please take it up on their own talk page. I have collapsed all the comments which don't relate to improving the article (see WP:TALK) to avoid further disruption.
Now, please go and have a nice cup of tea and then stick to discussing the policy. Papa November (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
References
Article improvements
Why did you remove the infobox, shorten the lead and put all the images back on the right? The Biography section probably needs splitting up, as author abbreviations for example is not a biographical detail. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have reinstated the infobox, I'll leave the rest up to someone else. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- CI reverted again (while dealing with Rotational's disruption). The information isn't inaccurate, and said far more than "Artist b. Scotland". Infoboxes are eminently appropriate for biographical articles. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It displayed the four facts (two poorly) of the article's lead. And that is merely your assertion; why provide a substitute for content? Judging by your 'Scottish artist' summary, you could not have glanced at it twice.
- The summary was yours, taken from the edit summary. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It displayed the four facts (two poorly) of the article's lead. And that is merely your assertion; why provide a substitute for content? Judging by your 'Scottish artist' summary, you could not have glanced at it twice.
- CI reverted again (while dealing with Rotational's disruption). The information isn't inaccurate, and said far more than "Artist b. Scotland". Infoboxes are eminently appropriate for biographical articles. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is a little over 450 words in this article! I moved some of the content to a more appropriate section, the only other text added to the lead was discussed and removed. I gave my reasons in my edit summaries, and on this page.
- So expand the article instead of removing things. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The infobox is unnecessary and misleading; the data it might contain is better given in a proper and referenced context in the article. It grabs the reader and erroneously summarises his biography as "Nationality: Scottish. Field: drawing." ... Why add that, or anything like it, because the template exists?
- It is not misleading - everything in it has provided references. Infoboxes to not pretend to contain the content of an entire article. They are to easily present simple common facts so a reader doesn't have to search in the prose for them. They do no harm and are actively encouraged. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Images should at be commons, unless they enhance the article's text. They are not decorations, encyclopaedic text precedes the image. The images and templates distracted the reader from the text, and provided no additional information; they were uncited, unsightly, and were a barrier to new editors. They did not enhance, explain, or improve the content in any way, nobody has bothered to discuss how this trivial inclusion would.
- Then move the image to Commons, if it has a compatible license. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- His abbreviation is a biographical detail. Placing the fact next to mention of his son is a useful disambiguation, both are also named and abbreviated in publications of their field. cygnis insignis 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- A biography is an account of a life. Explaining how he was assigned the abbreviation would be a biographical detail. Biographies should probably be in chronological order (I doubt his son was born after his death). Separating into sections (Early life, career, death, etc.) would give more structure and allow more easy expansion. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Walter Hood Fitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129190957/http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/fitch.html to http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/fitch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Categories: