This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bryan Derksen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm still learning about images - I noticed that your positioning in individual thumbnails is now "none", but preceded by **div class="floatright"**
Could you please inform me more about this technique? How does this differ in effect from positioning each image "right"? I note that those editors with tiny monitors (800 px) object to the larger images - my theory is that a reasonably sized image may obviate the necessity of a click-through to what is in some cases an over-large image (see Three Gorges Dam and click on one of the first few images - I have not yet produced an intermediate as is needed in this case, not my contributed image), so I tend to prefer a 300 pixel minimum. I have also had a carefully constructed gallery destroyed by an editor - it appears that the editor did not like the detachment of image from text, as the gallery followed the text. This destruction resulted in some of the ugliest image layout I have yet seen on WP. I restored it by putting the gallery before the text and then referencing the specific image within the nested sub-article with a postage stamp sized image - see seismic retrofit#Exterior reinforcement of building. At least that has (thankfully) been left undisturbed for a while. Where a large number of images are to be shown I have been putting these in floating galleries (see Shanghai#Architecture as an example) specifically so that they may be of reasonable size, and where the image is central to the theme of the article, to make it large and prevent text wrapping with appropriate coding. See Sundial Bridge for a large article preface picture with a trailing gallery. That article would definitely loose its impact with a smaller image as the image is a representation of the visual impact of the object. I do think that 250 pix is too small for my preferences in the particular case of Catherine Palace, but that a gallery is not yet appropriate for that article, and a large image would be inappropriate as the article is about the palace - not its visual importance as with the bridge article. What we really need is a variable image width by user screen width - at least it would be nice to set this up as a user preference. I think that there methods to get the user's width - at least the window size, but the Wiki engine would have to have some extensions to process this correctly.
By the way, what size monitor do you use and why did you feel that the images were out of control (a bit)?
Please respond here - I will watch your page.
Best wishes, -- Leonard G. 00:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Heh, many comments in one. I'll try to answer them all.
Firstly, the div. I use the "classic" skin rather than the "monobook" skin, and although I didn't know it at the time the "monobook" skin apparently automatically stacks floating images in a column down the side of the page. In "classic" it doesn't; try switching your preference over to "classic" skin temporarily and have a look at the version before my edit: [1]. All the images are in a row at the top instead of a column down the side, which squeezes the text into a tiny little column on the left. By turning off the built-in layout code (using the "none" keyword) I forced the images to form a column, and by wrapping the whole group in a div I was able to tell the whole group of images to float to the right. Here's a quick demo, using a div with a visible border (and note that I'm still in "classic" skin):
without div (the "before" version):
In classic skin, this results in a row of images beside each other.
without div and with "none" keyword, putting images in a column in Classic skin:
with div floating the column to the right:
I have since learned that Monobook handles image layout better than Classic does, however, so I've mostly stopped doing that (but I haven't worried about going back and removing it from articles I've done that in, since it looks the same in Monobook either way). At some point I'm going to file a bug report and see if I can get Classic fixed to work like Monobook does.
As for resizing them down from 350 to 250 pixels, that was just due to my own personal preference for what a "good sized" thumbnail was. I agree that it'd be nice to have an adaptive thumbnail setting, once upon a time I used to just use the "thumbnail" keyword without specifying a size in the hopes that that would be implemented soon. Personally, I think Wikipedia articles should be primarily focused on the text and use images only to accentuate the text rather than as the main centerpiece of the article. Generally speaking I would only leave images larger than around 300 pixels if it was a map or diagram that would become illegible at smaller sizes. In my opinion a thumbnail should be large enough to let the reader know what's in the image so that he can decide if he wants to click and see the full-sized version and not much larger than that. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this that I'd argue if you made those images 350 pixels again. :) Bryan 01:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt and very informative response. I agree that many find 350 pixels too wide, but I feel that the 250 pixel WP "standard" is too small - I have been recently been setting to 300 pixels in the hope that this will stick, but it still gets downsized in some articles - which I why I have taken to galleries and (only in a few and especially appropriate cases), wide images isolated from the text (not only the Sundial Bridge but also a bridge panorama in the Wuhan#History section of the article. This latter example simply would not work well in a more restricted format. I admit to pushing the envelope further down in the article with the concert group panorama, especially since it is not isolated.
I will follow your model for right hand images in my new work and will try to go through my older articles as time permits. -- Leonard G. 02:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe the Sundial Bridge article is a perfect illustration of what I said about how images should serve the text of the article rather than the other way around; that first 700 pixel image completely dominates the article, with the descriptive text about the bridge tucked away at the bottom where I have to scroll down to see it. Furthermore, at 700 pixels the image is too wide for people browsing on 640×480 or smaller screens (don't laugh, I bet Wikipedia's going to be a popular item for small handheld computers once a properly downloadable version is available :) and even an 800 pixel wide screen is a bit too small when you allow space for the sidebar, scrollbar, etc. And the image size is 93.5 kilobytes, which is a bit hefty for dialup users especially when combined with the four other thumbnails below. I'm going to shrink it down into a "conventional" right-floating thumbnail, I hope you won't mind too much. Bryan 02:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I moved the main pix to the gallery - since it follows all text, this should answer your download objections. Note that some nontrivial computations are involved to get the images to flow without hangups (see my User Talk:Leonard G.#Floating galleries. As the max size is now 505 wide [Sat AM - reduced to 404, other from 200 to 160, still looks good], this should be fine for small (800 pix) screens — I do not believe the WP should be crippled by considerations for handhelds and cellphones - this should be a max image width option set as a user preference. This is a multimedia environment, after all. Now if 505 [now 404] is too wide for 800 pix screens, all images in the gallery must be reduced in width proportionally to maintain image layout flow under various widths - but I do not expect that these should fit on a 256 wide (or whatever cellphones are) screen, It is bad enough that people are driving, walking and eating while talking on these infernal distractors, I don't want them watching too! (Help! I'm turning into my grandfather!)
By the way, I followed your instructions on four images in the seismic retrofit portion of San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, but as the first image was (appropriately) wider than the following, the images were left justified within the box. I set up two separate image flows to accommodate this problem. So this should work with various skins? - Leonard.
I did check the classic skin. Fortunately, monoblock works the same as classic when left aligned, the images stack in a wrapping row (otherwise my several floating galleries would not work). It appears that the problem is actually non-stacking to the right in monoblock, not a defect in classic. It would be nice to have more image control. Could you tell me how to get a centered image? That would be nice for certain isolated bridge images, e.g. first bridge at Wuhan and others that are by nature wide and short and cannot have text at the sides anyway ("center" does not work). -- Leonard G. 16:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There used to be a "center" tag that you could use in place of "left" or "right" in the wiki image markup, but unfortunately that got disabled at some point for reasons I'm not aware of. A lot of people do centering by setting the image's float tag to "none" and using a <center></center> tag pair, and although I don't like using deprecated HTML like that I don't know of a better way offhand. I never use it myself because I never center images, I always float them right.
Very nice! - (I pushed this to 550 pixels. What do you think is "too wide" in the context of a centered, text free image? I intend to use use this on a few important bridge images, including some not yet uploaded. These have 5 to 1 or better horizontal to vertical aspect ratio and would look very nice as centered, isolated images. If too narrow for a wide screen they might look strange, so I want to go for the max (excluding PDAs), which I think would be somewhere around 600 pixels. I will still force text isolation "br style=clear:both] as done above, even though a test (without colons) of the example above showed it to not put text into the margins - that may be skin specific.
The current Sundial Bridge images are 404/160/160/160/160. If you think this is still to wide the next appropriate size would be 303/120/120/120/120 - feel free to experiment. Note that the main bridge image at this size in isolation I would consider too small, but in the context of the numerous trailing narrow images it may look fine, as the context of the gallery allows the dramatic sweep of the initial image to be seen clearly. -- Leonard G. 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
URGENT! Which browser do you use? I was at my son's house today and he uses IE on the Mac, was showing him some pages - YECHH!. This does not work - all pictures are on left, no text until after bottom most image. I am removing the div stuff and returning to old form. Center is OK because at worst on IE the pix is left, rather than centered (I always kill boardering text for these anyway). Leonard G. 03:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I use Mozilla 1.8a. Internet Explorer is notoriously poor at supporting some parts of web standards such as CSS, which is what the "style" attribute is using to do its thing. Bryan 03:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So exotic layout things should be tested in IE, right? Since "center" ... "/center" works, I tried it with "right", but this was worse as the coding was displayed on the page. Since the only problem is with one seldom used WP skin (the default setup is other than that), and there are millions (or as Carl Sagon would say ....) of IE users, we should not use the method suggested above. (I use Safari on Mac.) Leonard G. 04:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've already mentioned that I've stopped using divs like that in most cases. However, I don't feel any particular need to bend over backwards for IE when it's IE's own fault for not understanding perfectly valid HTML markup. Bryan 04:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll bet that they do understand it, they choose to not implement things properly - remember their (supposed) mantra - Embrace (the standards)- Extend (to be noncompliant)-Dominate (the market) &mspace; or something like that.
On the page, List_of_strange_units_of_measurement in the history, you mention that you found out why the section on the hubble-barn is commented out, but you don't explain what it was. What was it? I want to add it to the commented out section so people like you and me don't keep being confused. JesseW 07:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found out it was done by User:Palapala so I asked on eir user page. JesseW 07:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oo, hard to remember. I think it was because I noticed the edit summary of the edit where it was originally commented out:
But I'm not absolutely certain. I note that barn (unit) has an article that matches this description of it, but I don't think I was able to dig up anything confirming the length of a Hubble. Bryan 07:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All I did was categorize it, and I'm already involved in another conflict about an article on a subject I'm not familiar with (PNAC) so I think I'll beg off of this one, sorry. :) Bryan 23:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.
The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.
You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.
For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Hi - A while ago, you changed category:fictional places to redirect to category:fictional locations (actually was a redirect, but you added the leading ":" before "category"). I suspect you already know, but category redirects effectively don't work (articles added to the redirected category don't show up in the "redirected to" category, etc.). I'll put category:fictional places in WP:CFD. -- Rick Block 02:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall that for a while I was using the redirect syntax with categories simply as a shorthand to let other human editors know "this stuff should be over there instead." Thanks for cleaning up after me. :) Bryan 02:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"… When you created the Commencement class category for them and moved them all over into it en masse, this distinction was lost and I'm going back through all the Commencement class ship articles to restore the WWII categories. …"
O, the embarrassment! Seriously, I'm sorry, I thought I was helping.
S'okay, it was only a dozen or so articles so it didn't take much effort. I just wanted to make sure you didn't do the same thing later with a category containing hundreds of ships, that would take rather a lot more effort. :) Bryan 16:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hello Bryan - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre (talk) 00:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Someone has vandalized the entry for composer Johann Nepomuk Huber (found via the Random Page function). Could you be so good as to set it back? Thanks. DS 19:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I've cast my vote and given my reasoning. Hope I don't get kicked out of the Derksen Conspiracy, I didn't notice Gangulf's real name until after I cast my vote. :) Bryan 00:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"actually, it's not 3991 or 1993 but some extremely far distant period in the future when the universe has begun collapsing towards a Big Crunch.)"
changing the content to:
"The Red Dwarf crew travels into the far distant future to a point after the Universe has begun collapsing towards a Big Crunch, causing time to run backwards until it is the equivalent of 1993 on Earth again (or 3991, as the locals write it). They spend three weeks there."
On what do you base this explanation? Yes, I understand reversing entropy and whatnot, but your explanation is the result of bringing in outside knowledge, and not necessarily the actual explanation. Unless the writers actually state that your explanation is the correct one, you can't claim it to be the correct one.
In any case, moving in reverse isn't going to make us write "3991" instead of "1993" (the numbers were all facing in the right direction). Time would move in reverse, but our actions wouldn't be mirrored like that. The use of "3991" is what is called "funny". Since that Earth was obviously meant to be some weird version of 1993 where time goes in reverse, we should ignore the "3991" as just being a joke, and put under 1993 that they traveled to a parallel universe or something where time was going backwards to their own. As for the "3991", you could add a comment in, something like "even the date was humorously written backwards as 3991."
The relevant exposition is this, from right after the Starbug crashes:
HOLLY: (vo) It's perfectly consistent with current theory.
Everything starts with a Big Bang, right? And the universe
starts expanding. Eventually, when it's expanded as far as it
can, there's a big crunch, right? And everything starts
contracting. Perfectly possible that time starts running in the
opposite direction, as well.
So there you go, it's not a parallel universe, it's the distant future of our own universe. Bryan 04:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing all that up. --Brian0918 17:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 10 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man 16:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Bryan. Please avoid Category:Medicine whenever possible; you put it on hepatosplenomegaly, which is a medical sign and qualifies for Category:Sign (medicine). The former is getting unbelievably huge, and I don't even know where to start... JFW | T@lk 09:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it probably belonged in a subcategory of medicine, but I was just cruising by on the random-page express so I tossed it into the root category for someone more knowledgeable to deal with. I occasionally go on category-cleaning sprees so I figure others must do that from time to time too, in which case putting this in Medicine would be useful. Bryan 18:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure, that's how I caught it :-). A function that Mediawiki could seriously do with is the rapid migrating of all articles in a category to another, without having to edit every single one individually... JFW | T@lk 16:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for showing some interest in the Weaubleau-Osceola structure article I wrote. Unfortunately, the formatting change you made to the images doesn't work well under Firefox or Mozilla browsers. And although it works with I.E., it that's not the effect I was after. Since the caption relates both of the images to each other I put it between them without it being attached in a box as a caption to either. Of course, when submitting the article to Wikipedia I agreed to allow "merciless" editing by others, so it's not "my" article any more. Before putting it back the way it was, I'm interested in knowing why you weren't satisfied with the way I had originally put the pictures and caption into a table. --Kbh3rd 15:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hm. My main concern is that using tables for attaching captions to images isn't "meaningful", in that the software can't automatically understand that the caption text refers to the image and deal with it accordingly. Things like accessibility (alt tags), automatic removal or resizing of images, that kind of thing. So, when I see an image that has a caption attached to it via table, it's kind of reflex to just merge the two together in proper wiki formatting. A caption that refers to two different images is a bit awkward in that regard, though. How about I try splitting it between the two images, and see if that works better? Also, I'm curious in what way what I did "doesn't work" on IE and Mozilla. It looks fine to me in Firefox, and I was doing the same sort of thing routinely back when I was using Mozilla without trouble. Bryan 05:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BTW, if it turns out that you can't abide by my changes, it's not like I'm going to fight tooth and nail to preserve them. Go ahead and revert, just make sure to preserve the category update I made at the same time. :) Bryan 05:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was working from strictly a visual perspective and hadn't thought of the uses of the caption as a form of meta-data attached to the image. It would be possible to not use "thumb" but still have a caption on the image that would show up on mouse-overs and be available for other computer-mediated uses, while maintaining the original visual layout. But what you've done works pretty well, too, and passes the "keep it simple" test. Maybe I'll play with it some more, or maybe I'll leave it be. Thanks for your contribution.
The problem I saw with both Mozilla & FireFox is shown in this screenshot. Odd that you report not seeing a problem in FireFox. Perhaps it's manifestation depends on window size affecting the layout of the elements. This screenshot is from Mozilla 1.7b on Linux, but I saw the same thing with FireFox 1.0 on Windows. --Kbh3rd 17:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I use the "Classic" skin which doesn't have underlines under the headers, so I wouldn't see that problem on my browser one way or the other. One sec, I'll switch to monobook and check the old version... yup, there it goes; I get the same thing when I view in Monobook. Could it be that the PNG has a transparent background? Checking... yup, so it does. I suspect that if the background of the PNG was white this little bug would never have been noticed. :) Now that the thumbnail keyword is being used there's a box around the image that seems to be preventing the header underline from spilling over into it any more, but if you like I could switch the image over to a non-transparent white background as well. That would also prevent problems if for some bizzare reason someone decided to read Wikipedia with a black page background. :) I'm going to see if I can find a place to post a bug report about this, it seems likely nobody's ever noticed this happen before since it's a pretty unusual circumstance. Bryan 01:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Brian - I've moved the category "Islands of New Zealand" back where it belongs (under "New Zealand geography", but NOT under "Locations in New Zealand"). Please read the reasons at the discussion page for the category, or the detailed discussion of why it is categorised as it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand places and/or Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board [[User:Grutness|Grutnesstalk]] 06:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did remove a lot in terms of word count. But did you actually read both
versions or just eyeball it? If the latter, please look again. The original was very poorly written, long-winded, and include a lot extraneous detail, such as practically the full text of the "challenge", which I shortened to a sentence. The details of the challenge were not especially interesting, unless you were planning to copy it for your own challenge. If you read it and still think there is something important lost, as I said on the discussion page, I will work it back in. I spent quite a lot of time working on those edits, with the aim of improving the article, and I would be saddened to simply have it lost, just because I made the article shorter. Surely these matters are not decided only by word count. --BM 01:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did read it, and while I agree that the current version is a bit wordy I still think that your version cuts out far too much. Better to be a bit wordy than to willfully omit relevant information, IMO. Bryan 01:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, I'm willing to work back in information that others think relevant, if I removed something that others think is relevant. Tell me what it is the relevant informat that I dropped.. This blanket reversion stuff is pretty discouraging. How do any of these articles ever advance except around the edges if every change of more than a sentence or two is immediately suspect and reverted all the time? It is very frustrating. For example, rather than revert me, why not simply edit back in the paragraphs where you think I overdid it? I am sure you didn't intend to be rude, but someone could easily take it that way. --BM 01:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By the way, what is your interest in the Kovoor article? I didn't notice in you in the history. Are you following me around or something?
Only a little. I had moral relativism watchlisted, saw you remove a link that seemed relevant without explanation, and clicked "user contributions" to see whether you were a vandal. I don't think you are, but that happened to be the one other example I found in my cursory search of an edit I disagreed with. As for why I didn't just edit back the bits I thought were over-trimmed, well, that would have ended up pretty much exactly like a revert anyway. Bryan 06:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, you might want to check out Universism which is probably going to be deleted. That link was added by someone promoting his article on the religion he invented last year called Universism. I left a lot of the links he created because the VfD process isn't finished yet, but I did remove links where I thought the links were gratuitous. It's true that Universism argues as the editor stated, but it is not distinctive in that regard. I left the sentence describing the argument, but made it a passive mode sentence.
I restored the link before I looked at the Universism page, since the section had "Universism" right in the title I figured it was pretty important to actually link there so people could find out what it meant. If Universism is ultimately deleted as an irrelevant fringe organization, then I'd have no problem with removing reference to it from moral relativism altogether. The current vote tally shows an even split on whether to keep or delete, though, which suggests to me that deletion is unlikely - Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Decision Policy suggests that consensus to delete is usually considered to be around a 2/3 majority. All of which is irrelevant to our debate over the contents of the Kovoor article, of course; I was just explaining why it is that I happened to see what was going on over there and weigh in on the matter. Bryan 00:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, its long so probably you didn't read much of it. All but about 5 or 6 of the "Keep" votes are people who appeared for the first time after the vote started, and have no edits other than on that page. Either sockpuppets or universists organized to vote. Normally such votes aren't counted. So, despite the appearances, the Delete side is actually overwhelmingly winning at the moment. --BM 03:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That'll be up to whichever admin eventually gets around to reviewing the vote. Bryan 04:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow. I finally tried reading some of that VfD discussion, what a mess over there. I don't envy that admin trying to sort it out. Fortunately for me, I still have no opinion on the deleteworthiness of Universism myself and so won't be wading in. :) Bryan 01:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon(talk)
No, I don't mind. As you can see I am working on making standard Elections in pages. They were just for a test in this sandbox. Gangulf 06:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Outphase.png. I notice it currently doesn't
have an image copyright tag.
Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can
use {{gfdl}} if you release it under
the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you
claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know
what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images
and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwinstearns 21:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know what the copyright is, I got it from http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Outphase.png which lists the uploader as "Automated conversion". I'll add a link in the article page. Bryan 00:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 07:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Those were all moved over from meta, and there was no licence or uploader identification over there. I've added links ot the original sources now but other than that can't help. Bryan 07:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bryan, that last removal was a glitch which I didn't intend. Not quite sure what happened. I was editing a section, and the article ended up consisting of just that section. I was in the process of fixing the problem, when you did. By the way, your "fix" lost many of my other edits, which are generally in the vein of fleshing out the existing arguments. --BM 02:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, by all means revert me then. You did 19 edits in a row without any edit summary for any of them, so I didn't bother trying to figure out what was done in each; I just did a diff of the first version and the last one. This is another good reason why you should be putting some sort of descriptive comment in the edit summary field. Bryan 02:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heya, thanks for cleaning up the smart quotes mess my browser so wonderfully highlighted. I try to keep an eye out for smart-quotes when I edit, but occassionally I miss a few. --fvw* 06:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Taking a quick look through the edit history, the only thing I think I've done on that article is adding category:petroleum. I don't know anything else about the subject so I suspect I won't be able to help resolve the issue, sorry. Bryan 00:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aloha. I noticed that you added/modified the image tag on the Doctor Who page, so I figured you might be the right person to ask a particular question, as I've been unable to find the answer to this question in the guideline or policy pages. What are the rules regarding screenshots of tv and film? I would like to be able to add them to a dozen or so pages but I haven't been able to confirm the acceptability of such edits. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the use of screenshots to illustrate things being discussed in articles about them, when there's no other way to illustrate those things, is a classic example of exactly the reason why the "fair use" exemption to copyright is there in the first place. As long as the screenshots are labelled with an appropriate fair use template (like the Fatal Death one) there should be no problem. I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is offhand but I'd be surprised if it said otherwise. Bryan 04:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As an example, look at the Gun Kata section from the movie Equilibrium. Since it is difficult for most people to conceptualize what this is, I would like to upload a screenshot from the film. Would this be an instance of fair use? --Viriditas | Talk 04:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think so, but that's just my own personal opinion on the matter. If you're really concerned I'd suggest asking at the Village Pump, probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Or if you only plan to do a dozen or so images, you could just upload them and see if anyone complains. :) Bryan 05:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can also check out fair use for an overview. Bryan 05:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm familiar with the page, but not with the specifics of the images themselves. I have identified four frames from Equilibrium that I would like to place in one image: two on top and two on bottom. I will construct a small image, upload it, and then ask for your opinion. --Viriditas | Talk 09:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd recommend making the image out of full-sized screen captures, rather than uploading a smaller version. Someday Wikipedia may get printed and at that time we'll want every image to be as high a resolution as possible, until then the thumbnail feature will resize the image the same whether the source upload is big or small. Other than that quibble, though, looks fine to me. Bryan 15:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I've uploaded a better image on the Equilibrium page. Let me know what you think. Can you help me delete the old images? I've moved the image to a different name because I ran into trouble trying to save and replace (it wouldn't let me for some reason, cache problem?) Thanks for your help in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 23:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deleted - you can also use Wikipedia:Images for deletion to call for image deletions, if you don't want to have to hunt up admins to ask directly. If you think you're having cache problems, the way to solve it on most browsers that I'm aware of is to hold down the shift key while clicking on the reload button - for Mozilla-derived browsers and IE, at least, that causes the browser to ignore all cached files and go right back to the source. I had to do that myself when I first viewed the updated image at the old location, the size of the image had been updated in the HTML image display code but the old file was still being used, resulting in a hugely pixellated image. Bryan 00:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed; there's a subcategory of fair use images specifically for screenshots. Use {{screenshot}} instead of {{fairuse}} to label screenshots with. Bryan 02:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. --Viriditas | Talk 05:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article currently looks horrible on my browser for some reason. There's this huge blank space in the middle going all down to the bottom of the box on the right....Is it just me? When I added the spectum it filled the big empty spot and made everything look ok...--Deglr6328 06:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. I use Firefox 1.0 and the Classic skin at 1024x768 resolution. I'll try out the Monobook skin in a moment, which I assume is what you're using? Bryan 06:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks fine for me in Monobook, too. What browser, resolution, and skin are you using? Bryan 06:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
IE 6 @ 1280X960 --Deglr6328 06:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately quite far outside my experience, then; I'm not sure what could be causing it. It's possible that IE isn't handling certain CSS elements the same way Firefox is, but I can't really offer any suggestions on how to fix things. Perhaps try different Wikipedia skins and see if any look better? Bryan 06:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My watchlist shows you managed to categorize four articles in under a minute! That's amazing. I work with categories a lot, and never get anywhere near that fast. Do you mind me asking what your process is? I dread categorization projects because they take so long. Any tips that you can offer? -Willmcw 06:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heh. Once upon a time I had someone make suggestions for the categorization bot they thought I was running, I'm glad I've still got it. :) The most important tool I've got in bulk categorization is the tabbed pane feature of my web browser, Firefox. Any tabbed browser should suffice, though. First, I open all of the pages that I'm going to be categorizing in separate tabs; I've configured Firefox to open links in new tabs in the background when I middle-click on them, so I just go down through the list of links middle-clicking each one (in my most recent spree I was working off of the stuff already in Category:High schools). If Wikipedia is being particularly sluggish, I'll then go through all the open tabs and click the "edit page" link on each of them before getting started on any actual editing; I'll sometimes have several dozen pages all loading in parallel in the background. Then, once everything's open and ready, I'll put the category tag I expect I'll be using most frequently into my clipboard.
Scroll to bottom of article, control-V paste, hit tab to jump focus to the edit summary, control-V paste, hit tab to jump focus to the minor edit checkbox and hit space (optional, but categorization generally is a minor edit IMO), hit enter, then move on to the next tab while the edit saves in the background. In really simple situations I can do the whole sequence of actions in about three seconds. In this case I was going slower, since I needed to actually think about what sort of category tags to put in (I was also categorizing schools into the education-by-state categories, for example).
Then, once I've finished working on the batch of pages I'd opened, I wait until they all finish saving their changes and then close them all. And I'm ready to open up the next twenty or thirty pages to work on. :) Bryan 07:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for taking the time to spell it out. (Gee, you coulda been doing thirty edits in that time). I'm copying the info for future use. And thanks for your work on Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello there. By convention, we don't group a peerage succession (e.g. Earl of Balfour) with offices. I've made the necessary change at Arthur Balfour. Just so you know. Mackensen(talk) 03:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okie-dokie. It's my first time using these things, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Bryan 03:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No worries, and I'm glad to see someone else doing the grunt work. Happy editing. Mackensen(talk) 03:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully any messes I've made will be easy to clean up now that the data's been put into templates like these. It looks like a very tidy system. Bryan 03:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
After over a year of trial and error...mainly error it seems like. Ah well, nothing like free time I don't have. Incidentally, I think I've straightened out the Lord Warden bit. Whomever went and did them all in the first place really didn't know what they were doing, and we're always tripping over them and fixing them. Mackensen(talk) 05:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, did I guess right on the pluralization of Lord Warden when I created the category for them? I have the sneaking suspicion that I should have called it Lord Wardens instead of Lords Warden. :) Bryan 05:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems Emsworth is taking a vacation. From a cursory Google search, I'd think it's "Lords Warden", but Emsworth, John Kenney, etc. are far more knowledgeable on the topic than I am :) ugen64 20:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
