Please add new messages to the bottom of the page. I will try to respond within a few days.
Thank you for the notes about undoing the changes relating to the "Rolex Awards" site link and three redlines, which I agree are useful in some cases - in this case two large rivers and one interesting lake, which may well have their own pages some day. However, you reversed all of the changes made yesterday - and in the main these were to improve tone and balance on the subject. Beautiful though the language is, to me, the "Conservationists" section in particular is not encyclopaedic, but an interpretation of a single report.
Images of paintings in Krøyer articles
I thought it might be easier if I dropped a word on your own talk page in connection with your extensive comments on my talk page in connection with P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie. I must say that although I have been extremely busy with other things over the past few days, I have tried my very best to accommodate your suggestions in the article itself. Furthermore, I have just managed to find time over the past hour or so trying to follow up on your suggestion about the categorising and sorting of the images on Commons. Unfortunately, what I have done does not seem to be working too well. It took at least 30 minutes before anything worked at all and now, as far as I can see, the slide show seems to default to portraits of Marie Krøyer based on some other categories as photographs are included too! In any case, it certainly includes images not in the Commons category specified on the Wikipedia article page. I am also aware of the problem of text being pushed into narrow columns next to large images. That is why I normally use galleries but I see with the packed approach, the captions themselves come out in unwanted narrow columns. I think we really need to bring in some image experts to sort out these problems. In particular, I am extremely sorry that our enthusiastic new member User:Belle has been so upset by all these presentational problems. I hope very much she does not decide to opt out completely. She has been doing some fantastic work with articles on images herself. Maybe user:Elekhh would like to spend an hour or so looking at the problems we have been facing, in particular as illustrated on my talk page. I don't think there's a great deal more I can do at the moment to improve the presentational quality of the article. We'll see if the reviewer can help. I am really glad you have taken such an active interest in all this. It's just a great pity that the software doesn't seem to respond to default values in the way we might expect. Finally, I must say that when viewing articles on mobile devices, I have great difficultly returning to the previous page after opening another article or image. Even on a laptop, it is not always as easy as you might think. Wherever possible, users should be able to find everything they need within the article itself - at least that would seem to be the ideal we should try to achieve. Thanks once again for all your time and trouble.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly hope we do not turn off a new editor with arcane quibbles about format. I checked the Wikimedia gallery and saw only the images in the category, but they were our of sequence and the side bar is giving the file name and expanded creator details, but not the title or description. So it is not working well. I give up. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can liaise with those who are supposed to be handling these matters. It seems to me that in our attempt to follow the Wikipedia dogma we have in fact ended up with results that are less satisfactory than they were before we started playing around with formats. Perhaps it would be best to wait and see the review comments from SchroCat but I must say I agree with Belle that the earlier presentation was "far superior". I don't think we should simply give up on the whole matter. In any case, I am really surprised to see that despite the early comments and edits from Dr. Blofeld on the images in the article, recent FA articles covering the visual arts not only include very large images but also have a high ratio of images to text. See for example Beaune Altarpiece or Early Netherlandish painting. I think you will have to agree that the large image sizes add a great deal to the quality of the articles as a whole. Don't you think we should try to achieve the same effects with P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie? At the very least, I think these examples clearly support Belle's view that we should not be taking a "one size fits all" approach when dealing with art.--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ipigott, very large images are not the reason why I made the changes. And I don't like the current version, the gallery images are too small now. The lack of text and ratio of images vs text, the sheer number of images in relation to text in each short section was the reason, although the size does make the problem worse, overwhelming the text, the last section for instance, the image is 4 times the size of the prose!!. If you can't see the difference between a gem like Early Netherlandish painting with beautifully written long paragraphs of text with the balance and how Belle's/your version of the Marie article looks with barely a few sentences divided by big galleries then there's little point in talking to you. Your version of the article consisted of many big galleries and short sections which were smaller than the images themselves so it looked really cluttered. You can't even compare those articles you mentioned in terms of the proportion of text with imagery. If each section had the text like those two articles you mentioned it wouldn't look cluttered and would be more appropriate. Try to add a lot more text in each section and the balance will look far better; look at each section and in each the text should really be larger than the images. If not, then it either needs expansion or merging. And I'm pretty sure Belle is a stronger woman than you seem to think.. I acknowledge her views and appreciate the effort she made and agree on some of the photograph comparisons at least, but there's no need to treat her like a child.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad we are able to continue this discussion as we do now indeed seem to be reaching some kind of consensus. Furthermore, our experiments seem to have revealed some unexpected problems with the way in which images are accessed and displayed on various devices. Sorry Dr. B if I confused some of your earlier comments and edits with those which followed from Aymatth. I think the current version has progressed in several ways: the text is no longer dominated by images on the left and right of the page and the galleries now come at the end of the longer sections. Especially for mobile users, this means that when a section is opened, the images appear after the text (rather than in another section which has not been opened). The reason the images are too small appears to be the fault of the software. We can only guess why the first packed gallery displays large images while the second does not. I would also like to say how much I always appreciate Dr. Blofeld's involvement in improving the quality of my articles. We have had a long constructive relationship which I hope will continue. Sorry, Belle, if I seem to have been treating you like a child but on the basis of my past experience with newbies, once I see reactions like "If GA and FA can't adapt to encompass different sorts of articles then I'm glad they aren't the purpose of the encyclopedia" and "I haven't enjoyed this past 24 hours and I'm glad I won't be around for the next week or so", I know it is time to show some concern. Anyway, given the "software" problems, then I think I should at least reinsert some of the earlier image and gallery size specifications. I also take note of your advice to enhance and extend the text but I have been hesitant to do so now that the article is being reviewed. I hope we can all continue to cooperate and that there are no hard feelings.--Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have just seen that Dr. Blofeld has reinserted an earlier version of the article with the "cluttered" images which were the subject of his justified concern. I'm not too sure how to go about things now. As noted above, I really appreciated his earlier work on the article: creating larger sections with grouped images at the end was in my opinion an improvement. Should I not go through it all again and reinsert these and all the useful improvements?--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I thought you said your version was "far superior"? I undid some of my own edits too probably in doing so. I thought my concern about the images in relation to the text was a valid one but you didn't acknowledge this previously. I was just trying to help you promote it to GA but you seemed to imply that all edits must be restored at all costs to stop Belle crying or something. I'm going to distance myself from this one in fear of making Belle "extremely upset" again :-) Good luck with the GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- For the record: On Belle's page I noted: "Despite your differing approaches, I realize both you and Dr. B are doing you best to improve the quality of the article. I have made some comments on my talk page. I see how upset you were by some of the recent changes but I am confident we can sort everything out." And on my talk page, in reply to Belle, I wrote: "I can also see that Dr. Blofeld has been doing his best to improve the quality of the article in line with generally recognized Wikipedia quality standards..." So I did try to show appreciation for your work at an early stage and I still think we should go for a compromise.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"doing his best to improve the quality of the article " isn't the same as "Blofeld's edits are an improvement" or "some of his edits are positive I don't agree though with the reformatting"! Of course you appreciate my work as always, but you did imply that you wanted the earlier version restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you find anything more? Also not sure on gender!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and for the map too! One thing though, for the map can you add the city of Al-Hindiya and recolour to a more subtle colour than bright yellow?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you or @Cattus: find anything more on Maria do Carmo Abecassis? She's mentioned a few times in bibliographies. Perhaps you could find something to say about her poetry and flesh it out a little?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: Couldn't really find much more than you did. It seems she wrote at least one article on Expresso (Portuguese newspaper) in 1981 so maybe she was a regular writer in the newspaper or something like that, but it seems they don't have their archives available on their site...--Cattus talk 17:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Hardin]], authentication of which proves to be difficult; a 1950s [[Shopsmith]] woodworking machine]]; a jacket worn by actor [[Clint Walker]] in the 1964 movie ''[[Send Me No Flowers]]'', which the
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Party|Liberal]] government to organize the [[Alberta Farmers' Cooperative Elevator Company]] (AFCEC, which eventually became the [[United Grain Growers]].
DYK for Hugh Bolton Jones
|On 21 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Bolton Jones, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hugh Bolton Jones exhibited at New York's National Academy of Design for sixty years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh Bolton Jones. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|