This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 04:43, 11 February 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Visual arts}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 04:43, 11 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Visual arts}}.)
A fact from World landscape appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that 16th-century world landscape paintings (example pictured) showed "an idealized composite of the world taken in at a single Olympian glance", according to Simon Schama?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Thanks! I've put the Bruegel back on top though, as it is much more typical than the Patinir (his only mythological subject, witrh a Boschian left-right contrast untypical of the type), as well as more attractive. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on both counts.
Does the Patinir need to be there at all? Why not make the Breughel big? And put the Patinir as the first image in the text, so that it fits the History?
Re the Altdorfer, it really is a pity that it is so badly served by the formatting. My solution would be to change the format by doubling it with another Image, either Altdorfer or similar, thereby creating a horizontal double image.
The one above it needs reducing a little, as it is a bit too large for wide screens and is displacing the Altdorfer.
If you're using an old monitor, it can be hard to see the effect on a modern screen or laptop. Think wide and shallow, with the text taking up less vertical space.
Also, the triple image could go right.
I'll fiddle, and if it look bad, it can be reverted.
I think that the lead image is stunning and deserves the space.
I made comments in the edit summary. Lower Breughel can't go lower. I have added a break to stop it breaking through the line, and to prevent it displacing the Altdorfer. Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the other pictures have all been resized so that the area of each one is similar to each other, and similar to the Altdorfer, and now that the Altdorfer is no longer displaced, I find that the discrepancy of it being the only vertical isn't a problem. It is sitting beneath the Breughel quite happily because there is a line clearly dividing them. and the scale is the same.
Here is the alternative, which I like better. It moves the two headings sideways, and keeps them with the text. It allows the painting to look inwards, as indicated by the monumental inscription, and maintains the left/right flow of images. User:Amandajm/sandbox ... Comment? Amandajm (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
