Talk:Beaune Altarpiece/Archive 1
Moving
[edit]Victoria and I (Victoria, look what happens if you give me an inch...I take your name in vain) think this would be better called Beaune altarpiece. Aside from the missing definite article, which apparently can't be included because Wikipedia policy frowns on including articles (the irony!; some sort of irony anyway, homonym irony I suppose), the inclusion of the artist's name seems awkward when there are commonly used alternative titles that don't require disambiguation. Please add supportive comments below. Belle (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Two things: 1.) Beaune Altarpiece - like the Ghent Altarpiece - or Beaune altarpiece? and 2.) I want to think this through a bit more, because it will require a rejigging of quotes in the article referencing the Last Judgement, and so on. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go for Beaune Altarpiece, and for sure. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, done and mostly fixed throughout. Good call, Bellemora! I like it! Victoria (tk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Go, me! (How do we redirect all the other titles?) Belle (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, go you! Dunno, I went through all the links on "what links here" and couldn't find it on some of the pages (except in the template). I didn't bother with talk pages and subpages and such - only article space. If I have a moment today, I'll take another swing through. Victoria (tk) 11:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I meant like Beaune altarpiece and all those other red links I left scattered on your talk page (or do you think redirecting those is overkill?) Belle (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh those! Yes, they should be redirected. Will try to do it today (am about to go out on break). Victoria (tk) 11:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I meant like Beaune altarpiece and all those other red links I left scattered on your talk page (or do you think redirecting those is overkill?) Belle (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, go you! Dunno, I went through all the links on "what links here" and couldn't find it on some of the pages (except in the template). I didn't bother with talk pages and subpages and such - only article space. If I have a moment today, I'll take another swing through. Victoria (tk) 11:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Go, me! (How do we redirect all the other titles?) Belle (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, done and mostly fixed throughout. Good call, Bellemora! I like it! Victoria (tk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go for Beaune Altarpiece, and for sure. Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Two things: 1.) Beaune Altarpiece - like the Ghent Altarpiece - or Beaune altarpiece? and 2.) I want to think this through a bit more, because it will require a rejigging of quotes in the article referencing the Last Judgement, and so on. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
How about moving the main image to the centre top? It would be novel but it might work well. I just tried it on preview, centred, increased to 650px, with a br/ after it to create a space after the image, and it looked quite dramatic. Solves the problem of squashed text. Not sure if it's allowed, but I can't see why not. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good idea. I tried it.
Ask Ceoil though. He's kicked me off this page.Victoria (tk) 03:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)- There were strict instructions not to post there when I last looked and I'm a coward. :) I saw you try it on the other page and it did look nice. We used to have top images in the centre and on the left from time to time, but then for some reason it stopped and now everything looks the same. At least we've moved away from tiny images. That was a bad period, when everything was so small you could hardly see it. It was thanks to Tony1 (partly or entirely, I don't remember) that that got fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it was Tony who pushed to have the thumbnails boosted. I've struck the comment about Ceoil (wasn't very nice) and I'll take a big step back here for a week or more. Thanks, though, for the suggestion. Definitely on the to do list.Victoria (tk) 04:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi; I've left aligned the lead image and it makes a lot more sence in terms of the way tyhe painting itself is aligned, and in reducing test squash. Its still not even approcaching satifactory, but given the limits, I think best for now. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's better; and as you say given the limits the best solution imo. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- It looks horrible on my screen ("horrible" as defined by the International Institute for Taste which, as you know, is the governing body for matters of image alignment in articles). Is that centre-top alignment not possible? It would give it a bit more DURRRH!! Belle (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pleased with Johnbod's and Belle's solution today; we get a good look at the inner panels without any text squash. Plus its dramatic. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this looks very nice! Good job and thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- It looks horrible on my screen ("horrible" as defined by the International Institute for Taste which, as you know, is the governing body for matters of image alignment in articles). Is that centre-top alignment not possible? It would give it a bit more DURRRH!! Belle (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's better; and as you say given the limits the best solution imo. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi; I've left aligned the lead image and it makes a lot more sence in terms of the way tyhe painting itself is aligned, and in reducing test squash. Its still not even approcaching satifactory, but given the limits, I think best for now. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it was Tony who pushed to have the thumbnails boosted. I've struck the comment about Ceoil (wasn't very nice) and I'll take a big step back here for a week or more. Thanks, though, for the suggestion. Definitely on the to do list.Victoria (tk) 04:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- There were strict instructions not to post there when I last looked and I'm a coward. :) I saw you try it on the other page and it did look nice. We used to have top images in the centre and on the left from time to time, but then for some reason it stopped and now everything looks the same. At least we've moved away from tiny images. That was a bad period, when everything was so small you could hardly see it. It was thanks to Tony1 (partly or entirely, I don't remember) that that got fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)