Template talk:POTD/2013-02-26

For a long caption like this, better to left justify the text (it is a short paragraph, not a phrase). not sure how to do that technically.TCO (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think so, as the image itself is centred. Having the bullets, although it makes the page somewhat more readable, also puffs POTD a bit too big for main page balance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• • It's at the bottom, isn't it? Also, try some new views. That's the benefit of what I bring to you peeps. Cool things like the triptuch here (showing an intuitive process flow) or the turtle shells in Painted Turtle. showing you people new things...better things...not the old layouts. Anyhoo...we will get those things left justified...let me bring in an expert.TCO (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to treat this thing like a panorama and give max width. There is so much fine detail (with 3 images) and it is hard to see things in black and white with all the grey. Need the size to make things viewable.TCO (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you check the protected version, on the main page it will be given image mapping so that interested readers can click through to the individual images. We have to keep the main page accessible, which is a definite priority. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Relying on clickthrough for viewable images is the antithesis of user friendly access. I'm done though. Not interested in the caption editing.TCO (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I thought we were getting somewhere. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for sets, like at Template:POTD/2012-01-04. The full images were not shown, just crops of the most interesting bits. Readers had to click through to see the full size images. Other times only one image from a set is shown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's cool, you are being tolerant. I am on the ra..mpage. (My beef is more with Wiki and its lack of looking to how th rest of the web does layout. I mean just look at the atrocity we have with video viewing.)

Off topic, but check out how the images are viewed, here: (think the click along is interesting for the viewer to think about process flow...) [1]

TCO (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree about software support issues... TIFF and PNG too. Complete mess.

As for the French Wikipedia... now that's something. I've been thinking, if we can generate random images from a selection, like at portals, we could improve treatment of featured sets that could not easily be made a collage (there's a collection of 18 illustrations from a book that I'm thinking of). I'll have to bug someone who knows code for that though, or Howcheng to see if we already have done something like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful caption but not for why you think

I want to try the left justification (and glad I did not listen to the "we can't do it".  ;-) And want to try the bullets. But those are no biggies.

What I really like is that I have cut ALL the blue to be giving only the two articles that have the picture! We should do this in DYK, ITN, and EVEN FA!

Don't dilute the message on the front page!

TCO (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... I don't know how well that would pass with everyone, although it's an idea. I'd be more comfortable linking halide and uranium at the very least, because not all of our readers will know what they are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

no, no, no. Don't ruin the beauty. Don't be a Wikicrufter. They got the rocking photos. And then they have the articles. Both uranium and halide are wikilinked in first 2 sentences of Ames process. And they know what uranium is! As for halide, they get the idea it is some compound of uranium.TCO (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not doing it. We'll see how well this goes with the armchair critics first — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)