User talk:JimWae/Formatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vancouver

I like what you did with the move of the picture and maps in the Vancouver article. Keep up the good work! Sunray 08:40, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver pic

Hi

I am using IE6 on WinXP Pro SP2 using my laptop with 1024x768. My desktop is using the same setting except the screen resolution is 1280x1024.

Your edits appears on both of my screens as a HUGE gap after the opening paragraph for the length of the info table; and the aerial pic is right below the table; then there is another gap below the pic because the table of contents is taking up some more room.

I do not know why it is like that.

And why is it that i have to log in again to post a message here? weird. LG-犬夜叉 07:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


Now it's cool. Though I'm not sure about putting a pic at the very top, since the format for city pages isn't like that.

However since the pic is visually appealing, I think it will be fine.

Sept 11th page is normal, I didn't see any gaps anywhere. LG-犬夜叉 07:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Just to clarify, the dates get wikified on first mention of the year, and then when there is [Month/Date], [Year], correct? Having trouble finding the citation for this. Thanks! Onlyemarie 21:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not know about cases of just years, year & month, nor just month & day, but whenever all 3 appear, they should be wikified Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) --JimWae 21:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)


[edit] Nathaniel Hawthorne pic

Hello. I noticed you changed back the Nathaniel Hawthorne image which size I had modified from "thumbnail" to "frame". I did so in the first place so that the picture, in its real, smaller size, would look much better than this and not appear with such a low resolution. I understand from your edit summary that you fixed the picture so it would be the same size as the others. I also saw that you had previously arranged the three images so that they are all aligned to the right. I do understand that this arrangement (same size and aligned to the right) makes the whole article look better, but I still think it's unfortunate that the first picture looks so bad when it is bigger.

I have a suggestion. In my opinion, the article contains too many pictures for its size. The second image ([1]) is a portrait that is almost identical to Hawthorne's appearance on the last picture ([2]). That illustration is also the one that was added the most recently on the article. I think the second picture should be removed from the article. The first picture could be changed to its normal size, and be aligned to the right of the text at the top of the article. The third picture could be aligned to the right or to the left in the "Writings" section. I think the article would look good that way. What do you think? -- Audrey 5 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)


[edit] 9/11

Dont stack vertical images next to each other please. -St|eve 23:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Looked fine in IE6 browser & made better use of white space next to TOC. It certainly was much better than the present photo section in "Resposibility" which appears as

  Responsibility

A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
A-photo - B-photo - C-photo - D-photo
          B-photo - C-photo
E-photo   B-photo
E-photo
E-photo
E-photo

      start of text      F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo
    text text text text  F-photo

I have a laptop with 1600x1200 screen --JimWae 23:53, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

So I have to ask: is it a matter of your preference or was it a mess on your screen? --JimWae 01:02, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

I have put those photos in a vertical table on right side many times - only to be undone without explanation except for "looks better this way". Table could be either 1 or 2 photos wide.--JimWae 01:09, 2005 July 31 (UTC)