Talk:The Praise of Folly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
[edit] In Praise of Nobishness: On formatting images
A recent "correction" replaced the image at the righthand side of the article, under a misapprehension about placing images on the page, with the pronouncement "images go on right". I offered the editor the following tips from my Userpage, while keeping in mind Thoreau's remark, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Consistency is important within pages and among closely connected pages, but its only purpose is to serve the reader.
Not all Wikipedia pages need have identical formats, with the first illustration squared top right, though more than one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement. Some images are neutral in their format possibilities, others not:
- 1. Images need to face into the page.
- 2. Vanishing points need to lie on the page.
- 3. Sources of light in an image need to come from the center of the page.
Even if one has never thought about page layout, a moment's reflection will demonstrate the reasonableness of these three axioms, practiced by all professionals. --Wetman 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The following remark was left at my personal page, where the poster vandalized the layout, ostensibly to make his "point": "It is better to place an image at the top right of a page because the top left is where the reader expects to see the text. I for one do not want to see a picture, and then have to go looking for the text. As an example of how silly it is, see above. DunceHarris"
a visual illiterate's edit, based on such an untutored point-of-view, be permitted at Wikipedia, simply because the person is as aggreessive as this? --Wetman 19:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since this work by Erasmus is one of satire and good humor I have to admit that I have a hard time keeping a straight face about this dispute. The conflict between Lilliput and Blefuscu of course comes to mind. But before the two of you start throwing eggs at me for my impertinence, I have to state that I am acting here in innocence as well as with some natural "editor's interest" since I have started and contributed regularly to articles which now have images on both sides of the page, through no intervention of my own but also with no interference from me. To begin with I would very much like to know where it says , anywhere in any of the Wikipedia suggestions or lists of rules, that top images must absolutely, irrevocably be on the right. In other words, on what textual basis "more than one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement"? It would seem to me that the person who has done the initial change would have the motivation and energy to find this text. Thank you for your kind attention. --AlainV 01:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That was I who stated "more than one Mediator [I meant Administrator] is convinced this is a requirement"— from dreary personal experience: it was a biography entry I recall, with the image left staring vacantly off the page, like Folly. There is a broader lesson here, aside from the self-evident Formatting 101 axioms above: Let us make no unnecessary "guidelines", for they will surely be enforced by authoritative fools. An excellent motto at Wikipedia (I wish I could always follow it myself): Avoid unnecessary interference. It seems a pity to see a page so pointlessly disfigured, nevertheless, and by someone who has made no contribution to this article. --Wetman 06:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be on the right? --Dd42 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a layout with images in a strip down the right, see Eiffel Tower --Wetman 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] original language?
what was the original language and whatever it was, why is the title given in so many traslations in the opening section? 140.180.166.176 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
