 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Work in progress"
editI removed the "work in progress..." note and added the {{Underconstruction}} template. There are some similar templates, which may be more appropriate, at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance. Feel free to replace it with one from there. --Varco 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Celtic Cross
editYou might consider Celtic High Crosses. These were described as "sermons in stone". Nice work ClemMcGann 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Format
editUser:Amandajm tells me about some changes I made to the format:
- [...]Your reformatting, however, was a stuff-up of a carefully constructed page in which the pics illustrate the material.
- Firstly, when you moved the stained glass left, the info which was in point form all ran together. You cannot just move a pic to the left and maintain the list intact. You must check really carefully to make sure you haven't created that sort of mess every single time you change formatting. Believe me, there's a lot of people arrogant enough to think their changes are great, without looking to see what they've done.
- I don't see that "run-together" effect in Monobook. Sorry. With the current format in my short and wide window, the Scrovegni picture is almost in the next "subsection". By moving pictures to the side, I could see the text and the picture in the same paragraph. --84.20.17.84 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that the bullets disappear.--Amandajm 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The topic, for which the stained glass picture and the list were both the illustration, ended up with the Santiago pic which was of no relevance to the topic, which concerned "cross referencing"..
- I don't see how the St James pic is relevant to the text, so I moved to a place where it didn't trouble the rest of the page.--84.20.17.84 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The St James pic is relevant to the text in which the role of the Apostles and the place of Santiago (St James) as one of the major sites of Christian pilgrimage is discussed. --Amandajm 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The tall pic was arranged so that it spread over both the relevant discussion and the example. Once, moved, this was lost.
- I didn't see a relation between the discussion and the picture.--84.20.17.84 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The relation of the picture of the stained glass window to the text is that it is an excellent example of cross-referencing the Old with the New Testament. This is the topic described, and the specific details of that window are then listed in point form as exemplary.--Amandajm 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Santiago was removed from the topic that he was illustrating, the "Apostolic succession". If you read the page, and I presume you did, you must have realised that the illustrations were related directly. At least, they were in the right order, give or take some vertical movement depending on the size of your screen.
- About Headings:- if you have a Table of Contents which threatens to run off the page, a way to reduce its length is to make all the minor headings Bold. Then they simply don't register in the TOC. The two that you changed were not sub headings or even sub sub headings. Both of them were Examples under the subheading above them. Neither added a topic or required listing in the TOC. They both simply expanded by example the content of the leading paragraph, which was "Cross Referencing".
- --Amandajm 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that line length is different according to the Wikipedia skin chosen by each user and to the window width, so trusting how it looks in your browser is not enough. It is better to have a semantical arrangement, keeping images near to related text. However, it seems that your understanding of the relation between text and pictures is different from mine. I don't dislike long TOCs. Help:Section talks about compact TOCs, but they don't seem suited for this kind of page. Perhaps you'll like moving it to the right.
--84.20.17.84 10:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I use a wide browser. I then use the left hand bar which divides the page from the "History" or "Favourites" column to check out how the arrangement is going to look on a browser of different proportions. I Haven't tried changing the skin. I will. Thanks for the advice.
--Amandajm 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just checked out the different skins. I'm also using Monobook. --Amandajm 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)