Archived talk at User talk:Arpingstone/ArchiveMar3-2003

Is that better, Adrian? You were nearly there, you just needed to select the text that you wanted to archive from inside an edit window so that you got the codes that (e.g.) make links work as well as the plain text. (I've just blanked the rest of this page while I'm at it - it's all archived - so revert me if this isn't what you wanted to do.) Best -- Tannin 09:21 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Greetings, it's Adrian. It's so obvious now you tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for doing it for me -- Arpingstone 09:25 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure. - T

More graphics confusion from Nevilley

Hi Adrian, I's so glad you are doing all this work on pictures, it saves me having to use my own brain! :)

Now then:

1. why has the ARP-Standard-Large image changed from 800 to 750 wide?? I'm worried I am missing a point here. Enquiring minds want to know.
2. Can you please explain why you do the thing with the table being wider than the image? I am confused!
3. Does this relate to your complaint (in Bristol I think) about getting the text away from the image? And if so, how? And if not, what is that other issue? (More confusion you see!)
4. Somewhere, I saw someone suggest that you get a better reduction by using integral divisions of the original size, thus 1:2 reduction is better than 1:2.3456 or whatever. Do you think this could be right? I'm unconvinced, but then what do I know.

Well done with Bristol and all the Filton stuff by the way. I used to fly in Chipmunks up there (not driving, sadly, just an air cadet oik - you have control Sir)! And yes, I do like the way you embedded the SMR picture in the text, it's much much nicer. Actually, I'm going to slowly go round and redo a lot of the pics I did earlier because (1) embedded is better then running wild anyway and (2) even better than that is the small-on-page+click-for-large approach that you and I have been working with. Which is why I need to keep stealing your ideas to get it right! :) See for example Shanghai.

Thanks so much for all the sorting out and comprehending you are doing, it's a treat! Nevilley 10:57 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

And please see Talk:Bristol for more clarification sought, on Filton etc, thanks Nevilley 11:28 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to help because I'm very interested in making the standard of graphics presentation as high as possible on Wikipedia so don't hesitate to ask anything you like.

I think I may have explained elsewhere (your page?), and I think Martin has explained, that an exact division (3 to 1 in this case) does give a slightly less fuzzy thumbnail. See Martins explanation for why this may be. But we need not worry why, let's just always keep an exact ratio. That's why my 800 size is abandoned (unless you use 200 pixel thumbnails, which would be 4 to 1, but I think that's a little too small).

I put "width=270" in the coding because I was unhappy about the left positioned pics having not enough white space on their right hand side to separate them a little from the text. I had no idea what to do so I just chanced to try that width idea (thanks to PREVIEW anything can be tried out first). What I think is happening is that "width=270" is reserving a block of space but the 250 pic doesn't use it all so a nice white bar results on the right.

Similarly, with a right positioned pic, it keeps the pic a little clear of the right hand margin, which looks nicer that having the pic positioned hard to the right.

I have no idea how to create similar spaces to the left of pics, anyone know?

Got to stop here for a few hours, I'll come back to your questions later to see if I can tell you anything more.Best Wishes, Adrian -- Arpingstone 14:32 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)