> When I was testing it out I couldn't find it... I uploaded an
> image and then couldn't find any way to preview it, and I wasn't
> at all sure how to link it into an article. Maybe that's just
> me... I'm pretty technically ignorant and if it's not obvious I
> won't spot it.
I don't see any uploads from you recently; at least not since
the latest updates. Anyway, you'll probably be able to test it
on the main site by the time you get this.
After you upload, the success message now points you to the
description page and suggests that you fill it in with the source
of the image and other info. When you go to that link, the image
istelf can be seen by clicking on either the image's name at the
top of the screen (next to the "printable version" link) or the
dates on the history list.
0
Presumably Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>That's another thing to think about. BTW, I implemented page
>fragment links (e.g., [[Chemistry#history]], which links to
>[[##history]] on the Chemistry page), though I haven't made much
>noise about it because I'm still not sure they're needed--for one
>thing, they encourage long pages, and I don't like my syntax. But
>headings do seem like a natural match there.
This is great! I've wanted this a few times lately.
I agree that the specifics of implementation are problematic.
Perhaps you could render [[##history]] as <a name="history">history</a>,
with the option for [[##history|herstory]] as <a name="history">herstory</a>?
That would make usage a bit more natural, from my point of view.
Also, you could force the URL to have the first letter captitalised,
for the same reason as in linking between articles.
Then [[Chemistry#history]] could render as
<a href="http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Chemistry#History">history</a>,
while [[##History]] renders as <a name="History">History</a>.
But the important thing is to have the feature at all.
-- Toby Bartels
toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu
> BTW, the new software does not display the image (data) at the
> image:namespace (metadata container)...If copyright and
> attribution and other such information (metadata) is going to be
> in the image's image: page then it is only logical to have the
> image (data) there too by default.
If an author wants it there, he's free to put it there. But
that's his choice. He might put a larger version of the image
instead, or multiple versions, or just links, or just text. The
software should make it easy for authors to do what they want,
but it shouldn't restrict their choices or usurp their authority.
Automatically repeating the image on the description page seemed
too automatic for my taste.
There /is/ a link to the image at the top of the page.
0
I wasn't the one who did that; I just stumbled across it after looking through some old photos--I found a decent (better, I thought) photo to upload and so I did.
I'm not a big fan of thumbnails, personally, unless they're on a page with a lot of images--which most of our pages won't be. I prefer to have an image 300-400 pixel across its widest dimension in the article, which IMO can usually be small enough to load quickly, give a sense of detail, and not distract too much from the article itself.
kq
You Wrote:
>> Hm. Well it's been done already on [[cumulus]].
>
>You're right, it does work. Well, nevermind then. I still think it's
>better to do it the other way.
>00
If you haven't already, please everybody check out what a couple of users
have cooked up at [[Public domain image resources]]. This has got to be one
the the best organized recourses of this kind I have seen -- with categorized
links to great images. I can't wait for the new software to get online so
that some really interesting things can be done with the image:namespace
(like extended descriptions of what the image is of -- along with the bare
basics of attribution, date taken, where and copyright info).
BTW, the new software does not display the image (data) at the
image:namespace (metadata container) which seems to counter some pretty
standard style "conventions" for the web. Usually when a image of a photo is
clickable, clicking on the "thumbnail" will take the person to a larger
version of the same image. Now I know that much isn't really practical and
goes against what the image:namespace is for (display of metadata), but
wouldn't it at least make some sense to have a non-clickable display of the
same image on the image's image: page? When I first clicked on an image to
test this feature it took me a minute or two to find the link to the image.
If copyright and attribution and other such information (metadata) is going
to be in the image's image: page then it is only logical to have the image
(data) there too by default.
In addition, I do forsee people wanting to print out images hosted on the
server; shouldn't the info contained within the image page (metadata) also be
printed with the image (data)? Of course there is nothing stopping me or
anyone else from adding the image to the image's image: page, but then the
displayed image will be clickable and lead the visitor right back to the same
page (circular link).
I also forsee, given the current setup, that people will start to turn
image:namespace pages into places where they simply will place larger
versions of the same image -- which I'm not sure was the intent (but will
make perfect sense to many visitors and newbies -- may even be pretty darn
useful for any description there -- so long as all the metadata is the same
for both sizes of the image). I rambling again, so I will stop now...
--maveric149
> Hm. Well it's been done already on [[cumulus]].
You're right, it does work. Well, nevermind then. I still think it's
better to do it the other way.
0
Hm. Well it's been done already on [[cumulus]]. The person put the link in brackets: the source link followed by the display "text," e.g. [http://www.wikipedia.com/uploads/cumulus.jpghttp://www.wikipedia.com/uploads/cumulusthumb.jpg] or something to that effect.
kq
>I don't see any reason to ever need that functionality. It's easy
>enough to make a "click here for larger image" link, or to put a link
>to the larger image on the description page. Making the smaller
>image itself link to the larger one only makes it harder to get to
>the description page, and that isn't good for us. Users here should
>be able to rely on clicking an image to get the description page.
>00
I dumped what I know of bagworms in the bagworm article, but the only bagworm
I know is Thyridopteryx ephemeraeformis, and there are others. (There are
several Thyridopteryges in some trees near here, and I've met them in Ohio
too. I once saw a baby one crawling up my apartment door, leaving a zigzag
trail of silk.) Are there any psychidologists who can describe other kinds of
bagworm?
phma
>> You can't do that with the current or with the new software.
>> The [[image:xxx]] link inserts the image, and makes it a link to
>> the image description page. If you want a link to a larger
>> version of the image, you'll have to make a separate link,
>> perhaps putting it on the description page of the smaller one
>> or else making it an external link (see "Sainfoin", for example).
>>
>> The latter method will be a little more difficult with the new
>> software, because you'll have to upload the image first before
>> you can determine what its URL will be.
> Hmmm... I didn't think you could. Perhaps that's something to work
> on in the future? I'm downloading fullscreen images from the free
> websites and cutting them down to a postable size myself, but there
> are definitely times when being able to see the larger image as
> well would be good (for example my entry on the difference between
> butterflies and moths, where quite a lot of the detail disappeared
> from the image when I reduced it for better display.)
I don't see any reason to ever need that functionality. It's easy
enough to make a "click here for larger image" link, or to put a link
to the larger image on the description page. Making the smaller
image itself link to the larger one only makes it harder to get to
the description page, and that isn't good for us. Users here should
be able to rely on clicking an image to get the description page.
0
[Toby Bartels]
> Although I still think that this is a great idea, I'm going to
> make a stronger (or more precise) statement than before and say
> that it should *not* be implemented until we're certain how.
> That is, until we've discussed the notation well enough that
> we have a version that will at least be backwards compatible,
> then we shouldn't allow any articles to be created with it.
That's a compelling argument. I've disabled the [[##xxx]]
syntax for now. The software still enables you to make links
to internal anchors with [[pagename#fragment]], because that
syntax is obvious and won't change, but there will be no way to
make that target anchor until we agree on a good syntax for it.
0
