Hi.
On the topic of transferring Wikipedia content to other media - is there a way of giving pictures descriptions in the context of an article? Since a picture can be used in several articles, the descriptions have to be part of each article (since what it represents might vary from context to context).
Ideally, I'm looking for both an "alt"-text (to represent the picture when it's not possible to display it, like "a map of Germany") as well as a subtext, "Fig. 2. This diagram plots the growth of Wikipedia."
Is this possible to do with the [Image:] tag?
-- Daniel
[...] as well as a subtext, "Fig. 2. This diagram plots the growth of Wikipedia."
Is this possible to do with the [Image:] tag?
Together with a method for image justification in the tag, like discussed some days ago, this would make tables for images completely superfluous.
Kurt
On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Kurt Jansson wrote:
[...] as well as a subtext, "Fig. 2. This diagram plots the growth of Wikipedia." Is this possible to do with the [Image:] tag?
Together with a method for image justification in the tag, like discussed some days ago, this would make tables for images completely superfluous.
For the record, I don't think images should be justified.
-- Daniel
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
On the topic of transferring Wikipedia content to other media - is there a way of giving pictures descriptions in the context of an article? Since a picture can be used in several articles, the descriptions have to be part of each article (since what it represents might vary from context to context).
Ideally, I'm looking for both an "alt"-text (to represent the picture when it's not possible to display it, like "a map of Germany") as well as a subtext, "Fig. 2. This diagram plots the growth of Wikipedia."
Is this possible to do with the [Image:] tag?
You can set the alt-text when you use the image the same way you specify different text than the article title for a text link:
[[Image:Filename.png|Useful description, hopefully]]
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I suggest we formulate a policy on using SAMPA for pronunciation of words In the long run, IPA might be nicer, since paper dictionaries & encyclopedias use it. However, until there's good support for Unicode, sampa is readable on any browser. If at some point we can switch, the two are in direct correspondance.
I've started looking for articles which use pseudo-phonetic transcriptions, & putting a list on http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SAMPA/To_Do
We could make [[pronounced]] a redirect to SAMPA, or a simplified SAMPA table page for ease of linking from articles which give pronunciation.
tarquin wrote:
I suggest we formulate a policy on using SAMPA for pronunciation of words In the long run, IPA might be nicer, since paper dictionaries & encyclopedias use it. However, until there's good support for Unicode, sampa is readable on any browser. If at some point we can switch, the two are in direct correspondance.
I've started looking for articles which use pseudo-phonetic transcriptions, & putting a list on http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SAMPA/To_Do
We could make [[pronounced]] a redirect to SAMPA, or a simplified SAMPA table page for ease of linking from articles which give pronunciation.
SAMPA may be readable by any browser, but is certainly not readable by most humans. Why should SAMPA's system of pseudo-phonetics be preferable to those that are already used? Apart from any article about the history of SAMPA, the best place for this peculiar example of eurocentrism is in the trash bin.
Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org