Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/February 27, 2014

Fixed images

Fixed images per community consensus. Removed overusage of images that detracted from the quote, itself. Fixed overly large image formatting that detracted from the quote, itself. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page, I don;t believe that such consensus as you reference has actually been established yet. And I don't really believe that this layout is excessive - were it to include many more images than the selected four, I would agree. But in this case, I do not believe there really is an issue. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, UDScott, for restoring that layout. The reductions Cirt had made would have actually eliminated the actual Chi Rho symbol mentioned in the quote. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

On this particular page, it's not so ridiculously excessive. But as a general rule, we should limit to two images. The burden should be to explain why we need to go to overusage of images, not the other way around. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In accord with fundamental concepts of wiki activity, I believe that people who do the actually often extensive WORK of considering the numerous options, making a fair selection from those available, and making an effort to present it in a generally interesting way, with images related to either the quote or the author, should NOT have to extensively explain much of what they do to those who sometimes seem primarily interested not in working on the site in generally contributive ways, but in harassing certain people, and sometimes actively reducing options for explorations available to others, not only to the extent of removing significant images, but removing even wikilinks to pages of relevant concepts. I know that some people actually can have significant reasons which can seem valid or invalid to relatively impartial observers, to object to some elements of certain layouts, and I myself am not satisfied with some, though I did what I believed was the best I could come up with at the time, but on the whole, apart from a very few regular and reliable critics, most of my work at various forms of intelligent presentation of ideas, images, concepts and quotes, here and elsewhere, has received far more praise and approval than rejection or harsh criticism. To characterize a few major or minor images that I am actively attempting to reduce on most occasions to at most 4 well structured visual fields framing a significant statement in ways that I believe do appeal to the interests of most people as "overusage of images" is rather presumptive and false assessment. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And who are these "people"? Or are they just one person? -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted by UDScott

UDScott added the image overusage back here.

The burden should be on the community to support overusage of such images.

The community does not support overusage of images on the main page.

Two images is plenty.

One is enough.

More than two detracts from the quote itself.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just back from a brief excursion in time to see these remarks. Some are plainly misleading and false summaries, and the deletions of images you had made, as I stated above removed a very crucial element — the very symbol which the quote was about. That is hardly "image overusage" as a few people are trying to characterize a rather modest and rather widely used presentation method, of posting quotes with what most people of normal intelligence and knowledge can easily realize to be relevant images. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I said above, on this particular page, it doesn't seem quite as excessive as on all the other quote pages. Please explain how the lower image is directly related to the quote and individual, or it will be removed, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your statement above, Cirt, I'm not sure why you consider yourself to be the ultimate authority on this matter, which I do not believe is fully settled. Yes, there has been discussion that there have been occasions where too many image were used, but I have not seen consensus around a hard and fast rule of 2 images. This may be what you believe to be a correct number, but nowhere is there a rule or even a guideline suggesting such a hard limit. As such, how is it appropriate for you to take it upon yourself to impose such a limit? I fail to see how this is the right way to act and it once again it gives the appearance of a personal vendetta against Kalki, whereby you are systematically opposing every action he makes on WQ - and this I find particularly distasteful. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your statement above, UDScott, I never said I was the ultimate authority on the matter. But I was previously unaware, UDScott, that this website should violate Wikiquote:Image use policy and Wikiquote:NPOV, do you think we should do that? -- Cirt (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want this site to violate those policies, but I do not see the connection between that discussion (in which I am primarily in agreement with you and others that the images should have a clear relationship with the subject of a page) and your insistence on enforcing a hard limit of 2 images for the Quote of the Day page. The latter is what I am referring to with my comment. ~ UDScott (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not enforcing a hard limit. Please stop saying things I am not doing. I am being open to discussion on the talk pages, per w:WP:BRD. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reduced image sizes

Reduced image sizes.

Overly large images detract from the quote, itself.

This is wiki QUOTE, and not wiki-IMAGES SLIGHTLY TANGENTIALLY RELATED TO QUOTES WITH REALLY LARGE PICTURES.

Thank you.

Cheers,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This current reduction in size, though I believe it is in no way necessary, and should not be accepted AS IF it were a mandated norm, is not as severely ridiculous and contemptibly ignorant an act as your previous removals of relevant and even crucially important images have been. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed excessive wiki linking

Removed excessive wiki linking.

We already link In hoc signo vinces, above.

No need to link individual words here.

It detracts from the quote.

It severely lessens the likelihood the reader will read the quote in its entirety before clicking off to other pages.

There are plenty of navigation links on the Main Page to other pages.

No need to wikilink every single word in all the quotes on the Main Page.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I once again note that your efforts to censor, reduce or remove indications of concepts, notions and ideas available people extends not only to relevant imagery, but even to wikilinks, which are hypertext links to encourage intelligent exploration which are a part of the very fundamental structures of wikis. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It could also be seen that your actions making text virtually unreadable with overusage of linking becomes censorship making it incredibly difficult for the reader to simply read a quote itself. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that most people who have any sense can recognize many of your prolifically repeated comments that mischaracterize standard use of hyperlinks as "overlinking" for the total load of nonsense that they are. I use the term nonsense, but other words would in some ways probably be more appropriate suitable. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) + tweak