Sorry, I didn't know about the images, I'm glad you fixed it. But I always thought the Leader and Cameron Hodge were completely differant people. Especially when he describes Cable in a meeting refering to the Leader as another person and near the end of the "Slave Island" when Cable grabs the Leader stating his dislike about not bring democracy to Genosha and he urges Hodge to shoot him. Happy to help anyway I can to make this wiki special and fun.
Since you said you're most familiar with Spider-Man and X-Men the Animated Series, I thought I would work on Evolution. Then when we finish those together, we can work on the Yost Universe. What do you say?
When I asked if he wanted to be an admin, I was looking for someone who knew wiki code. I'm mostly content oriented. Before he came along, most of the formatting I did was copied and pasted from other wikis. He works mostly on the technical side of things.
He edits all the time, just not regularly and not usually on articles. Though he did do most of the Spectacular Spider-Man articles.
Right now I'm trying to catch up on a bunch of edits I skipped. Usually I go over all the edits and correct formatting, content, etc. But for a while I simply didn't get to it. Now I'm going over them.
Is there a reason why we've stopped using captions on images lately? It seems inconsistent with our overall conventions. Also, the size of images seems too big. Take Thor for example, lots of big images sandwich the text into an unsightly lump. I also see that in most X-Men: Evolution articles, namely on the newest FA.
When I first started this wiki, 175px seemed like a good size for articles. But then last year I found that I didn't particularly like the image size. They seemed too small and sometimes I couldn't tell what was going on. I started playing around and decided that 250px, which I believe is the default image size when submitting, was a large enough to fully appreciate the image but small enough to not crowd the article.
I'm slowly removing the thumnail box and captions cause the captions themselves weren't particularly consistent. Some are jokes, some are pointing out trivia or inconsistencies, and most are just repeating information in the corresponding paragraphs. It seemed the most consistent thing was to remove them altogether and save captions for specific notes. It seemed to me that I should let the text do the talking.
The point of captioning is precisely "repeating information in the corresponding paragraphs" but in a concise and/or insightful way that will make the reader want to read the paragraph or that sums up a specific fact/event. We should not throw away captions basing ourselves on the misconception that our visitors read every article from top to bottom. Captions are supposed to be informative and sometimes allow the reader to grip the gist without having to read the walls of text besides them.
[...] 250px, which I believe is the default image size when submitting, was a large enough to fully appreciate the image but small enough to not crowd the article.
I'm sorry but while that may have been the case years ago when the width of the pages was wider, it sure isn't now that it is much narrower (note that Wikia failed to change the image default size despite changing the page's width). 250px do crowd the page, especially when they're arranged like on Thor or Shadowcat (X-Men: Evolution). Those huge images draw attention away from what's actually important: the writing, and by imposing themselves on the reader, it makes the whole reading experience unattractive. Have you ever seen an encyclopedic entry in which its images squeeze the text into 4 words sentences?
It seemed to me that I should let the text do the talking.
I agree, which is a good reason why we don't need enlarged images to spell everything out for the readers. If someone can't "tell what was going on" then they will intuitively click on the magnifying glass symbol and see the image in full resolution. Also, this is where the captions would play an important role.
I challenge you to find one popular wiki that uses that many and that big pictures (without captions) on their articles. Note that removing the captions actually makes 250px images look bigger (compare Thor with Doctor Octopus (The Spectacular Spider-Man)).
Also, images are useful to depict relevant and paramount situations, so we don't need one image to illustrate each scene. The amount of images used on Thor is overkill, I'm sorry to say. Especially when they're aligned practically back-to-back in one horizontal line.
It's true I've been overzealous with images. I need to control myself in the future.
The problem with captions, as I said, is consistency. They're all over the place. Do you make a joke that others may not understand? Do you say the same information that's a couple of pixels to the left/right? A lot of times it seems they're saying something just to say something. When I started going to the Mass Effect Wiki, I saw that they don't have thumbnails or captions. I used it for DLC guides and got through fine without captions.
Television images seem fine shrunken down. Most TV deals with bright colors meant for smaller screens. But the videos are able to go down to darker colors. Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme and Hulk vs Wolverine have dark images that look like nothing at 175px. They look fine full sized and 250px when I've previewed them. But as they are now, they're nothing but near-surreal blobs. There's nothing particularly interesting or inviting about an image that cannot be understood.
I don't want the small image on the page to be incomprehensible. I don't want people to have to open a pop-up window or new window/tab just to understand an image. To me, that interferes with the flow of reading. Like Googling something when reading a book. As a reader, I'd rather just offer a quick glance to the image to understand it then get right back to reading. I don't want to stop and try to figure out what it is or wait for a page to load.
A more suitable comparison of image size and captions would be "Iron Man is Born!" and "Iron Man is Born". In my opinion the larger captionless images work just fine.
I'd like some outside viewpoints before we decide on something.
There seems to be a problem to solution gap here. If the issue is the quality of the images and captions then that's what should be worked on, as opposed to being purged. Some screenshots are dark by default but they can be tweaked and improved. See this image and an improved version I uploaded later. And by the way, I was not supporting the 175px image size at all. I'm supporting 200/250px with captions, because without, they become bigger.
As for the captions, I never liked using them to make jokes. I don't think it's "our thing". I always try to make them the most informative as possible, and when that's not the case, I simply put in a short description of the scene/context. That's basically how images are captioned on encyclopedias. It doesn't automatically make them redundant. See Azula on Avatar Wiki. I wrote most of those captions and they exemplify how I think captions should be used. Without the first one, for example, a reader would have to read the entire section to find out why she is putting on a innocent look, whereas this way the caption may very well entice the reader to venture further. Note that those images are 200px. Can't you tell what's going on without enlarging it?
We could also improve the quality of images by moving on to PNG files. It's a practice we've adopted on the Avatar Wiki and YJ Wiki. PNG files have lossless data compression, resulting in a better resolution, free of compression artifacts when shrunk.
I'll try using a PNG image. See if that helps at all.
But I'm still not sold on captions. After all, is a page like Liara T'Soni really hurt or hindered by a lack of captions?
And I'm not really comfortable with color correction. I prefer to upload plain screenshots and present the images as the producers intended them to be seen, the way they look on TV, DVD, and Instant. The only time I would color correct would be for a specific mention in the background section, like in the image you showed me if the character was shrouded in darkness and color correcting could reveal who it was. Honestly, it looks weird to see the images you uploaded for The Spectacular Spider-Man after watching an episode.
But I'm still not sold on captions. After all, is a page like Liara T'Soni really hurt or hindered by a lack of captions?
Honestly, I'd like to know what's going on on those images without having to read the texts besides them.
And I'm not really comfortable with color correction. I prefer to upload plain screenshots and present the images as the producers intended them to be seen, the way they look on TV, DVD, and Instant.
It's not "color correction" per se, you're not changing green to blue; "it's "color enhancement" or "levels tweaking". Basically, when you capture a screenshot, the final result will vary depending on what kind of software you use. Different softwares have difference default settings, which will make different looking screencaps. The same also happens with TV sets. How do you define "images as the producers intended them to be seen"? Because I can also adjust the levels of my TV set as I deem fit, and on some TVs and even DVD players, some colors pop more than on others. So this is really a moot point.
This is definitely not an image "as the producers intended them to be seen". It's a screencapture from a youtube video ripped by someone who recorded it from a TV broadcast, which was undoubtedly affected by the settings of this person's equipment. I can grab a HD version for you without tinkering with it and you'll see how different it will look. So, where do we draw the line? We can't improve the lighting on images that vary according to screencapturing software anyway and just should use them as they come out regardless of the quality of its source, and accept them as how the producers intended them to be seen?
The only time I would color correct would be for a specific mention in the background section, like in the image you showed me if the character was shrouded in darkness and color correcting could reveal who it was.
That's not the case here. The tweaked version is closest to what he looks on screen that the untainted version. If he was shrouded in darkness, it would be impossible to unshroud him with simple half tones tweaking. That would require Photoshopping, which is not what I'm endorsing. This was one of those examples where different software renders different screenshots (the first one was uploaded by someone else; even if I hadn't enhanced the half tones, mine would still be different).
I'm using color correction in the broad sense of the term.
I don't adjust the colors on my laptop, desktop, iPod, phone, or the three televisions in my house. The images I see you upload are far more saturated than anything I see on my DVDs, cable, Wikipedia, Marvel Database, Marvel Animation Age, or real-life advertisements/products. With the occasional exception, those images have the same color scheme.
And actually I got the YouTube videos (screenshots and embedded videos) from Marvel's official channel. That's the original digital image direct from the source. That's about as "intended" as I can possibly think of getting. I don't link/download from other people's videos unless I can find no other source.
I certainly didn't saturate every image I uploaded. As for images from Wikipedia et al, I don't know where they were taken from (TV vs DVD) so I can't compare them with justice.
This is a capture from the HD episode. It is completely unchanged. No half tones or saturation changes. Doesn't it look different from yours? Which one do you think is closest to "intended"? So, the idea of tweaking yours, wouldn't really be an contravention of the producers' intentions.
I'm so sorry. I got busy with two jobs, school, and an internship and this conversation simply slipped my mind.
I'm fine with continuing the discussion if you want. We got a little sidetracked talking about color correction. I tried putting a JPG and PNG side by side but they looked exactly the same. Perhaps a smaller size for full screen images to accommodate their increased height. But I'm still not interested in captions. I've already seen several edit wars over captions, usually going from one lousy version to one equally bad or worse. And do we really need a picture of Doc Ock clearly looking sad with a caption saying he feels bad?
I've never been the kind to say thank you often, but I do appreciate your help around here.
I don't understand what you mean because I looked at it after you edited it and saw some links that shouldn't of been there so I changed them. To be honest I don't think links should be put there unless it's on the wiki. Thanks for letting me know. This info will come in handy while I'm making a page for "Blue Streak" from SMTNAS.
On the talk page where the voting was taking place, it was three for the Sept. 1st (Sif8forever, unregistered user, and you) and two for the Aug. 31st (Me and Redjustinforever after flipping). You yourself said that the Sept. 1st version was "really good" and "lets go with that." I went with the votes on that page.
I want you to look at the Shadowcat page, I changed alot of stuff around and I also want you to see if the Cyclops page for both Evolution and the Yost Universe meets you're standard for featured article.
Fine. Though I wish there were some images to help represent her personality and powers. Also, I would like a better picture for her relationship with Lance. The one you have is far away with a lot of empty space. Anything like a close up of a kiss, holding hands, looking lovingly at each other?
Also I forgot to say this before, if you wish to discuss improving a particular article you should use the talk page. I'll answer there plus you might get feedback from other users who don't check out my wall.