thewayneiac wrote:What I didn't like about yours was that it didn't have any captions.

Bollocks. How do you think you can get away with saying that when all the previous versions of the article are accessible to anyone?

Here's the current page at the time of this post - http://evageeks.org/FGP/index.php?title=Rei_and_the_Moon&oldid=22620

Here's the page as it was three months ago as talked about in the opening post of this thread - http://evageeks.org/FGP/index.php?title=Rei_and_the_Moon&oldid=15032 - all the images have captions in that edit (18 Feb), the current article even uses the same captions for most of the images as the 18 Feb page. 8 hours later on the same day you made this edit -
http://evageeks.org/FGP/index.php?title=Rei_and_the_Moon&oldid=15034 with the comment -

[code:1]Argh! Please don't put all the images at the bottom.[/code:1]
and later again with the comment -

[code:1]Eliminated the "Gallery Effect".[/code:1]

thewayneiac wrote:I would certain have no objection to altering the MontageBox to put the captions directly under the images, instead of in their own section. This would make it similar to Dr. Nick's example.

Or the example above which you scuttled ASAP, only for your good self to come back 3 months later with practically the same page and you proclaim -

thewayneiac wrote:The current system was an improvement

- when, as previously posted here - http://evageeks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=165266#165266 - all you've done is returned the page as it was.

thewayneiac wrote:Ok, take a look at the page and tell me what you think.

It looks a mess.

Hmm...it seems that I was confusing two of your versions of the page. This [url]http://evageeks.org/FGP/index.php?title=Rei_and_the_Moon&oldid=16038[/url], from March 26, is the one I had in mind when I said that it had no captions. The images do, however, have the advantage of being relatively close to the part of the article that describes them. This one, from Feb. 18, which does have captions, [url]http://evageeks.org/FGP/index.php?title=Rei_and_the_Moon&oldid=15032[/url] is the "pictures at the bottom" version that I felt left the images too remote from the matching text. This is the less satisfactory of the two. After three months my mind had combined the two of them. Looking it over, I could have probably satisfied my objections by just adding captions to the captionless version. That would have solved my "no captions" objection, and this version had already remedied my "proximity" objection. I reverted it primarilly because at that time I was still convinced that I could get embeded images to behave the way I wanted them to, but given the limits of Wikimedia, I soon learned that this isn't possible. Thus I ended up with something close to your March 26 version.

Still, I think that the current version is the best one yet. I like the banner that OMF's template places over the image template, and in my opinion, the "wakey" images warrant their own box. Could you explain why you think it "looks a mess"?

Thanks, Wayne, the new system looks much better. Larger galleries would look even neater if the thumbnails could be confined inside uniformly-sized boxes like they are in Dramatica, but it doesn't look like our method allows that because it places the captions inside the boxes (I don't have a Dramatica account, so I can't compare the code). Also, that might cause some of the bigger images like the Daicon montage to shrink too much.

thewayneiac wrote:Could you explain why you think it "looks a mess"?

Title under Appearances is ugly and is unnecessary.
Text sitting right on top of each montage box is ugly.
Banner of montage box is ugly.
Images are too big and are not universally sized.
The text to the right of some of the images, which surrounded by blank space, looks ugly.
The entire Appearances bit doesn't really make sense and jumps all over the place - this includes the parts I wrote.

Zuggy wrote:

thewayneiac wrote:Could you explain why you think it "looks a mess"?

Title under Appearances is ugly and is unnecessary.

I think you are exagerating, but yes it could have looked better. I eliminated the double title.

Text sitting right on top of each montage box is ugly.

I had noticed that myself, but didn't think it was bad enough to bother fixing. I've now added a break to put one more line of space between the text and the box.

Banner of montage box is ugly.

I don't agree; I think it looks really spiffy.

Images are too big and are not universally sized.

Image size is a matter of taste, I suppose. As for being sized universally, they were all at 200px, so I suppose that they came from multiple sources and were at different resolutions. I fiddled with the number of pixels a little, but with limited success. Sometimes shrinking them turned a one line caption into a two line caption, undoing all my work.

The text to the right of some of the images, which surrounded by blank space, looks ugly.

That happened when we put the images into image templates to keep them from stepping on the text. The Rei/Armisael image is now the only non-montage image left, so I've tried putting it back as an embedded image with a minimum of white space. It looks fine in explorer, but if the image is overlaping the text in Firefox we'll have to put back the template. How does it look to you?

The entire Appearances bit doesn't really make sense and jumps all over the place - this includes the parts I wrote.

It did sort of meander around, didn't it? I've created seperate sections for:

1. The Rei/Moon images
2. Other Moon info directly applicable to Eva
3. The strictly mythological material.

The article's progression seems to bit a bit more logical now.

Look over the current version and tell me your thoughts.