![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 4 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) to List of the Cenozoic life of Washington. The result of the discussion was moved. |
@ Abyssal: I see that the images are being grouped into tiny little mutiple image boxes. I have to say I'm not a fan of the results, which are hard to see images, seemingly large blocks of text, and massive amounts of white space in the list again. The simple one image per box format filled the article better and made the images much more accessible.-- Kev min § 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Kevmin:While working on these lists I've found it difficult to select and consistently apply upright scaling factors for images with different aspect ratios, so I decided to approach the problem mathematically. I decided that images with an aspect ratio of 1.5 should take the default scaling factor of 0.75 and developed two equations for images with narrower or wider aspect ratios. The curve for the tall, narrow images bottomed out around a scaling factor of 0.25 and the curve for wide images maxed out a bit below the maximum recommended image width in the manual of style. The new upright values often have weirdly precise decimal values because that's the output from the equations. Would you prefer a different approach? Abyssal ( talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been compiling lists of prehistoric life by location for a while now. This article series contains a huge variety of images in all shapes and sizes. I think the articles are best served by displaying wide images with a >0.75 scaling factor and tall images with a lesser one. To keep consistency across the article series I proposed a list of standards for which scaling factors I thought images of differing aspect ratios would be best displayed at and a list of examples. Kevmin, this article's other main contributor, disagrees and seems to support maintaining the default scale factor for all images independent of aspect ratio. I just thought I would open an RfC to solicit outside perspectives on the ideal scaling factor(s) for displaying the images in these articles. Abyssal ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
upright
for all the images, so that they are all the same width and form a neat column to the right of the names. To test this out, search and replace upright
to upright|alt=
and then preview without saving. --
John of Reading (
talk)
06:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)This series of lists has a substantial number of wikilinks, a few of which ( Actium, Agabus, Apion, Auleutes...) lead to unrelated topics with similar names to taxa. I've explored a few semi-automated ways of finding misdirected links but nothing I've found involves less effort than a manual scan. Does anyone have any bright ideas? Certes ( talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Greenwood2005":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of fauna of Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two different taxa named Castaneophyllum. species:Castaneophyllum Jones & Dilcher, 1988 is an extinct morphogenus for Castanaea-like leaves [1], while Phylogeny section of Platanus details subgenus Castaneophyllum Leroy, 1983 containing the anomalous P. kerrii. [2] [3]
References
Kev min § 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 4 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) to List of the Cenozoic life of Washington. The result of the discussion was moved. |
@ Abyssal: I see that the images are being grouped into tiny little mutiple image boxes. I have to say I'm not a fan of the results, which are hard to see images, seemingly large blocks of text, and massive amounts of white space in the list again. The simple one image per box format filled the article better and made the images much more accessible.-- Kev min § 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Kevmin:While working on these lists I've found it difficult to select and consistently apply upright scaling factors for images with different aspect ratios, so I decided to approach the problem mathematically. I decided that images with an aspect ratio of 1.5 should take the default scaling factor of 0.75 and developed two equations for images with narrower or wider aspect ratios. The curve for the tall, narrow images bottomed out around a scaling factor of 0.25 and the curve for wide images maxed out a bit below the maximum recommended image width in the manual of style. The new upright values often have weirdly precise decimal values because that's the output from the equations. Would you prefer a different approach? Abyssal ( talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I've been compiling lists of prehistoric life by location for a while now. This article series contains a huge variety of images in all shapes and sizes. I think the articles are best served by displaying wide images with a >0.75 scaling factor and tall images with a lesser one. To keep consistency across the article series I proposed a list of standards for which scaling factors I thought images of differing aspect ratios would be best displayed at and a list of examples. Kevmin, this article's other main contributor, disagrees and seems to support maintaining the default scale factor for all images independent of aspect ratio. I just thought I would open an RfC to solicit outside perspectives on the ideal scaling factor(s) for displaying the images in these articles. Abyssal ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
upright
for all the images, so that they are all the same width and form a neat column to the right of the names. To test this out, search and replace upright
to upright|alt=
and then preview without saving. --
John of Reading (
talk)
06:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)This series of lists has a substantial number of wikilinks, a few of which ( Actium, Agabus, Apion, Auleutes...) lead to unrelated topics with similar names to taxa. I've explored a few semi-automated ways of finding misdirected links but nothing I've found involves less effort than a manual scan. Does anyone have any bright ideas? Certes ( talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Greenwood2005":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of fauna of Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two different taxa named Castaneophyllum. species:Castaneophyllum Jones & Dilcher, 1988 is an extinct morphogenus for Castanaea-like leaves [1], while Phylogeny section of Platanus details subgenus Castaneophyllum Leroy, 1983 containing the anomalous P. kerrii. [2] [3]
References
Kev min § 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)