The DramaWiki software has been updated recently.
Check the community portal for details.

User talk:Lady Zhuge

From DramaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sponsored links

Jiang Jin(g) Fu

Hi Lady Zhuge. Sometime last year, you changed all the pinyin romanisations of 劲/jin to 'jing'. Therefore, Jiang Jing Fu's page had 'jing' as the pinyin version, since you stated the official pinyin for 劲 was 'jing'. I had my doubts, but you had a reliable source (the most reliable at the time) - so I was fine with you changing it. JJF's company recently opened an official forum/fansite for him, and the web address has it as jiangjinfu.net. Another fansite also romanises 蒋劲夫 as Jiang Jin Fu. I did a little research, and found that Chinese officially use 'jin' for all names that include the character 劲 (they use 'jing' for actions/shape rather than name). To prevent further misunderstandings, I was thinking that maybe you could change the page title (and other related details), or ask a mod. to change it from 'jing' to 'jin'.

Reponse

sorry, I didn't mean to write on your user page. Yea i notice the date, i just thought maybe the new change didn't register so maybe that why it was showing over and over again. anyhow, thanks for replying back. -- Muggle87

Li Xiao Ran

Hi Lady Zhuge! Did Li Xiao Ran get a plastic surgery in the past year? The new photo you uploaded for her looks nothing like her. If she still looks relatively the same as two years ago, then the image has WAY TOO MUCH photoshop done (which, for some reason, the Chinese agencies love to go overboard with). I've noticed that you uploaded couple pictures with the same issue, including Liu Shi Shi (she looks like a plastic doll). Please get a new profile image for her, even if it's not the "official" photo.

Our goal is to have profile images in which the actor/actress' faces are front and center with minimum photoshop changes. Photoshop is meant to enhance how they look, not change them to a different person. The important thing is for us to find an image that actually look like them on TV. Let me know if you have any question. Thanks for all the uploads!--WaterOB 02:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To each their own, I guess. You had replaced a perfectly fine picture of Liu Shi Shi completely unphotoshopped with one of her wearing a hat that distracted from her face and was too posy. That's why I replaced it with a recent one with some focus. Plastic-looking or not, she's still recognizable. If you can find a better picture that meets DramaWiki standards, then by all means, replace it. As for Li Xiao Ran, I don't think she's had plastic surgery done, but she does like to play with different styles (make-up, hair, etc.) - I came across the particular photo you're referring to in an article which highlighted some of them. Since this photo bothers you so much, I will go ahead and replace it. But don't go around reverting pictures based solely on your own views. --Lady Zhuge 07:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
For your information, I did not go around reverting images (except for Dai Chun Rong, my mouse click is quicker than my brain). I brought this issue to you for this precise reason - we have a difference of opinion. Li Xiao Ran's pic was obviously not acceptable because it didn't look like her, regardless how it fits with Dramawiki guideline. I brought up Liu Shi Shi to establish a pattern (a disturbing one for me at least) in your replacement photos, which is too much photoshop. You have since replaced them after our discussion. The new pix are infinitely better than the old ones, especially for Li Xiao Ran. While I like your most recent Liu Shi Shi pic in every way, I disagree with your definition of "too posy" for mine. In my photo, her whole face is in full view as oppose to a profile view in the original. Despite a few strands of hair around her chin, there is nothing blocking her face. To me, that is the most important criteria when I choose my replacement. If I had found your most recent replacement, I would've use that one instead of mine. Since I didn't, I used the best one I saw. While we are on the issue of posing, would you take a second look at Shi Lei? IMO, the original was better than the replacement. --WaterOB 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Li Xiao Ran's picture may not look like her at first glance, but it's definitely her same wide lips and nose, but different eye makeup. Just because you don't recognize her doesn't mean it's not her. As for your picture of Liu Shi Shi, again, difference of opinion - I still feel that her hat and hand pose distract from her face (and what's up with the completely nonsensical file name?). And please google images of "profile view." Using that term to describe the original is clearly a gross exaggeration. Since I replaced Shi Lei's photo, of course it's because I feel it's an improvement over the previous upload. I never really liked the hat. This one's a clear head shot even if it's not "straight on." But I think I've found another picture that will appease the both of us. While I don't mind discussing choice of imagery with you, I don't appreciate your recent nit-picking of what feels like my every upload. Based on some of your uploads, I'm not of the opinion that you're the most qualified. If you can find better pictures, please just replace them with a comment if you feel that it's appropriate. Discussions with the bottom line being differences in personal opinion only detract from useful contributions to this site. --Lady Zhuge 23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if I've unintentionally offended you and caused you to go on the defensive. I thought this was just a discussion between two editors about image selection. I did not mean to nit-pick. It's just that I was speaking to "you," so I only used "your" pix as examples. I could've easily used other people's pix if that made you feel less threatened. Just to clarify some misunderstandings: (1) I didn't mean profile view, I meant 3/4 face as oppose to full face. (2) I'm not arguing that the pic wasn't Li Xiao Ran. I'm arguing that she is "unrecognizable" in that pic to casual viewers (please don't make me look carefully at a pic to find resemblance). (3) As long as hat and hands are not blocking the face or cast a shadow, it's not distraction for me. Your objection is a matter of opinion. (4) Which of my uploads made you question my qualification as an editor? I've always try my best not to upload photo for the sake of uploading photo. I only replace a photo if the new one is better than the old one or fits more closely to Dramawiki guideline. --WaterOB 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Liu Shi Shi: Her ponytail was parted to one side, so perhaps that created the illusion of a more angled shot than it really was. IMO, the picture you uploaded in its place was not in good taste (hat, hair, head tilt, hand), which is why I replaced it. It reminded me of one of the "bad" examples posted under the guidelines for image selection and usage. Although the hand doesn't cast a shadow or cover the face, it's one of several issues which distracted from the face. Of course my objection is a matter of opinion, but it's no different than your objections to my uploads. I also do not like to make a habit of replacing photos simply for the sake of replacing them. But while we're on the topic of images and replacement, please stop uploading ones with third party logos like you did recently for Jin Guo Da Jiang Jun. I've had to replace several of your other poster uploads due to the same issue as well. --Lady Zhuge 07:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I could make the same argument with her hair (and that is in the guideline). But let's just agree that I will stop uploading profile image with hat and/or logo, and you stop uploading 3/4 face plastic doll?--WaterOB 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh right, because your upload didn't have any hair covering her face. Oh wait, but it did. Please just stick to the facts and not your own exaggerated opinions. Other than that, it's a deal. --Lady Zhuge 23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Switching from thumbed to framed images

Hi, I noticed that you've replaced several artist images with smaller 200px sized ones to display them framed (unresized). Please keep the images in artist articles thumbed. Just imagine what happens if someone overwrites your perfectly-200px-sized framed images with much larger ones. IMHO, it's the best to use just the "thumb" option without any size enforcement for artist images. Btw, the thumb option defaults to 180px for larger images, which is just perfect. By using thumbed images you don't need to edit the article again whenever an image is overwritten just to keep the page layout. Also, the once generated thumbnails are kept stored on the server and they are often much better compressed than the originally uploaded images. I see no advantage in switching to framed images. --MoerkJ talk 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the current guidelines on image selection and usage: Attempt to edit the image to the correct size before uploading to DramaWiki. Using the thumb parameter requires additional processing by the MediaWiki software, and also uses up additional disk space to store the cached version(s) of the re-sized image. If this is not accurate, then please update the guidelines. I was only trying to help save this site space and reduce the need for additional processing. --Lady Zhuge 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. Some of your reuploads and/or image-related edits didn't seem necessary to me and I just wanted to save you from wasting efforts on unimportant matters. I'll change that paragraph, because it seems to give a wrong impression. Actually, the wiki has to generate a lot of thumbnails for galleries and for file description pages anyway. It is no big deal because the thumbnails have to be generated just once and usually they are often better optimized (compression) than user-generated files. The thumbnails can help saving resources (bandwith) with every new pageview. Chosing the optimal file format, proper image cropping, and adding upload descriptions or file comments, marking unused files for deletion is also very helpful. Unfortunately, by replacing the images with new ones you don't free any resources because the wiki keeps all old images. So, you can still access and revert the old files on their description pages until they "deleted". Guess what happens when an admin deletes images (or image revisions)... right the files get still not deleted but moved to a disk folder from where they can be undeleted... Very funny. You don't have to worry about these technical details. ;) --MoerkJ talk 08:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation and concern. Just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I haven’t reuploaded any images just to switch the view parameter from “thumb” to “frame.” I’ve cropped some images that I thought included too much of the lower body/wasted space and reuploaded them – to me this is not a trivial matter because the less “bad” imagery on this site, the better in terms of setting examples for new contributors. To me, utilizing only the “thumb” parameter without specifying a size makes a large image appear too small, which is why I’ve been addending them to 200px. For any new artist images I upload, I always crop them to a proper viewing size and utilize the “frame” parameter as recommended by the guidelines. Also, sometimes the best available pictures are so small that using the “thumb” parameter will result in scaling them to a larger size than they actually are, and therefore unclear/jaggedy-looking images. --Lady Zhuge 09:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point and appreciate the improvement of the images. I basically wanted to point out the advantages of thumbed images and potential disadvantages of framed ones. IMHO, your personal formatting preferences shouldn't limit the quality (image resolution) of your uploads. Btw, if 180px is too small for you, then you can change the thumbnail default size in the file section of your user preferences to 200px or more. Again, thanks for your contributions. --MoerkJ talk 00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent changes to artist images

I noticed you changed the picture for Cecilia Cheung, Ady An, and Chen Qiao En. I feel the old pictures are better than the new ones. Your new pictures have a better view of the face, but the old pictures looked "prettier" without compromising much. The new picture of Ady An is the one I have the most problem with. She looked much prettier in the old one and didn't have the light's reflection on her face. What do you think? Thanks. --GFS 11:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Prettier" is subjective. Earlier another editor complained about some artist images looking too fake due to photoshop or the like and prefers more natural images even though the artist may not look as good in those pictures, so it's hard to please everyone. I think the newer images for these three artists look better. Cecilia had a glazed over look in the one you uploaded (maybe due to the eye makeup?) As for Ady, the previous image showed too much body and her breast area looked awkward. For Joe, the new is less of an "angled" shot and doesn't have her hand in there. Also, in all the new ones, there's more focus on the face, which is preferred. --Lady Zhuge 14:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick and thorough reply. I understand where you're coming from and it's hard to please everyone, so let's keep the images you uploaded. Also, thanks for your generous contributions to DramaWiki. --GFS 07:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hi, I just reverted your recent changes of Wang Yi (1987 actress) and Liu Tao (actor). Please note the changed order of tv show entries on artist pages (the optional character name comes last). Also we have been using the {{for}} template to have a consistent look on many pages since 2008. The template contains all neccesary styling and shouldn't be wrapped in html code to force a differnt layout. If you want a different look for our hatnote messages, you should propose a change on the templates talkpage. Thanks. --MoerkJ talk 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why were the guidelines updated to have the optional character names come last? Chinese actor/actress pages currently do not follow this layout and they're, for the most part, the only pages with added character names. Can I propose that the artist page guidelines be changed to fit the layout of existing pages and not the other way around? As for the {{for}} template, I was only centering the template message. IMO, centering makes it easier to see, as reflected by many of the other template messages (upcoming, airing, etc.) which are not all the way off to one side. --Lady Zhuge 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I know that a lot of artist pages use a different order (Japanese and Chinese artists mostly) and that you and others are "not amused" about that change. The ordering isn't important for the readers and there is no need to explicitly start changing it. But it makes certain automated maintenance operations easier if we keep the drama title and channel/year info grouped together. Also, in my opinion, the "new" ordering makes more sense in a logical way, because the network/year info belongs to the drama/movie title and not to the character. Maybe this order will make even more sense to you if you imagine all data stored in tables instead of lists. Then you would store optional information in the last column. This ordering issue also affects the movie listings on artist pages. Actually, before I made the change in the guide there was no mention at all to list any character names. I noticed that on many (mostly Korean) artist pages for example the character info was frequently removed, because either it was considered redundant or it looked inconstistent, incomplete, weird or even unprofessional to list the character names for only a few dramas and not for all (or at least most) dramas. I think it would be a good idea to change the formatting step by step whenever we edit artist pages.
Regarding the {{for}} template.. Templates are used in wikis to reduce redunancy, hide complexity, and to define a generic text formatting. The actual formatting (e.g. centered text or info box) and styling is defined inside the template code and in style sheets like Common.css. This way the look of many pages can be easily changed by editing just one template. At the moment {{for}} produces just an indented italic text message, similar to the "hatnotes" on Wikipedia. But it may change into a complex styled (centered) textbox in the future. It shouldn't really matter and it shouldn't affect your editing and the usage of the template. This is a technical issue and not a matter of personal personal taste. Sooner or later all disambiguating messages ("hatnotes") in the articles may be changed to use {{for}} or other templates just for technical reasons. --MoerkJ talk 13:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Advertisements