Talk:Antoine Hamilton

message: On 8 April 2019 administrator Howard Cheng (User:Howcheng) added a "lead too short|date=April 2019" template. At this time the lead consisted of two sentences and the At that time the article was 19483 bytes long, which, assuming UTF-32, makes about 5000 characters. The template displays as This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (April 2019) I should therefore have written this talk page section in April and we are now in October. The article is now 65013 bytes and 15975 characters of prose according to Page Statistics. I rewrote and extended the lead in the meantime and organised it in three sections as prescribed in MOS:LEADLENGTH for articles > 15000 characters. I am still quite new and inexperienced and feel too much involved to remove the template. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about the character count, as that's just a rule of thumb.  The question that needs to be answered is, does the introduction adequately summarize the article? If you feel that you have achieved that goal, then please feel free to remove the maintenance tag. Thanks for your efforts! —howcheng  {chat} 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Howcheng. Thanks a lot. With your permission I will remove the maintenance tag (I just learned the word).Johannes Schade (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too short

message: Dear Aintabli, thank you for your attention to the infobox image of this article. It showed the subject's face as a detail from his painted portrait, NPG 1467 in the National Portrait Gallery, London. You found it "creepy" (edit comment) and in your edit of the 14 April 2023 removed the zoom-in (done with CSS image crop) showing the entire portrait instead of the detail. I think the problem was that I used the low-resolution colour image from Wikimedia Commons (428x500), which did not well support the quite deep zoom-in. I have now replaced this low-resolution image with the high-resolution BW image (2400x2892) provided by Dcoetzee. Please have a look and tell me what you think. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Johannes Schade He wasn't specifically creepy, and it wasn't anything related to resolution. It's just that I couldn't think of much reason to have a close-up view of him in the infobox, when having the full portrait there would suffice and is usually the practice for any other person. For example, wouldn't it be awkward if we zoomed in on Charles III so that even his head didn't fit? But if you have a specific reason to zoom in on Hamilton's face in the infobox, I would be okay either way. Aintabli (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Aintabli, I have no particular reason for zooming-in, other than that I thought an ID-photo-like image would be more appropiate than a bust-length portrait. I first showed only the face but following your remarks zoomed out to include the begin of the shoulder, which indeed looks better. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image