Talk:Caitlin Clark

{{ArticleHistory

|action1 = GAN

|action1date = 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

|action1link = Talk:Caitlin Clark/Archive 1#GA Review

|action1result = listed

|action1oldid = 1171017005

|action2 = FAC

|action2date = 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

|action2link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caitlin Clark/archive1

|action2result = promoted

|action2oldid = 1193850552

|topic = Sports and recreation

|currentstatus = FA

|maindate=January 22, 2025

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|blp=yes|listas=Clark, Caitlin|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=low }}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|IA=yes|IA-importance=}}

}}

{{ref ideas

| state=collapsed

| {{cite web|last=Salvador|first=Joseph|url=https://www.si.com/college/2023/04/02/kim-mulkey-caitlin-clark-talent-iowa-lsu|title=Kim Mulkey Says She Has 'Never' Seen a Player Like Caitlin Clark|work=Sports Illustrated|date=April 2, 2023|accessdate=April 2, 2023}}

| {{cite web|last=Voepel|first=M.A.|url=https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/36044994/even-loss-lsu-caitlin-clark-ncaa-tournament-march-madness-run-one-remember|title=Even in the loss, Caitlin Clark's NCAA tournament run was one to remember|publisher=ESPN|date=April 2, 2023|accessdate=April 2, 2023}}

| {{cite web|last=Lobo|first=Rebecca|url=https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39838971/caitlin-clark-iowa-scoring-record-legacy-college-career-ends|title=Growing the game is Caitlin Clark's greatest legacy|publisher=ESPN|date=April 7, 2024|accessdate=April 7, 2024}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(60d)

|archive = Talk:Caitlin Clark/Archive %(counter)d

|counter = 1

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{tan}}

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|minthreadsleft = 2

}}

Untitled Section

Article in need of update - she plays for Indiana Fever now, not Iowa Hawkeyes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:6511:3004:3171:34CD:3644:592B (talk • contribs)

Portrait images

I disagree with using the standard width for portrait images. There is a reason the "upright" parameter exists, and it is to scale images that do not need to depict as much detail. It doesn't make sense to me that portrait images should be the same width as landscape images and thus take up more space; why shouldn't they comprise approximately the same amount of pixels? The orientation should not be a factor. I think if you read MOS:IMAGES, you will find the general implied use case to be images with a portrait orientation should generally be scaled. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:It’s fairly standard (possibly particularly on FAs) to have the pictures at normal size. There’s nothing in the MOS that stresses that it has to be of any particular size, so why not have them so people can see them properly, rather than too small. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::If you would like images to be larger, you can set your account preferences so they appear larger. There is no reason these particular portrait images need to take up more overall pixels than the landscape images. There is no extra detail in the images that is being missed out on by slightly resizing them; they are all compositionally quite the same, with the same subject in similar setting and with similar lighting. It seems common sense to me that, in general, all images in an article should be the same approximate size, unless certain images lose detail when smaller. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::No thanks. It’s not necessarily about my personal preferences, but what’s best for the article and readers, so I think it’s best at a decent resolution. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)