| Revision as of 18:50, 21 November 2006 editBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,892 edits Added Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:24, 21 November 2006 edit undoEricg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,809 editsm thumb sizingNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| See ] and ], which contain no restrictions forbidding sizing. - ] 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | See ] and ], which contain no restrictions forbidding sizing. - ] 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == thumb sizing == | |||
| Heh, I didn't even realize that you'd changed the size of that thumbnail in your original edit! I have a lot of stuff on my watchlist, and as stuff gets edited that has hardcoded thumbs I have been removing that sizing in ''most'' cases. As you point out, there are times where a given size is appropriate, but I find that those times are far and few between. And you're correct - the MoS doesn't explicitly ''forbid'' sizing of thumbnails, but my reading of it is that in most cases it is to be avoided. I'm changing the Tarhe thumbnail back to size-less, as I think we're both in agreement on this one. ] ] 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:24, 21 November 2006
NOTE: Most comments will be deleted by me after one week. Critical comments are welcome, but ones containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.
Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Thanks.
Sizing necessary
According to Manual of Style, after In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded., it then states:
- The current image markup language is more or less this:
The example it gives shows sizing as allowable.
]
Removing the sizing makes the pics too small to see the aircraft planely, er, plainly, at least on the old computer/small monitor/IE browser that I use. If the pics cannot be seen, what's the point placing them there? Yes, one can enlarge it, but it's not necessary if the size is decent to begin with (200-300 for most pics). I usually only enlarge if I want to see details, like th tail number, etc. Almost every article I have worked on in the past 2 months uses sizing. Should all the pic sizing on Wiki be removed? That's quite a job, with nearly 1,500,000 articles so far!
If there is a clearer, pre-existing policy on this forbidding sizing, I'll abide by it. -- BillCJ 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial and Misplaced Pages:Extended image syntax, which contain no restrictions forbidding sizing. - BillCJ 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thumb sizing
Heh, I didn't even realize that you'd changed the size of that thumbnail in your original edit! I have a lot of stuff on my watchlist, and as stuff gets edited that has hardcoded thumbs I have been removing that sizing in most cases. As you point out, there are times where a given size is appropriate, but I find that those times are far and few between. And you're correct - the MoS doesn't explicitly forbid sizing of thumbnails, but my reading of it is that in most cases it is to be avoided. I'm changing the Tarhe thumbnail back to size-less, as I think we're both in agreement on this one. ericg ✈ 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)