This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BilCat (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 21 November 2006 (Added Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:50, 21 November 2006 by BilCat (talk | contribs) (Added Comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)