| Revision as of 23:46, 13 November 2006 editBorn2flie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,566 edits comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 21 November 2006 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,887 edits Added CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| ==To-Do lists== | |||
| ==Sizing necessary== | |||
| I just saw the (template {{tl|todo}}) on the ] page. Have you considered using the template on some of your | |||
| According to '']'', after ''In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded.'', it then states: | |||
| projects, such as on the ] page? Just asking. Seems like it might work for your purposes. | |||
| ::''The current image markup language is more or less this:'' | |||
| -- ] 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The example it gives shows sizing as allowable. | |||
| :I'll try and implement it. Thanks! (] 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> | |||
| 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. -- ] 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ] and ], which contain no restrictions forbidding sizing. - ] 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:50, 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)