Forum:Image size discussion

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Image size discussion

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Well, with the new move, figured I would finally put this up!

Across online wikis, enlarging images is a common practice designed to help editors and visitors alike see the images used throughout pages. Now that we are no longer bound to a certain size and shape to images, and since our transfer off FANDOM, it makes sense to enable editors to resize images in articles, especially given how small thumbnail images come across on this new site without any work. This also allows us to more easily see what is being depicted. It is perfectly fine with leaving image size up to the editor of the page for what works best. The alternative is keeping it so small you can't see it at all. Editoronthewiki ☎ 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Example

Main article: Luminosity discharger

Current policy

The large luminosity dischargers of the Bronze Dalek design, lighting up as a Dalek Executioner speaks (TV: Eve of the Daleks)

Although larger dischargers had actually appeared on Daleks throughout pre-Last Great Time War conflicts on certain occasions, (PROSE: Prisoner of the Daleks) the smaller luminosity design ultimately remained the primary design on casings across pre-War Dalek history. (TV: The Daleks, et. al) However, during the lead up to the War, the larger discharger model became more common place as part of Type VIII casing. (AUDIO: Ascension, Paradox of the Daleks et. al) During the Last Great Time War and beyond, including the New Dalek Paradigm, the large luminosity dischargers remained the common design for all Daleks. (TV: Dalek, Victory of the Daleks)

Ability to enlarge image

The large luminosity dischargers of the Bronze Dalek design, lighting up as a Dalek Executioner speaks (TV: Eve of the Daleks)

Although larger dischargers had actually appeared on Daleks throughout pre-Last Great Time War conflicts on certain occasions, (PROSE: Prisoner of the Daleks) the smaller luminosity design ultimately remained the primary design on casings across pre-War Dalek history. (TV: The Daleks, et. al) However, during the lead up to the War, the larger discharger model became more common place as part of Type VIII casing. (AUDIO: Ascension, Paradox of the Daleks et. al) During the Last Great Time War and beyond, including the New Dalek Paradigm, the large luminosity dischargers remained the common design for all Daleks. (TV: Dalek, Victory of the Daleks)

Discussion

Discussion here Editoronthewiki ☎ 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Could be reasonable, certainly with the current file size, but in general it could be a good idea. (Although if the default is increased, I'll probably just use that - I did on the Fandom site). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, most users with the choice tend to focus on 250px (what I used in Ability to enlarge image) or 300px because those often look best. So no reason to really regulate if users can find the best option. Additionally, if they need to deviate from those options to ensure that specific file looks best, why stop them if its for the good of the site Editoronthewiki ☎ 22:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am of course in favor of increasing our default file size to match the original site. But more importantly, while I do support larger images I think there should be some logic to think. Like - one oversized image per section? Does that make sense? OttselSpy25 ☎ 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems that average file size just updated given the example is now larger, still, the ability for users to choose what looks best is a valid discussion Editoronthewiki ☎ 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion

This thread ran out of steam quite early on due to the fix to default thumbnail size undercutting its raison d'être. User:Editoronthewiki pointed out that there was still a discussion to be had about omore freedom to resize images — but, it seems, that is not a discussion anyone was interested in actually having. Besides, I suspect it may pose difficulties for mobile view/different screen sizes, unlike a hard-coded default thumbnail; perhaps this is something to look into once more pressing design issues have been cleared up.

Regardless, such a discussion would best be had with a strong OP that didn't rely on now-out-of-date, and indeed de fact illegible, points about over-tiny default thumbnails. Closing this thread without prejudice as a failed proposal with no policy implications. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)