Forum:Small images in infoboxes: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Preferably a higher res image should be found. Practically though, it's a stylistic choice. 250px is the standard, but given the small amount of information on the article scaling the image up doesn't really add to the article. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC) | :Preferably a higher res image should be found. Practically though, it's a stylistic choice. 250px is the standard, but given the small amount of information on the article scaling the image up doesn't really add to the article. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Well, I'm still of the opinion that covers are ''not'' in-universe and shouldn't be used. This is precisely one of the reasons. Without hand-scanning to a ridiculously high resolution, you'll never get an image of "Vlad" (and it's not Vlad, it's the actor playing Vlad, let's remember) which can be at 250px. Let's remember, too, that pics actually need a minimum width of 292px, not 250px. 292 is the width of the wikia ads, and ultimately we do need to change our infoboxes over to that width (but that change is made MUCH easier if we get everything to 250, because the bot can just look for 250 and change it to 292. If they're all different widths, it makes the work of changeover harder.) '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 18:36, June 17, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:36, 17 June 2010
Index → Panopticon → Small images in infoboxes
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Minor aesthetic question here. It's standard practice to scale images down to 250px in, for example, Template:Infobox Individual. However, should that also apply to scaling up images which are smaller than 250px wide, despite the quality loss? Compare this and this. Thoughts? Rob T Firefly 00:10, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Preferably a higher res image should be found. Practically though, it's a stylistic choice. 250px is the standard, but given the small amount of information on the article scaling the image up doesn't really add to the article. --Tangerineduel 14:10, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm still of the opinion that covers are not in-universe and shouldn't be used. This is precisely one of the reasons. Without hand-scanning to a ridiculously high resolution, you'll never get an image of "Vlad" (and it's not Vlad, it's the actor playing Vlad, let's remember) which can be at 250px. Let's remember, too, that pics actually need a minimum width of 292px, not 250px. 292 is the width of the wikia ads, and ultimately we do need to change our infoboxes over to that width (but that change is made MUCH easier if we get everything to 250, because the bot can just look for 250 and change it to 292. If they're all different widths, it makes the work of changeover harder.) CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:36, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
