Hello Babaying balikbayan! Welcome to Wikitravel. Thank you for your recent contributions to Ellora and Georgia (country). Really great job!
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.
If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. --Binbin (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2015 (EST)
- Thanks for welcoming me (again - grin). I decided to follow your advice... --Babaying balikbayan (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2015 (EST)
Hello, first of all awesome job on Fiji. I think it would be an awesome candidate to feature as February's off the beaten path article. Second, I'm happy to see such an initiative to implement the upright keyword on images, but I have to ask you to please code using px sizing instead. Unfortunately we haven't reached a decision on upright versus px yet so for the time being, px is the way to go. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out! IBcaldera (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (EST)
- I'm thoroughly confused by your comments above.
- I realise that you are very new here and have not had anyone to teach you the ropes, but as far as the MediaWiki software goes, the upright=factor syntax superseded the archaic forced pixel width many years ago.
- Even before that and going right back to MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width could be set in the preferences, so it was "recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300 pixels that can be set in the preferences)..."
- This isn't my initiative - it's simply the correct way to code if an image size greater (or less) than our current tiny thumbnail size is needed
- There are no drawbacks or disadvantage to using this method, whereas the disadvantages of forcing sizes on registered and logged on readers are outlined here, where the relevant advice is
- ..."syntax such as
thumb|300px simply sets a fixed image width, ignoring the user's base preference. In general, do not use
px without very good reason;
upright=scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible.
px is used, the resulting image should be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices in common use..."
- Why (after reading that) precisely do you think the correct image syntax should still not be used?
- While we should be able to specify different image sizes when necessary, I do think our policy and help pages should continue to discourage editors from forcing readers to view images at a particular size without good reason. Why wouldn't we want to give travellers the opportunity to choose the image size that is most useful to them, eg for their current device or internet connection? It's accepted as good practice, and I don't see why Wikitravel's readers should be given any less consideration. Where larger sized images are needed, I think we should generally encourage the use of "upright=factor" over exact sizes in pixels (as is made clear here), to allow travellers' preferences to affect those images too. --Babaying balikbayan (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2015 (EST)
- Thanks for your swift reply. This actually isn't about being new or being inconsiderate towards our users. The admin team and I are working on a few upcoming projects and we simply haven't had time to give the upright function the thorough review it deserves and px is working fine at the moment. That's it. We've warned other accounts about using the upright function so here's a formal note - it will count as vandalism and eventually lead to blocking your account. IBcaldera (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2015 (EST)