YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:How to add an image

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

print version of images[edit]

So, one thing that's probably important to note is the relationship between thumbnails and print versions of the guide. What happens with those? What's the best procedure for making images printable? --Evan 14:50, 9 Aug 2004 (EDT)

This is something I thought about when standing in the rain and waiting for the bus. It would be great, if we could have the high resolution images instead of thumbnails when the "Printable version" link is selected. We could still use the width and height parameters in the <img> tag to set the size of the image on screen, but in print I think most browsers will use the full resolution of the image, even though the height and width parameters have been used to scale it down on the screen. -- Trsqr 11:10, 23 October 2006 (EDT)

external image inclusion[edit]

Is it possible to include images from external servers by a <img src="http.."> tag? Currently i work on a template for automatic map inclusion (for german wikitravel), it seems not to work, i guess the substitution of the parameters in '{{{ }}}' works only in wikilink syntax like '[link]'etc.?! FlorianKonnertz 11:38, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)

No, it's not possible. Jpatokal 11:48, 7 Aug 2005 (EDT)

image sharing between languages[edit]

Is it possible to share images between different language editions of Wikitravel, and how is it done? It would be much easier to just have (say) Image:en:whatever.png instead of manually copying them. JSt 10:16, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)

No, it's not possible. It's been discussed before though [1] [2] and will hopefully be implemented soon. Jpatokal 23:03, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
It's now possible; see Shared:Main Page. --Evan 11:17, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Is there any easy way to move image from en: to shared, so it can be reused in language version? --JanSlupski 14:43, 6 April 2006 (EDT)
As far as I can tell, no. It'd be pretty handy, though. --Evan 18:19, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

Error Messages[edit]

I keep getting errors when trying to upload some images. It says "The file you uploaded seems to be empty." I know the file is there, and I'm able to upload other images from the same folder. I have this problem with multiple images. Somebody please help. Tennreb 10:41, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

There seems to be a hard upper limit to the size of the files you can upload — I've gotten this when uploading file over a couple of megs. Jpatokal 10:48, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yeah, it was set to 2Mb for PHP. I've reset it trepidatiously to 8Mb so even folks with super-fancy cameras can upload their original files. I'm wondering, though: doesn't that seem awfully large? --Evan 11:16, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Not if you actually want to print out the image. Jpatokal 11:33, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

What about non-square Images ??[edit]

The HELP says: to define the PIX size. BUT which size? The horizontal or vertical pixel size??

Sorry! Confused :-) TerryKing 13:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Horizontal. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 20:53, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep... if you put 250px, then it will automatically adjust the horizontal:
[[Image:example.jpg|thumb|250px|Description of image]]
Clearer? – cacahuate talk 22:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

.SVG Images[edit]

Am I correct that .svg images will not display? OldPine 15:28, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Correct. →shared:Tech:Render_SVG_images_as_PNG_images --Peter Talk 00:45, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Where are the images?[edit]

Swept in from the pub:

Since a few days images are no longer shown in WT articles on my PC, just the caption and nothing more. Clicking on the link does not bring up the image either. This is also the case in WT de and nl (the only ones I checked). It cannot be my browser set-up, because in Wikipedia and in Wikivoyage and in other Wikis the problem does not occur. Just WT. Has anyone else got this problem? Dezwitser 03:27, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I used to have the exact same problem - images everywhere else but not at Wikitravel. It was quite some time ago, but I'm pretty sure I had to change my firewall settings. Good luck! -- Fastestdogever 09:30, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks. The firewall was not the problem, but your hint gave me an idea. It was the NoScript add-on. Why WT of all wikis needs scripts to display images is beyond me - must be the commercial nature of this otherwise excellent site! Dezwitser 20:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)


Swept in from the pub:

Hi, my photography skills have always been scarey! I am looking for some photos for San Francisco and I've already looked at wikimedia commons and on the image resource page here [3]. Does anyone know of any other copyright compatible sites where I could get more photos. And if this is a real pub...I'll have an apple-martini please as well! :) Thanks Asterix 13:57, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

On Flickr... you can search for compatible pics fairly easily there... go to Advanced search, type in san francisco, and at the bottom make sure to check all 3 of the boxes in the Creative Commons section (otherwise they may not be compatible). Or search for other specific things like "Golden Gate Bridge" or whatever. Good luck! – cacahuate talk 18:25, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that's much better - thanks Asterix 15:45, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

panorama photos[edit]

There is no definition on how to include panorama pictures (those which are very wide). I've seen pictures with a horizontal scroll bar but cannot find them right now. I tried to find markup by looking up references to panorama images but without success. I uploaded Malta_Three_Cities_from_Upper_Barakka_Gardens.jpg and would like to include it but need help with the markup. hscholz 22:59 12 Aug 2008 (EST)

Adding a photo to an article - HELP ![edit]

Swept in from the Pub:

I am new to Wikitravel and to wiki in general. I have looked high and low (and in between) on Wikitravel and on Shared and on Google and I cannot find anywhere a step by step, user-friendly plain English guide for how to get one of my photos which is already on Shared into an article. If I overlooked it, I apologize in advance. I have figured out that I can copy the script for a photo already in an article, replace the photo's name with the name of my photo and then paste that revised script somplace in the Article. This method works but it is not exactly elegant. thanks. 18:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Wikitravel:How to add an image is a good place to look, but it's really quite simple, just copy this: [[Image:filename of image|thumb|description of image]] and insert the image name from Shared and the description for the image. And then use that page I linked to figure out further details, like figuring out which side of the page you want it on, how big you want to image to be, etc. PerryPlanet 20:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
If you want elegant, you will need to create a user and log in. Once you have done that, click on preferences in the top right, select the editing tab and enable Show edit toolbar (JavaScript). This will give you a toolbar that simplify a couple of functions, one of them being the ability to add an image. Unfortunately our version does not cater for the additional image options. Example on the right. --Nick 02:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm having problems adding two particular photos to a wikitravel page. I've used the correct format, but instead of the thumbnail appearing, only the title of the photo, and it's description appear. I've tried re-saving these photos, I haven't had any problems before. [[Image:Monet_House.JPG|thumb|250px|Monet's House, Giverny]] "Spircle 16:57, 13 October 2008 (EDT)"

I have already uploaded the image file to Wikitravel shared, I can view it when I look at my contributions, but linking it to a wikitravel site won't work. I've re-saved and re-uploaded it a couple of times, but this hasn't worked. The photo was a digital image taken in 2001, I can't see anything unusual about the format that the file is in. Also, what is bugging me is that the files appear correctly in the gallery of recent images. Any suggestions would be welcome. Spircle 09:25, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Might the problem be related to this problem? Tarr3n 07:24, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Monet's House, Giverny
The wiki is case sensitive, try [[Image:Monet_House.jpg|thumb|250px|Monet's House, Giverny]] rather than [[Image:Monet_House.JPG|thumb|250px|Monet's House, Giverny]], note the lowercase jpg. You image displays on the right next to this comment. --Nick 08:26, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Eureka!!! It worked! Many thanksSpircle 08:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Glad to be of help. You might want to add a license tag to Image:Monet_-_The_Waterlily_Pond_sm.jpg to avoid it being deleted. Photos of paintings may violate copyright, but in this case I think copyright has already expired (70+ years since his death) so it should be in the public domain. Adding {{PD}} to the image description page should do it. --Nick 09:15, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Help: namespace?[edit]

I wonder why this article is not in Help: namespace. Any special reasons for that? --DenisYurkin 17:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I get the impression that we for some reason decided to eschew the help namespace, and keep all help & policy articles together in the Wikitravel namespace. There are only three articles currently in the Help namespace [4] and all three are redirects to Wikitravel namespace articles. --Peter Talk 19:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I see now. I meant that this article should be probably placed into Wikitravel:Namespace index#Help!, but I'm not sure now. Actually, the whole "Help!" section there seem bit out the system, if considered against other sections in the list. --DenisYurkin 18:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)

this article vs shared:Image_policy[edit]

Am I right that shared:Image_policy guides what images should/not be uploaded, while this article guides how upload images should be inserted into (invoked from; referred from) article text?

If so, how can we emphasize that in article names and in their first paragraph?

As for me, it always takes an extra minute or two to find which info belongs where. My vote for making things easier. --DenisYurkin 17:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Problem with right alignment for images[edit]

moved from pub:

I just noticed something strange about the images on some pages. Sometimes they straddle the right margin, obscuring the advertisements in the margin. Can anyone shed some light on that subject? Jonathan 784 23:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Can I link automagically to an image on Commons?[edit] on Wikipedia? --Una Smith 12:10, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

No, wikitravel is unaffiliated with the Wikimedia foundation, but since all the images have been re-licensed under Creative Commons you can upload them here if you want. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 12:27, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
That's a drag, especially since Wikitravel Share seems at present unable to recognize my user name. I did finally find on Wikitravel where it says I cannot use Commons images directly. But it appears Wikipedia does not use them directly either. --Una Smith 17:24, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Every WT subsite uses its own separate user database, so if you haven't specifically registered an account on Shared in addition to your account here on :en, that might be the problem. - Dguillaime 17:42, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, we're old fashioned, or just technically impaired, or whatever :) it runs on a separate server, so creating a new account or using OpenID is necessary. All is not lost though, just go the OpenID login page and type in;, and you'll be logged in with your wikitravel account. Go to the preferences, and ask it to remember your log-in, and you won't have to think about it ever again. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:49, 24 September 2009 (EDT)


An example of how left-aligned images can squeeze the text unpredictably in some browsers.

It is a long-established practice to always align images on the right side, for reasons including ease of skimming for listings, and because having a combination of right and left-aligned images breaks the text up in unpredictable ways depending on the browser and settings one uses. However, this practice has not been clearly enshrined in policy so far, except for an 3-year-old orphaned and forgotten page at Wikitravel:Images in articles which was never merged here. As stated on this current page, there is only an indirect hint that things should go on the right, since it expresses a clear preference for thumbs which automatically go on the right. However, the issue continues to spark contention from a few users, including recent discussions at Bali, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Epcot. I think it's time to tighten up our policy, so we don't continue to waste time discussing this here and there. I come down firmly on the side of convention here, as I have seen too many instances where left-aligned images cause format and skimmability problems, like the example at right. Texugo 22:39, 8 March 2010 (EST)

I agree—our established practice makes sense for the reasons Texugo makes. Left-aligned images make it harder to skim articles by running down the left side of the page for headers and names. They also break up text in unpredictable ways given the different display resolutions and screen sizes used by different Wikitravelers. One could argue that the same goes for right-aligned images, but the point is that throwing left-aligned images into the mix just makes the formatting issues all the more unpredictable and messy. --Peter Talk 00:19, 9 March 2010 (EST)
I am fairly ambivalent on this one. The ease of skimming argument carrries no ice with me, but I can see why right and left aligning might cause more browser display problems than just right aligning everything. So if I had to side 51% one way it would be in favour of right aligned only.--Burmesedays 02:33, 9 March 2010 (EST)

As I said on Talk:Walt Disney World/Epcot: "It's a basic principle of graphic design -- don't cluster all your non-text elements in the same place. With the photo on the right, it's shoved up against the infobox and the stave church photo. All-right text looks amateurish and boring; it's always a good idea to provide some variety in placement of elements." LtPowers 08:04, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Users dont know to click on thumbnails for larger image[edit]

Hi all, I have had comments and complaints by a number of users that they didnt know that they could click on an image to get a larger version. This is particularly relevant with maps, where there is usualy a dense amount of information, barely legible at the default display size. Has anyone else had this problem? I am considering adding a "Click to expand" note to the captions of my maps. I know that the little paired rectangle icon is supposed to suggest this but it is clear that a significant number of users don't recognise the hint, and it may be necessary to resort to less subtle methods. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:35, 12 January 2011 (EST)

I don't like cluttering the captions more; clicking to make an image bigger is a basic feature on many web sites and I'm having trouble with the idea that any more than a fraction of our readers struggle with the concept. LtPowers 11:28, 12 January 2011 (EST)
I agree with LtPowers. I'd hate to clutter things up with a text message repeated thousands of times across the site in every image. It should be common sense to at least try clicking on the image. Texugo 11:47, 12 January 2011 (EST)
I was only considering the note on map captions. Maps are frequently too small to be directly useful at thumbnail resolution, and are often very important information sources. Other illustrations on the other hand, are mostly decorative, so if the user doesnt know how to expand them, little utility is lost. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:46, 14 January 2011 (EST)

I agree that it is inherently undesirable to add the clutter of text messages, however there remains the problem that common sense is not that common, and that I have been told on several occasions that users have not realised that they can click on images for a larger version. Unless this is an idiosyncracy restricted to people visiting Cape Town, which seems unlikely, I would guess that there are a large number of users throughout the world, who are missing useful information because it is not obvious that it exists. The question then becomes, do we write these users off as not worthy of help, or do we look into some way of making the fact of the clickable image obvious to a wider range of people. Having some idea of the frequency of the problem would be useful, hence my query. I will go over to Wikipedia and make enquiries. Who knows, they may have some useful information. I wont make any changes at this stage. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 03:46, 14 January 2011 (EST)

The easy solution would be a change from the corporate overlords, but that's unlikely, so it might possibly make sense to start using a template for map thumbnails, something that would lend itself nicely to mass updates. That would be a lot of work, so let's see what you find at Wikipedia before giving it any serious consideration. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:26, 14 January 2011 (EST)
I don't think everyone agrees with me on this, but I hold that maps should be readable without having to click through—if the thumbnail has to be big, let it be big. This isn't so much because people won't know to click through (although that is a valid reason too), but rather that it makes printing our guides so much more simple, especially for travelers in internet cafes, with limited software and clunky printing procedures at their disposal. --Peter Talk 11:43, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Agree with Peter, maps are absolutely crucial for the travel guide and I think should be readable from the get-go. Sure they can be clicked on to enlarge, but this should only make it easier, it shouldn't be mandatory to read it I think. --globe-trotter 20:24, 14 January 2011 (EST)
I think it would be nice, but realistically there is too much information on our maps to make them readable without clicking on them. The Chicago/Loop map is difficult to read from the page, but it was great to use to get around when printed out on its own. Can we have all of that information on the map and somehow make it easy to navigate without printing the map separately?
Most people who have issues with knowing to click the map are simply computer illiterate. It's a very basic thing for anyone used to the internet, and for those people that don't know, I don't think it is Wikitravel's job to teach them how to use the internet. ChubbyWimbus 22:32, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Within our realm, we could possibly make the caption itself clickable for a larger image. The software/browser usually make it more obvious when text can be clicked.. --inas 22:37, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Regarding a few comments above about the "obviousness" of clicking on an image for a larger version, having sat through a number of usability sessions for various web sites in the past few years I can guarantee you that there is a very, very large percentage of the population (likely > 50%) that regular users of this site would consider "computer illiterate". Wikitravel's usability is not the greatest, so if there are some easy ways to make things simpler and more obvious then I think we should consider them. Peter's suggestion of standardizing on larger thumbnails for maps sounds good to me, and if there is an easy way to update map thumbnail captions to improve usability then it is probably also worth considering. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:06, 14 January 2011 (EST)
I agree with ChubbyWimbus that there can be too much information on a map to be readable at any reasonable thumbnail size, and with Peter that maps are critical information sources. However I disagree that it is not Wikitravel's job to teach people how to use Wikitravel. Ryan's figures for proportion of "computer illiterate" indicate that this may be a bigger problem than even I expected, so I am in favour of something that will make the site significantly more user-freindly, even if it looks a little clunky. Inas' suggestion of making the caption a link to the full size map looks promising as relatively un-clunky, so I am going to experiment on my scratchpad. The disadvantage is that it takes a little effort, which becomes a lot of effort when spread over hundreds of maps. The advantage is you can send people directly to the highest resolution version. So far, have not found anything useful on Wikipedia. and there have been no responses to my question at the Village Pump (miscellaneous). • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 06:06, 15 January 2011 (EST)

This is the result of my experiments. It works, but does anyone know of a simpler syntax that will do the same? • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 07:37, 15 January 2011 (EST)
We should not be linking directly to the high-res version of images, as it obscures the attribution information that is on the image description page. LtPowers 10:15, 15 January 2011 (EST)
The original "click on image" link still gets you to the image description page. The "click on caption" link just takes you directly to the highest resolution available. No attribution information is lost, all that changes is that there is an easy, fairly obvious route to a bigger picture. This has to my mind two advantages to compensate for the extra work involved.
  1. The "internet illiterates" or possibly more PC "internet procedurally challenged" have a better chance of discovering that there is a bigger picture, and
  2. The rest of us clever buggers can get to the biggest picture one click sooner, and at the speed that WT has been downloading to me today, that is not an insignificant gain.
Are you concerned about the possibility of a person ignorant of the image description page, clicking on the caption link and copying the picture, then using it without attribution? • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 10:55, 15 January 2011 (EST)
To an extent, but we also implicitly guarantee content creators that their attribution (required under CC-BY) will be readily accessible from wherever we display the image. (On Wikipedia, they've interpreted that to mean one click. Here, it's two due to the unfortunate technical issue of not being able to show the image page from shared without an extra click.) That's not the case if we display the full-size image without first passing through the image description page. LtPowers 15:57, 15 January 2011 (EST)
OK, that is fair comment. It does not appear to be possible to get directly to the image description page from the high resolution image. I wonder why the full resolution image is not on the image description page. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:07, 16 January 2011 (EST)
I do like this idea of linking to the image through the caption - I'm not so crazy about increasing the size of the image on the page, mainly because if there are internet illiterates still out there, there are also dial-up users (dun-dun-DUUNNN!!!). PerryPlanet Talk 18:55, 15 January 2011 (EST)
Also fair comment. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:07, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Note that while estimates are that 10% of internet users are still on dial-up in the US (and the US lags behind many English-speaking countries), if there's a significant advantage to using larger thumbnails for the other 90% then it's important not lessen usability for that 90%. In the past 2-4 years it seems that most companies have begun optimizing for the broadband use-case with the assumption that most people who are still on dial-up are either not very active online or else have accepted a degraded online experience. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:16, 16 January 2011 (EST)
This may be so, but what do people use when travelling? WT should work for the person who is away from home and needs the information immediately. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:40, 16 January 2011 (EST)
When I've hit Wikitravel from random internet cafes in little towns it hasn't bothered me that pages take a while to load, and the text was readable while images loaded. Perhaps others have had different experiences though. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:54, 16 January 2011 (EST)
With slow connections, it's actually slower if you have to click through (twice!) to get to the full sized image, which you then will usually need to download the image to the hard drive to print it from a dedicated image viewing program. And sometimes that type of functionality is restricted! When you are on the go in an obscure part of the world, I think the ability to quickly print out the map itself is often the most important thing of all. --Peter Talk 15:42, 16 January 2011 (EST)
That makes sense. Following that logic would use a full width map in the article, or at least a width that is enough to clearly read the printed map. That brings up the question of paper width. I would guess that most of the world prints on A4 as default. Letter and folio are pretty close, so a compromise is viable. Question then becomes, what is the best display width in pixels for the screen, because a) it must print full width, allowing for margins, and b) it must display preferably no more than the width available on the screen, and there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely approaching a standard screen width anymore. Are there any suggestions for an optimum maximum pixel width for the thumbnail? Or is there some other way this should be handled? Of course this also bypasses the attribution and licensing information, but presumably that is OK in this case.
Another approach, or an aspect of this problem, is to make a style policy for a minimum detail size on a map as a percntage of width, so that when printed on A4 with standard margin the detail is adequately legible, perhaps that printed text should never be less than 8 or 9 points. (with my eyes I struggle a bit at 8 points, but I think most people can read it OK). If the map can not be done at this resolution, it should be split (with slight overlaps) until it can all fit in and print legibly on A4. Obviously this style would only be obligatory for star articles. Any usable map is better than none. In some cases then an overall map showing the layout of the detail maps may be necessary. It all gets a bit complicated, but should be workable • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:04, 17 January 2011 (EST)
Second example using default size thumbnail is linked to image description page on shared at Code [[Image:Partridge_Point_reef_map.png|thumb|[[Shared:Image:Partridge_Point_reef_map.png|'''Map of the reef at the dive sites at Partridge Point''']]]]
This gives required attribution and licensing information directly, and another click will take you to the full resolution image: This is also less work as the file address is already available and does not have to be looked up. Would it be possible for one of us to write up a template that works like the ones below the edit window to automate the process, or is this something that IB would have to do?
I am going to run a few examples on some of the dive site articles and ask some friends to test the procedure • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:07, 16 January 2011 (EST)
I agree with LtPowers that license information should be presented along with the image. Linking directly to the image file circumvents the license information, which I think is not the way to go. I also think, if the problem should be solved, it should be done with a more technical solution than just adding a link, as this looks a bit clumsy. And would be a time consuming work to add this to all maps. By enlarging the maps, clicking wouldn't be necessary at all anymore, which would solve the problem without any special tricks. --globe-trotter 03:02, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Responses to Globe-trotter:
I will accept the objection to direct links to the high resolution image on grounds of bypassing the license information (it is also more labour intensive). The second example (above) avoids this problem.
Enlarging the maps would also be fairly labour intensive, though less so than modifying the captions to links.
What sort of thing do you have in mind as a "more technical solution", and in what way does converting the caption to a link look more clumsy than the caption before modification? The only change in appearance on my screen is the colour. (Unless you are advocating not using captions on maps). • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:58, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Turning captions into links should be able to be completely automated, and could be done with no manual labour at all. Enlarging images is so labour intensive as to be impractical, as far as I can see. There is no way you could automatically tell what is a map, or what is just a picture, and what will stuff up the layout. Speed issues for Internet access for me these days come from having to use 2G mobile data connections. You don't have to go too far off the beaten track to find one of those locations. --inas 18:23, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Would the automated caption to link conversion be able to distinguish between maps and other images? Or would it just convert everything? When I upload maps on shared I use the map template, does this not provide a way of distinguishing between maps and other images? I would be interested to know how the automation could be done, but suspect the answer would be beyond my understanding :-( Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:43, 18 January 2011 (EST)
There are a few ways I could see to automate this. Most simply, you could scan each page for Image tags, read the image filename, and edit the caption to make it a wikilink to the filename. If there is some computer readable method of telling if something is a map or an image, then you could code that. However, if we are going to do this, we could consider replacing each Image tag with an image template. Some of the Wikipedia templates use pure html to format images, giving much greater flexibility. If we went down this path we would have to do some testing to ensure compatibility with our pages and browsers, but conceivably we could even have tooltips "click for a larger image". --inas 17:40, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Zing! +++Out of cheese error+++. Indistinguishable from magic. Sorry, this is beyond my technological event horizon. My brain has just collapsed into a singularity. The tooltips idea sounds useful. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:14, 19 January 2011 (EST)
I now get tooltips on the images. I take it that someone has done something. I like this as a solution and assume it now works all over Wikitravel (but will make some checks anyway). Is there a way to put a different message on a tooltip? In some cases the image file name is not helpful. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:54, 28 January 2011 (EST)
On Wikipedia (see ) there is a description of how to use "Alternative text" option in the image markup. This does not appear to work here on Wikitravel. (see third example: [[Image:Partridge_Point_reef_map.png|thumb|alt=Click on image to expand|[[Shared:Image:Partridge_Point_reef_map.png|'''Map of the reef at the dive sites at Partridge Point''']]]] ) • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 05:19, 28 January 2011 (EST)

Problems with printing maps[edit]

Two thoughts:

  1. when I recently tried first time to travel with printed-out guides having maps (it was Paris), I found it completely effortful to print a map for every district--and the only way to have them readable was to open map images in a separate tab and printing independently of the rest of the guide. This is definitely a problem making using our guides less convenient (and a bit reducing number of active readers I think).
  2. AFAIK, there's an HTML tag which is active only when a piece surrounded by it is printed, and its counterpart when it is viewed from screen. We can implement a template for inserting maps which uses such a tag. I will try to find details if there's interest for it.

Sorry I didn't read the whole above discussion--please let me know if my points were addressed somewhere above, and I will. --DenisYurkin 17:48, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Hi Denis, I dont think these points were addressed above: So far it has been about finding the high resolution map online, and what resolution should be default in the text. Issues of print quality are a related but different problem, so I am going to split this out into a subsection. • • • Peter (Southwood) Talk 04:14, 19 January 2011 (EST)