Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 5

message: Are there any examples of two images overlayed with CSS, perhaps a photo covered with labels, as suggested in the policy?
If that's possible, (i don't know much CSS), would it be alright to use a GIF for the overlay, as IE5 doesn't support PNG transparency. Thanks Tristanb 03:26 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
IE5 supports transparency in indexed PNGs in exactly the same way as in GIFs (which only comes in indexed flavour anyway), so I don't see the problem. branko
:Oh, didn't know it supported transparency for 8-bit PNGs. I assumed if it couldn't do one, it couldn't do the other. Anyway, I read somewhere that it's not possible to do an overlay like that with wikipedia. I'll wait til SVG is mainstream :-D. tb 09:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparency

message: Why so small?  I have a diagram that I made that's 362px wide, and there's really no way to shrink it without either rendering the text labels illegible or having them take over the whole image.  I don't think it's too big from a page-layout perspective, even for a 640-px-wide screen.  And don't even bring up the size issue; it's 4.53 KB. -Smack 02:28 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:You can have images wider than 300 px in articles - just center them and don't have text flow around them. --mav 05:31 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Linking to  http://burnallgifs.org/#software for the request to convert .gifs to .pngs may be useful. People need to be warned against using .mngs though.
----
I disagree with the recommended thumbnail sizes, 150 or 200 seems unnecessarily small. Even if that's the only available size, a graphics editor can upsize to, say, 300 pixels, with trivial loss of quality. I find 300 pixels the ideal width (with 750 pixels width for any bigger version) for a landscape format pic, and 250 pixels width (with 500 pixels width for any larger version) for a portrait format pic. They allow text to flow down the side of the image even on an 800 by 600 screen. (I do not think we should make our pic sizes suit a 640 by 480 screen). Am I allowed to change the advice accordingly?
Note: the 500 and 750 values are chosen so that the reader does not have scroll his screen much, I find having to scroll a lot to view all of a pic is irritating.
Adrian Pingstone 14:06 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I've been going towards 300px in practice too, although I noticed at poppy mallow that a 300px image makes the taxobox too wide, I'll probably replace with a smaller image.  I've been doing large images between 600-750px, poorer images don't always do well with the 750px size. Stan 14:18 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:: Additional idea: if you're going to make a smaller one for the taxobox, instead of calling it "Image:Poppy_mallow.small.jpg" or "Image:Poppy_mallow.thmb.jpg" or something like that, make three versions: the full size, a small size in case it's ever wanted in an article body, and a "Image:Poppy_mallow.taxo.jpg" or something like that, sized for the taxobox. I wouldn't want to see the taxobox-sized and full-sized versions being the only options. -- John Owens 23:27 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: Some people browse the web from mobile devices with limited screen resolutions. Some people are still stuck with 640x480 or 800x600 screens. Some people browse the web with non-maximised windows. The current recommendation for floating images is 150->250... I suppose I could live with increasing that to 200->300, but it might be quite controversial. Wait a bit before updating it.
:For non-floating images, I'd recommend 450->600. Larger than 600 will pagewiden on an 800x600 screen, which is bad. Martin 14:42 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:: And some people don't have web browsing capabilities at all! How can we cater to them?
:: There's going to be a cut-off line somewhere, no matter what.
::: We cater to people without internet access or web browsing capabilities by licensing our content under the GFDL, so a friend can give them a CD with a TomeRaider download on it, for example, or print off a copy. What, that was a rhetorical question? ;-)
::: If an image is too large it completely screws up the layout for people with small browser windows. If an image is too small... it's not actually a major problem, especially when we provide a link to a larger version anyway. Hence, I'd rather bias in the direction of too small rather than too big... Martin
:: I was going to add an unrelated suggestion (v.i.), but even before I came to the Talk: page here, I looked at the Wikipedia: page, saw rule of thumb #4, and thought, "I'm going to add a suggestion that the range be upped to 300." Now I see Adrian beat me to it, but I'll certainly throw in my support. -- John Owens 23:27 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
* John Owens and Martin talk moved to Wikipedia talk:Image description page
----
In this thumbnail-making integer ratio suggestion, it should clarify whether that means aspect ratio or sizing ratio. I'm pretty sure it means sizing ratio, right? And what's the better term for that? -- John Owens 11:50 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
* markup for sequence of images -> wikipedia talk:image markup
-----
I suggest a system to use the same images from a language wikipedia (i.e. wikipedia in french, in another languages, i.e. in spanish wikipedia), easily.
:I assume the above comment means that images cannot be easily shared today between different language versions of Wikipedia?  Samw 03:31 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
-----
I think all pictures over a certain size should automatically make a thumbnail without using the thumb option. I think this would make more sense. Maybe make thumb default and have a no thumbe option.Gbleem 05:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Size issues

message: Why does my uploaded image not show up on my watchlist? I really would like to know if someone is modifying something regarding my image. Is there a reason for it that it is not automatically on the Watchlist? Thanks, Fantasy 09:56 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: Are you referring to the image or the image description page? Martin
::I think the "image description page".Fantasy
: Strange - I thought it did. :-( Well, you can go and fix that yourself (Wikipedia software is open source) or beg a developer on wikipedia:village pump, I guess. It's definitely a good idea :) Martin 18:09 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:A "watch this image" box for each upload would be very nice to have. I've uploaded hundreds of my own images and have yet to put them all on my watch list. --mav
::Is is at all possible to watch an image or can one just watch  the image description page? In the latter case uploading a new version does not show up; what remains is to watch the upload log. - Patrick 12:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Watching images

message: Although I personally prefer 300px for image width, I also have a 1200px screen; when I squish a browser window down to see how the "other half" :-) lives, the text flow can get pretty mangled.  Is there something tricky that could be done for image markup, perhaps to switch off text flow on narrow displays? We want to encourage Wikipedia use on small devices (a portable encyclopedia!) but we don't want to compromise appearance on the desktop either, and small images simply look feeble. Stan 16:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size again 

message: I spun off the markup section, because I didn't want to duplicate the markup gallery (which is good!), and because this page is already pretty big! I ought to refactor all that old image copyright discussion though. Hah, some day. Martin 21:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of concerns 

message: User:JamesDay put me up to this. I'm have no special expertise in IP law, I'm a Wikipedia newbie, etc. See Wikipedia_talk:Logos for background.
(moved to Wikipedia:Logos see below)
Whaddaya think? Dpbsmith 22:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Image Use Policy regarding Corporate Logos