Talk:Authors Cricket Club

Image size forcing

There is a policy (rule) WP:IMAGESIZE relevant to not forcing to 550px. Whilst the old photo displays well in my desktop view I am unable to check what it looks like when seen on a small mobile device. I suspect it would not work well. What User:Lilipo25 is your very good reason for using 550px?SovalValtos (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of me or any one particular user wanting something done; it's a question of whether fixing the width of the file complies with relevant policy. WP:IMAGESIZE (which is policy) states that fixing the width of images should in principle be avoided; it further states that if the width is fixed that it shouldn't be more than 400 px wide.

Wikipedia articles are read by people from all over the world using all kinds of devices; so, not every is using a desktop or even a laptop to read the article. Some readers may even be visually impaired and using special devices to "read" articles (MOS:ACCIM). The |upright= parameter is designed to allow each reader's particular device to size/scale the image in the best way possible for that particular device when the size of a regular thumbnail is considered not sufficient.

The default scaling factor for just a thumbnail with no upright parameter is 1.0, and adding an upright parameter slightly reduces the scaling factor to 0.75 (i.e. the image appears 25% smaller than a standard thumbnail). The scaling factor of the upright parameter, however, can be tweaked a bit to make the image appear a little bigger or smaller depending upon the details of the image, but it will still be the device being used by the reader which ultimately determines the size of the file seen by the reader. If you want to make the image as wide as allowed by policy (400 px), the way to do that would be to remove "550px" from the syntax and replace it with "upright=1.81". That should roughly create a 400 px wide image viewed on a PC or laptop, but might still allow smaller devices to scale the image as needed. Anything wider than 400px is going to need a really good reason as pointed out by SovalValtos above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sending you walls of anything. I responded to an article talk page post, which is how things work on Wikipedia. You're not obligated to respond back; you can simply move on if you want. The only person who seems to be interested in "fighting" is you. I haven't sent any messages to admins about you at all; you came to my user talk page complaining about this image and I responded. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:HERE and WP:AGF to understand why editors sometimes make changes to articles that they feel are best from a Wikipedia standpoint that have really nothing the any one individual editor in particular. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos:. Any particular suggestion for resizing the image? I think the standard thumbnail size might be a bit small given the caption. Maybe setting the scaling factor to 1.75 like I did here would be acceptable? I don't the scaling factor should probably be set higher than 1.8 since that would put the width over 400px, but it might be possible to go smaller. The caption could also be shortened for the article, with more detail added to the decription on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Would it be easier for you if I just copy and paste what you already did from the history, since you resized the image without any trouble at all before? I can do that for you. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My post wasn't directed to you and wasn't in response to your previous to last post (note the difference in indentation level). This thread was started by SovalValtos; so, I was asking for his/her input. I know how to change the image syntax back to what it was, but there are other possibilities as well which might be worth considering. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly I have not got the energy to think this through at present. My personal preference would be for an image that displays large enough in my laptop view to be able to distinguish faces without having to click on it to enlarge it but Policy is rightly against the simple px solution. I like the current version though the caption could be slightly simplified. User:Richard Nevell made an imaginative use of a gallery in this edit [1] to enable the display of a panorama. As both images were relevant to the section I think it complied with gallery policy WP:IG. I have yet to learn how panoramas are best displayed and may well have fallen into the px trap myself in the past.

User talk:Lilipo25) your edits both to this page and to those of the people associated have been useful. Do you have some connection with them? If so it can make it more difficult to edit objectively.SovalValtos (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk: SovalValtos) My only connection to them is having read the book they wrote. I live on a different continent and have never met any of the authors or anyone connected to the team, nor am I ever likely to. I just enjoyed the book and found the history of the team interesting, which led me to create the Wikipedia page. Which led me to editing some of the player's pages. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What I like about packed galleries is they do adjust a bit to the size of the screen. Some images are worth having large, and a team photo might be one of them so you can see the faces. For what it's worth, I'm writing this from my phone. In mobile view, it doesn't matter how wide the image is, it ends up the width of the screen, which is about right. I can also view the desktop site and the text is a little squished beside the image. It's certainly not unreadable, maybe three words to a line, but makes me wonder if having the image in a gallery so it doesn't have to compete for space with text. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A gallery is something I thought might work. I did try a very simple gallery markup, (<gallery>...</gallery>), but it didn't seem to work very well because the caption field ended up to be actually larger than the image field. Another possibility might be to add an infobox of some kind if enough of the parameters can be filled in so that it's not a WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)