Talk:Ed Barber

Style

Regarding this edit: setting a fixed pixel size overrides user preferences. See MOS:IMGSIZE. If there is a particular need to scale up the default image size for this template - as it seems there are quite a few of them with that size set - that should be addressed at the template level instead of in individual articles. Regarding the linking, it is appropriate that England not be linked, given that it is a major geographic location - see MOS:OLINK. But having multiple links running together instead is not a viable solution as per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The image is cropped from a larger image, and to have the photo I took at in a reduced size within the infobox would lessen the image. This image is set to less than the infobox, so as to not dominate the page as it is quite light on text. On the SOB advisory front I am quite happy to not have three places linked, going down the piping route and have gone out of my to be direct and have only two places that are little known to the whole world. I understand England being well known and should not be linked on it's own.Fleets (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've indicated, if you feel that the default image size in the infobox should be scaled up, that's something to take up at the template level. It's not a reason to override user preferences with regards to sizing. Similarly, the piping proposed does not address the issue of making multiple links appear to be a single link. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They go between 250 and 300, which is inappropriate for this template, and furthermore prominent articles use a defined image_size such as Roy Hodgson. The link goes to West Yorkshire, and that would be an aesthetic issue you are taking which is out of step with the advisory link that you are using, and taking that as gospel to promote a bizarre position of being blue is bad, even if there is only one link when you hover over it, or in fact follow it.Fleets (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you have particular aesthetic preferences, but these are not universal, and usability is a more important concern. The fact that other articles may also inappropriately set a fixed px size is not a rationale to do so here, and making multiple links all look blue (ie all look like a single link) is a drawback not a perk. If you think your preferences ought to be standard, I invite you to take that up at the appropriate template or MOS pages; failing that, nothing you've said here supports that this is an appropriate deviation from these guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Wikipedia articles, like the broader web toolkit, are designed to be portable, customizable and accessible for the end user. While this also allows a lot of fluidity of design, we shouldn't be dictating the reader's experience (as with, say, a PDF file). When you specify an image size that happens to look good on the platform you're using, it overrides the reader's preferences set at Special:Preferences/Appearance, where they can set a displayed thumbnail image size ranging from 120 to 400 pixels. Wikipedia isn't only the encyclopedia everyone can edit, it should be the encyclopedia that everyone can read. This is very important. Accessibility is policy. If you don't like the displayed image size, I suggest you go to your preferences and increase your default thumbnail size rather than editing article code.

As for the sea-of-blue, I'm more tolerant of that in infoboxes than prose, assuming that the infobox restricts itself to "key information" about the subject (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). In this case, I would pipe the terms so that none of the commas are highlighted.

This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)