Talk:Maß

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

This should be redirected to either beer stein or tankard (or possibly renamed to beer mug). Personally, I think it would best be covered under beer stein (with some edits to the lead of that article). Other opinions? Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A redirect to beer stein or tankard wouldn't make much sense, because they are different things. If we had a more generic page, like beer mug (which confusingly redirects to tankard) that might make sense as a redirect target. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I just found the generic page, it's Beer glassware. But a redirect there is probably not a good idea, as it's a pretty long list with very little detail on each type, and most types of beer glassware seem to have their own pages. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image resize

A selection of cask beers

Maßkrug

Maßkrug

What does the comment "already upright" in the change log mean? Is there a good reason for overriding the user's image size settings? Why would that reason apply to one image but not the other? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: The images already display upright. I thought at the time of my revert you had changed "175px" to "upright". I see now they had been that way before the most recent image addition; thus the edit summary is in error. I changed "upright" to "175px" to standardize the image sizes and add valuable information for an editor. That's it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I came by 175px for an image size to adjust the image of stored mugs as close in round numbers to existing images displayed in default "thumb" size when it displayed over-large in that setting. Otherwise the new image stuck out like a sore thumb. No pun intended. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realize what "upright" does. It actually has nothing to do with image orientation. It scales the image down, while keeping the user's image size preferences, so that an upright image (one with an aspect ratio less than 1:1) will have approximately the same area as a horizontal image. When you specify a pixel size, you are overriding the user's image size preferences, and making the image a fixed pixel size. If the user's screen is 320 pixels wide, the image will take up half the screen; if it's 3200 pixels wide, the image will be so tiny as to be almost invisible. There is no way to know the size and resolution of every user's screen, which is why we have image size preferences. In this particular case, I see no advantage to setting a fixed pixel size. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All this is indeed news to me, and frankly I cannot say I understand it. Wikipedia is pandemic with stipulated image pixel sizes; that's all I've ever seen: "thumb" alone, or "thumb" + "px" (with a stipulated pixel size preceding "px").

If what you are saying is true why aren't the only options "upright" and "horizontal", with every picture on Wikipedia set to one or the other (and whatever it is behind the scenes figuring out what size to make things)? It's always been my experience that "px" is automatically scaled to users' screen resolutions. Further, if I change my browers' zoom level the images stay proportionally the same size relative to text and eachother but are automatically scaled larger or smaller along with everything else depending on which way zoom was altered.

If I'm missing something here I'm willing to learn, but as I said at the top it's all news to me, I don't understand it, and it doesn't jive with my experience of using and editing Wikipedia for many years. Please explain further. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a demonstration will help. I have placed three images in this section. The top one is oriented horizontally and is at default size. The second one is oriented vertically and uses the "upright" option. The bottom uses your choice, "175px." It's possible, if you are using default preferences, that the bottom two will look about the same size.

Now go to your Wikipedia preferences, under "Appearance -> Files," and change your thumbnail size to 120px. Save your settings, come back here, and reload the page.

What I think you'll see is that the image at the bottom, with the "175px" size, will be four times bigger than the top image, which is now 120px wide. This is what I'm trying to avoid.

As to why the "px" option is still offered, I think it's a throwback to earlier web standards, when "pixel" was the only way to measure screen real estate. Most web markup now uses percent of screen width, mm, or some other device independent measure. It is still useful to be able to override user preferences, for example for a panorama, but it shouldn't be done routinely for most images. I hope this helps. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I did exactly as you specified and nothing changed at this page. I resized my default image to 120px, came back, and the images all remained exactly as they had been.

As I say, I'm listening to you but I'm not "seeing it". Images automatically scale themselves to screen size on devices I use, and remain proportional when zooming in or out using either Internet Explorer or Google Chrome as a browser.

I know of users here with hundreds of thousands of edits who alter images even to irregular pixel sizes (such as 247px, rather than 250px) if that's what it takes to get one to conform to the size of others on a page. Perhaps they are inexperienced at this nuance; on the other hand, I simply cannot get images to act the way you are explaining, and cautioning. They act as I have now twice depicted. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. I'll see if I can get to the bottom of this. Thanks for testing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The documentation agrees with me, but maybe it's wrong. See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Pixel_counts_vs._upright_factors. I'll keep digging. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Things act the same way on my iPhone, too. Good luck. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Help:Visual file markup also says "[upright] ...is generally better than specifying a width as it respects user preferences." I don't know why user preferences don't work for you, but they do work for me. Is there some reason to prefer "px" over "upright"? Does "upright" not work for you? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that language/function has been superseded along the line somehow. I don't know. All I know is that images display as intended and resize proportionally on my laptop and flat-panel no matter the browser zoom, screen size, or resolution, as well as my iPhone. "Upright" works also.

How does it decide what size to make an upright image? What about when there are multiple sized horizontal ones on a page? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This WP policy explains the situation better than I can: WP:IMGSIZE. "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pointless information

"According to physicist Erich Schuller of the Institute for Forensic Medicine at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, a Maßkrug is an "effective percussion tool" in which each strike is potentially life-threatening. An empty Maß weighs 1.3 kilograms (2.9 lb) and can produce a force of 8,500 newtons (1,900 lbf) in a violent blow, far surpassing the 4,000 newtons (900 lbf) required to break a human's skullcap. However, there were cases in which the Maßkrug yielded. Presumably, these mugs had reduced strength due to wear."

This paragraph is pointless and useless.

ICE77 (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a bizarre, inappropriate inclusion. Would we include that a sewing machine, or it's bench, has enough force to shatter an Ibex's skull under sewing machine entry? It adds the derogatory to a cherished ethnic custom. 2600:1008:B19B:71C:FC7D:8C60:F0F4:CF26 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Beer stein" confusion

The part in bold is surely incorrect: "This vessel is often referred to as a beer mug by English speakers, and can be correctly called a beer stein only if it is made of stoneware and capable of holding a regulation Maß of beer."

A "stein" does not need to conform to Maß regulations in order to be called a stein. I'm sure it's the other way around: a stein is only a Maß if it does. McGordon 21:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgordon (talk • contribs)