Module talk:Main page image

Calculate by area
, now that we have overcome the challenge of adoption. I wonder if there is not a better way of calculating size. The best way to calculate the image size is actually by area. Could you rewrite this module to calculate the width size that would return an image occupying a surface area equal to 140x140 = 19,600? Note, this is approximately the same size as 120x160 or 160x120 = 19,200. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I don't quite follow. How would this work? And what's the visible difference over the current way of doing it? And how would it know whether to be upright or not since both 120x160 and 160x120 are 19,200 pixels? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I created Module:Main page image/sandbox to show how it could work. My hope is to address cases where the image is very wide or very tall. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you have a chance to review the new code in the sandbox. If you have no objections, I am going to make a request to implement it. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, sorry. I was fiddling around with how it would look with the TFA yesterday, see User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox3. Code wise it's fine. Functionality wise, I'd only note that a) it can result in varying widths (which I suppose is the point) and b) for some dimensions, like the example in sandbox, can be fairly small and result in the caption looking a bit messy (seems to vary for different browsers, looks worse in Safari than Chrome for me). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I recommend you install User:SD0001/sandbox4.js. It will let you preview template changes on live pages without having to create such sandboxes.
 * As for your sandbox3, note that I manipulated that original TFA blurb using  and  . We will have to continue using your override feature to address such extreme cases. ---  C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 19:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Code wise looks fine to me - good work, and nice formula! I've made a very small edit (since the variable is already declared). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Code wise looks fine to me - good work, and nice formula! I've made a very small edit (since the variable is already declared). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request
Please replace the current code with the version in the sandbox: Module:Main page image/sandbox. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, since this would result in a visual change to the Main Page (ie, in image sizes), this may require a discussion at Talk:Main Page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notice at Talk:Main Page. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disabled request pending outcome of dicussion &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, it would appear no one else cares. The notice was archived after three days. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the change in the sandbox &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Fix some script errors
Please pull in changes from sandbox (specifically Special:Diff/977330810/986765585) to fix some script errors, e.g., to remove Portal:California/Selected article/Layout from Category:Pages with script errors. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

weird problem
take a look at Special:PermaLink/995467810 with Firefox if you can? The first image (which is on MP right now) looks horrible on my screen, see screenshot below. Not using this module seems to make the problem go away.




 * — xaosflux  Talk 04:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, I replaced the DYK image you had from queue1 with a non transparent version that seems to have at least temporarily fixed the MP distoration, please also see above if you have additional information. — xaosflux  Talk 05:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does look strange. seems to have made the change to the image with this edit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to "blame" anyone (inc Ravenpuff now) - just an FYI in case anyone wanted to know why I jumped in to making a MP change. — xaosflux  Talk 06:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Permalink/995467810 looks normal to me on Firefox 84.0 - no extensions, default theme. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also tried to preview User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox6 (modified fork of T:DYK) on the MP and cannot reproduce. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * hmm, can't figure out the cause yet -- but it doesn't seem to be the width calculator module after more testing (c.f. Special:PermaLink/995540876 - I'm only seeing the image corrupted when width=154). — xaosflux  Talk 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI was on ERRORS as well (don't think they know this is how it was fixed - but it's at least not a xaosflux-only problem!) (Special:PermaLink/995517095). — xaosflux  Talk 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange. Also strange that I cannot reproduce.
 * Curious: if you manually inspect element Test2 (which isn't broken) to width 154 it breaks? If no, does changing it to 154 in the source break it? If yes to either, how about 150 or 152? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and only at 154. 140,153,155 all are fine. — xaosflux  Talk 03:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Image width calculation for .ogg file results in "-nanpx"
This image call is currently on the main page:. It results in. My suspicion is that the automatic width calculation in this module may be causing this invalid size specification. If so, some error-checking and a default value may be needed here. To verify this, try ; when I do it, the result is. Pinging, who made changes to that code most recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * would you look into this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and : This bug still exists in the module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have time to look at this? I don't see a visible error in the archived version but  is in the source code. ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is happening again at Template:Did you know nominations/Boy Scouts of America (march). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2021
Please copy change Special:Diff/1053614141 from the samdbox to this template. It resolves the issues seen at Template:Main page image/DYK/testcases where a red Lua error appears if the image parameter is removed. User:GKFXtalk 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2022 September 8
The formula on line 16 appears to be convoluted? It seems to be the equivalent of, which reads much more simply to me. The new code also makes it obvious to passers-by what exactly this code is trying to do: downsize the image to an area of 19,600 pixels, preserving aspect ratio. Can the formula on line 16 be changed to the requested code above? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ DatGuyTalkContribs 13:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)