Talk:Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball

Image size
The lead image is far too large. Reverting a correction of that because "it looks OK on my device is ridiculous, as >9.99999999% of our readers are not using your device. Use default sizes, and let readers resize or click through as required. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is normal to increase the lead image in an art article. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What Johnbod said. I'm not sure I understand the hostility here. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What they said. Upright=1.35/300px is not unreasonably large for a visual arts article, especially one with this degree of detail. As anyone who's watched people move their faces close to the screen to make out details can testify, a surprisingly high number of readers are unaware that they can click on images to enlarge them. – iridescent  17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What's all this nonsense about? The MoS says quite explicitly that "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px")", not that they must be smaller than that. Eric   Corbett  17:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unreasonably large when the image is in portrait format already. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "unreasonably large" mean to you? Eric   Corbett  23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Me neither; you'll have to as those expressing hostility for their reasons. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For an article that is about a painting, it seems to me that we should be using our best judgement, rather than feeling obliged to follow MOS prescriptively. When the lead image is the actual subject of the article and has a wealth of detail - as this has - a good case can be made for making the image as large as needed for the aged (like me) to be able to see the detail without fiddling with browser zoom or having to click through to another page. So in this case, I'd argue that 300px/upright=1.35 is really the minimum size for me to appreciate the artwork, and in truth I'd prefer it about 10% larger (I tried zooming the browser to 110% and could see a noticeable difference). I note that on my mobile phone, it only just fits on at its present size, so I can understand a reluctance to enlarge it further - but if I insist on trying to view works of art on a 4.7 inch screen, I ought to expect to make some compromises, don't you think?. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The current image size is fine, in my view. Let's keep the discussion collegial, thanks. Jus  da  fax   12:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211024806/http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/about-the-artist/index.html to http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/about-the-artist/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)