User talk:Ericg/archives/2006/Nov-Dec

Why
Can you please explain me why Image:1FW 190-D9 2 giallo Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg is listed for deletion?--Attilios 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still not catching the point, sorry. What's the problem if it cannot be used as a free image? The important is that Wikipedia CAN use it, as for permission received. We are working on Wikipedia here, not providing free images for users here. Moreover, I think that aircraft profile are something missing here in comparison to other encyclopedias. Please leave it if you can, so. --Attilios 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments on link in Evergreen article
As a previous contributor to the article on Evergreen International Aviation, could I request your input on the talk page on whether it should contain a link to [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Evergreen_International_Aviation%2C_Inc. the corresponding SourceWatch article?] With thanks, --Neoconned 12:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardcoding of pics/sizing
In my reading of the MoS portion you have been quoting, sizing is not forbidden. In the sections which elaborate on images, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and Extended image syntax, explain how to use sizing, and do not forbid its use.

In my editing over the past 6 weeks or so, I have encountered many images, the majority of which use thumb sizing. When I have inserted new pics into articles (usually from Commons or other articles), I retained the sizing that was already there. Over the course of doing this, I discovered that most pics look best at 250px on my computer. Many of the pics I encountered were set at 300px, so I have changed a portion of them to 250px if they looked to large at 300px.

GIven all this, I was very confused when you began removing the pic sizing in a few of the articles I had been working on. As stated above, my reading of the MoS did not forbid their use.

To make sure I was understanding the MoS correctly, I asked for clarification of "hardcoded" on the talk page. This was the first response:


 * Hardcoded probably isn’t the best way of saying it. What you’re really being told is that you shouldn’t specify the image size at all. When you do, then the image will always be presented at that size. Default image size is a reader preference (on the “Files” tab at Special:Preferences), but specifying a size as above ignores the reader’s preference. Instead, omit the image size and let the software display the image at the reader’s preferred size. --Rob Kennedy 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the issue better, and I apologize for my ignorance. WHen I signed up on Wiki this summer, I didn't understnad the Sixzing setting in Preferences, and left it at the default. I have not been back to check that section of Preferences since; had I done so recently, I probably would have understood what it was for, and changed it to my preferred viewing size: 250px.

I promise I won't go around indiscriminately adding sizes, as I had done on the CH-54 Tarhe article. However, I reserve the right to add them where I believe they are necessary, as on pics that are naturally too large or too small.

In addition, I will not be removing them where they already exist. Most of the articles over a wide variety of topics I have edited recently use sizing in their pics. It would be quite a job for someone to remove them all.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. - BillCJ 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cessna Template!
Thanks for cleaning up the Cessna template! After i finished it, i started to wonder if I should change to the other look (like most of the other aircraft articles) But, i was on my way out the door. Thanks again! It looks great. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem about the template placement. I will make sure I do that from now on.  I am planning on making a few more aircraft templates but it will probably be a couple of days until I get to it.  Thanks again for the input.  If yous ee any other problems, feel free to let me know.  Thanks! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Image size
I reverted your image resize in the Boeing 787 article. The standard thumb size is ridiculously small - I think that that is the size they are referring to not hard coding. Note that their example shows an image size specification and image size is shown in the referenced image use article. I think that 225 to 275 pix on a sideline image is still small enough for readable text layout on small screens (800pix) and is better since it does not force you to click the thumb to see the image content. - Leonard G. 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you more closely read the manual of style, as well as the related discussions on the topic, as I respectfully submit that you are interpreting it incorrectly. "Hardcoded" means that the size is fixed - |250px| for example - and is not overridden by the setting in a user's preferences. If you click 'my preferences', and then select 'Files', you will see that you can set your default image thumb size. You may find the default too small; I, however, find 250 to 300px too large. By forcing an image size, it cannot be overridden by the preferences. To quote another user from a different discussion:


 * 'Hardcoded' probably isn’t the best way of saying it. What you’re really being told is that you shouldn’t specify the image size at all. When you do, then the image will always be presented at that size. Default image size is a reader preference (on the “Files” tab at Special:Preferences), but specifying a size as above ignores the reader’s preference. Instead, omit the image size and let the software display the image at the reader’s preferred size. --Rob Kennedy 19:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus, in most cases, hardcoding of image sizes is to be avoided, as it becomes a usability issue. I'm changing the 787 sizing back, and I hope you understand why. ericg &#9992; 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The system is completly opaque, even to a registered user - I found the specification for thumb image (after much huntiing) on the "Files" tab. Note that readers (not editors) would not have access to this function, so I think that the arguments in favor of unspecified thumb size are rather bogus when considering the larger (public) readership. - Leonard G. 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The system might need to be more obvious, and perhaps a larger default size should be chosen, but that doesn't mean that every single page in the encyclopedia should have a hardcoded image size set. If you'd like to participate in the Image Use Policy discussion which I linked to, go ahead - your input will certainly be welcomed and considered. In the meantime, I hope you will follow the established consensus and only use fixed image sizes when it is necessary to expose details in the images. ericg &#9992; 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is more to a presentation than text and images - the layout is an essential element, and partcularly the relationship of text and images, a non-trivial problem considering that the horizontal space is not fixed. An article, besides being factual, informative, and a pleasure to read (for the target readership) should also be a pleasure to view for the first time and should not require the reader to click on thumbnails to see essential elements. Mininsule images will in many cases poorly link the elements taken in by a glance at the image (often done before reading) to the text. In other words, the text and the image are linked and hence reenforcing or complementary information channels, depending upon context. This is nearly impossible with postage-stamp sized images. I think that the guidelines are simply wrong-headed within the context of current system limitations and aestheic considerations which are often given too little weight. - Perhaps this entire discussion could be moved to the forum?
 * Thanks for the communication, Leonard G. 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni Pauli images
Eric, you may want to contribute to this discussion on the "free use in exchange for ad space" with those profiles. Village_pump_%28policy%29.

On a different note, the aircraft specs template appears to be suffering from parameter bloat. I was away from WP for a bit and I don't even know what half the parameters there mean anymore. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear you are not actively participating in the project anymore. I understand what you mean about herding cats (my Wikibreak was largely in response to extensive vandal-hugging). I've reverted to my original use of Wikipedia (essentially the Greg Goebel/Vectorsite school of thought), that is, writing on topics I want to learn about. Happy holidays to you too! - Emt147 Burninate!  01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing
Thanks Eric, I really appreciate the job you are doing on editing. I am still an old-line editor, trained on cataloguing back at University when I switched to the library but anything that helps make things go smoother is appreciated. BTW, you and I have a lot in common- I am the Executive Director of the Manitoba Aviation Council- you know airplane stuff. Bzuk 07:17 28 December 2006 (UTC).