FANDOM


(Pictures: reply)
(Pictures: reply)
Line 52: Line 52:
   
 
Moving forward, please don't revert these images to the BEB ones, the image policy even states not to revert to a lower-quality version. Thanks, [[User:Mifaco|Mifaco]] 04:28, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
Moving forward, please don't revert these images to the BEB ones, the image policy even states not to revert to a lower-quality version. Thanks, [[User:Mifaco|Mifaco]] 04:28, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
  +
<i>I am almost certain that mediawiki does not "resize" the image before sending it to clients. It simply includes the width and height attributes in the IMG tag. This tells the browser how much image to reserve for the image. The full image is downloaded and then resized by the browser. I discovered your images by using the "Safari" browser's developer tools. </i>
  +
  +
----
  +
  +
I was wondering where you went, but now that we're discussing things, it's np
  +
  +
I'm positive Mediawiki does resize the image. Take, for example, [[Port Jeuno]]. Right-clicking on the thumbnail image and selecting "View Image" gives me a 250px image - exactly the dimensions specified in the image link. Clicking on the image using the default Wikia skin gives me a dynamically-resized image generated by the software. If you resize the browser window, reload, and click again you can actually see this in action. Try saving the images to compare them.
  +
  +
For reference, here's the Port Jeuno image code:
  +
  +
  +
<nowiki><img alt="Jeuno-port-pic.jpg" src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110420100360/ffxi/images/thumb/7/7b/Jeuno-port-pic.jpg/250px-Jeuno-port-pic.jpg" width="250" height="156"></nowiki>
  +
  +
So we can see that the width and height tags are used... but they're used on an image that is 250 x 156 big in the first place. This is the case on IE, Opera, and Firefox, so I'm pretty sure it's the same with Safari.
  +
  +
I agree that some images could use improvement. Some BEB images are good shots - Qufim and Tu'lia - and I haven't had the opportunity to get higher-resolution pictures of those events.
  +
  +
You can PM me on BlueGartr, name <b>Mifaco</b>
  +
  +
Thanks for your Rabao contribution. [[User:Mifaco|Mifaco]] 04:10, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:10, April 25, 2011

Archive

  1. User_talk:Laraul/Archive

Just FYI

You don't have to prepend the filename with 'Image', since it's defaulted into the image namespace. This way you only have Image:Filename.gif instead of Image:ImageFilename.gif --CharitwoTalk 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image "Notices"

Please do not harass other editors, the image is fine, that is what [[Image:Foo.jpg|thumb]] or [[Image:Foo.jpg|300px]] is for. There is no reason to replace it. None. Thanks for understanding. --CharitwoTalk 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned. We don't need another image crusade over what file extension should be used, what size this image needs to be. Anthoron is doing perfectly fine with his uploads. We are not concerned with size. There's 100GB of free space on the image servers. Not exactly a concern. --CharitwoTalk 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mob Notes

There's no need to bloat the table by expanding the mob notes. The code is simple and explained at the bottom of the table.--Anthoron T/ C 08:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple? It's confusing! It always has been! I.E. Does S stand for sight or Sound. Does H sound for Sound or HP. Etc.--laraul 08:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't find memorising them an onerous task, and I don't think many other people do either as this has been the convention for years and has not been contested. If you feel this is not the case, then it should be discussed with other users of the wiki before it's implemented.--Anthoron T/ C 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Let the public see the page and let them decide... it needs to be shown on an existing page before overhauling the rest.--laraul 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You should do this on a subpage of your user page then. Putting it on a page in the main namespace implies that it's already the (or is a new) convention/policy of the wiki.--Anthoron T/ C 08:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. And I've tried what you're suggesting in the past. It just never has any influence on changing things.--laraul 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless you actively solicit feedback from people, you're probably not going to get it; especially in this case where it looks like a violation of convention rather than a suggestion. I would suggest moving the edits to a subpage of your user page and creating a thread on the forums about it.--Anthoron T/ C 09:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Done--laraul 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing mainstream page styles.

Please do not change the coloring, styles, etc. of already finished pages. Fixing typos and incorrect code is great, but as other users above have suggested, you are acting purely on your own interests and should propose these changes to the community before forcing them onto people. No, i am not trying to be an ass; yes, some of your ideas seem cool; but you really should ask before editing mainstream pages like this. Thank you for your understanding. Deszeraeth Kanzaki 20:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Any particular reason why you're reverting the area pictures? Mifaco 04:05, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your input. The reason why I'm doing this is to showcase the best of each FFXI area. I want the user to click on a picture and get a full view of that area. There are several problems with the BEB pictures:
1. They're way too small. The pictures were sized for the BEB website, not for the wiki. You can barely make out details in each area. Xarcabard [S] was even worse - a 512x382 image is not a good area pic.
2. The quality is way too low. Some pictures [1] have terrible pixelization. Rabao's picture looks like the sky has been turned off!
3. They're boring. Fei'Yin has much more than just a cermet hallway. Crawlers' Nest has much more than just a random crawler and a bush.
4. In at least one case, they're out of date. See Port Jeuno.

Regarding your objections:

To large both in terms of dimensions and size. No excuse for a 1MB image file replacing one less than 40K. - The MediaWiki software automatically generates a thumbnail where it's needed. Even when the user clicks on the image, the resulting image is automatically sized to the user's screen by the software. The only time where the 1MB image file comes into play is when the user clicks on the image on the description page. As others have already noted, there is no shortage of space on the image servers, so there's no need to worry about that.
Images are simply just of poor quality. They do not appear well at all when actually used. - Could you be more specific?
They haven't been touched up at all for the purpose of being published. They are far to dark, for example. - I'm not proficient with image editing software. This would be where other users would come in and touch it up. I haven't reverted SSG because I recognize it is too dark. You are invited to take a superior quality picture and upload it.
They are of a considerably different aspect ratio than the originals. - They're 16:10 to match the resolution, why does this matter?

Moving forward, please don't revert these images to the BEB ones, the image policy even states not to revert to a lower-quality version. Thanks, Mifaco 04:28, April 22, 2011 (UTC)


I am almost certain that mediawiki does not "resize" the image before sending it to clients. It simply includes the width and height attributes in the IMG tag. This tells the browser how much image to reserve for the image. The full image is downloaded and then resized by the browser. I discovered your images by using the "Safari" browser's developer tools.


I was wondering where you went, but now that we're discussing things, it's np

I'm positive Mediawiki does resize the image. Take, for example, Port Jeuno. Right-clicking on the thumbnail image and selecting "View Image" gives me a 250px image - exactly the dimensions specified in the image link. Clicking on the image using the default Wikia skin gives me a dynamically-resized image generated by the software. If you resize the browser window, reload, and click again you can actually see this in action. Try saving the images to compare them.

For reference, here's the Port Jeuno image code:


<img alt="Jeuno-port-pic.jpg" src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110420100360/ffxi/images/thumb/7/7b/Jeuno-port-pic.jpg/250px-Jeuno-port-pic.jpg" width="250" height="156">

So we can see that the width and height tags are used... but they're used on an image that is 250 x 156 big in the first place. This is the case on IE, Opera, and Firefox, so I'm pretty sure it's the same with Safari.

I agree that some images could use improvement. Some BEB images are good shots - Qufim and Tu'lia - and I haven't had the opportunity to get higher-resolution pictures of those events.

You can PM me on BlueGartr, name Mifaco

Thanks for your Rabao contribution. Mifaco 04:10, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.