Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:45 UTC
When using "thumb" to include an image into an article the size of the image is usually calculated in dependance of the image's width. The standard width of file will then be 180px, i.e. [[File:Image.jpg|thumb|Text]] 180px may be appropiate for upright images but leads to very small images when they are in a landscape format. This can be observed in "Bild1" and "Bild2" here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbesserungsvorschl%C3%A4ge/Feature-Requests/Archiv/2009#Standardbildgr.C3.B6.C3.9Fe_bei_thumb_nach_der_Fl.C3.A4che_statt_der_Breite_ausrichten This has led to the invention of the "upright" element: [[File:Image.jpg|upright|Text]] However, why not automatically resolving this problem by using the SURFACE AREA instead of the WIDTH of an image? I suggest that 40.000 px² should be used for every thumb image. Both upright and landscape format images will be converted to that size. This can be observed in "Bild3" and "Bild4". The problem has already been discussed in the German Wikipedia and deemed to be necessary to be resolved: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbesserungsvorschl%C3%A4ge/Feature-Requests/Archiv/2009#Standardbildgr.C3.B6.C3.9Fe_bei_thumb_nach_der_Fl.C3.A4che_statt_der_Breite_ausrichten
Why don't we just limit width or height, whichever is larger, to 180 px (or another value)? This effect can already be achieved with [[File:Foo.jpg|180x180px]]
The nice thing about the standard "thumb" display with a fixed width is that articles look a lot better when there are thumbs to the right with the same width. It would look chaotic when the width would always change randomly based on its height.
In my opinion a fixed width doesn't look better if in turn both upright and landscape format images appear on the same page (like the first two images in the link). Then I better take the loss of fixed width if the image sizes will fit together.
I mean I don't have a problem with two different widths for the thumbnails. But when you calculate the thumbnail width and height dynamically so it should be 40k px in product (like your example), then every image will have a different size and on articles with a lot images you have multiple images with multiple different widths - and that will look bad.
I belive, it will look better than the same size for every image (no one uses these two sizes in practice!).
Is anyone already trying to realize this request?
comment #4 says it all.
I believe it looks even worse, if - as usual! - images have alle the same width, even though if some of them are much higher than other images.
