Last modified: 2014-07-12 07:41:57 UTC
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering under Files > Thumbnail size, a list of seven different user-selectable options is provided. The default size for en.wp is currently 220px (wide). The highest is 300px. Because of the increased prevalence of devices with very high pixel density, please offer a larger size, perhaps 350px or 360px. For caching purposes, 360px might be best, because sv.wikipedia and it.wikiquote are already offering 360px. One or two of the smaller, least-used options could be removed at the same time. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php says: 'wgThumbLimits' => array( 'default' => array( 120, 150, 180, 200, 220, 250, 300 ), '+itwikiquote' => array( 360 ), 'svwiki' => array( 120, 200, 250, 300, 360 ), ), Following the Swedish example, perhaps 150 and 180 could be removed.
I certainly support this measure. I recently purchased a UHD monitor and even with thumbnail size preference set to 300px the images are often too small to see sufficient detail to make use of them. When the bulk of monitors were 1024x, the 300 px limit was sufficient, but in the era of "retina" displays and now 4K monitors this limit is actually hindering usability of Wikipedia. I understand certain developments within Media Wiki Viewer may lend themselves to this change given the caching issue with the image secsets to be used. 360px would be welcome for sure but it may be the right time to look at even larger thumbs given pixel density developments.
Context: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&oldid=602688540#Reboot>. The two comments above focus on Wikimedia project(s) configuration, hence moving there. I suggest a separate bug report for MediaWiki defaults, with considerations about third party users of MediaWiki. We can see if sysasmins have something to say about this before it actually becomes a request, but until there is on-wiki consensus (on the village pump for individual wikis or [[m:Wikimedia Forum]] for all wikis) I'm adding the relevant keyword. For what it's worth, bandwidth *is* a problem at least in some cases and at least according to some. <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Reducing_image_quality_for_mobile>
We already had similar requests previously and I am the one that rejected them: Bug 27839 - Offer 460px and 620px as thumbnail size preferences Bug 41712 - hewiki asks to change default image sizes for thumb and gallery Bug 47332 - en.Wikivoyage: increase default image thumb size The reason for rejecting such requests is on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41712#c14 and I am copy pasting it there: ------------------------------------------ Here is a summary I have posted on Gerrit change #31580 which is based off a discussion we had in a restricted mailing list: It is not reasonable for us to handle different thumbnail sizes per wiki for the following reasons: - we keep thumbnails forever currently, the more we have the more disk space it takes - different sizes lower the cache hit rate which in turns cause... - ... a CPU cost on the cluster to generate a thumbnail, varying the sizes cause more and more thumbnails generations - whenever a file is updated, we have to purge each thumbnails ever generated The consensus among the engineering team is to standardize the thumbnails to a few well known formats and have the scaling being done by the web browser. We could let the mobile clients scale up small thumbnails (to save bandwidth) and desktop scale down larger thumbnails (to get nicer pictures). So I am sorry to say it, but that changes will not land on the live cluster. ------------------------------------------ There is a few more details on the RFC https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Standardized_thumbnails_sizes though we haven't pushed to find a solution. I wrote the document as a reference to discard requests to raise the thumbnail limit. Sorry. Feel free to bring the subject again on wikitech-l.
(In reply to Antoine "hashar" Musso from comment #3) > It is not reasonable for us to handle different thumbnail sizes per wiki for > the following reasons: > - we keep thumbnails forever currently, the more we have the more disk space > it takes > - different sizes lower the cache hit rate which in turns cause... > - ... a CPU cost on the cluster to generate a thumbnail, varying the sizes > cause more and more thumbnails generations > - whenever a file is updated, we have to purge each thumbnails ever generated Would it be feasible to use the same (but different than the current one) set of sizes for all wikis? Would it be feasible to replace the 7 current sizes with, say, 4 that are in general a bit larger? I don't see these questions answered anywhere, and I don't have access to the "restricted mailing list" to check if they were addressed there.
(In reply to Bartosz Dziewoński from comment #4) > Would it be feasible to use the same (but different than the current one) > set of sizes for all wikis? Would it be feasible to replace the 7 current > sizes with, say, 4 that are in general a bit larger? > > I don't see these questions answered anywhere, and I don't have access to > the "restricted mailing list" to check if they were addressed there. Please follow up on wikitech-l and eventually on the RFC talk page as well. Bugzilla is not the best place to emit such a new proposal :-]
Antoine, I'm concerned that I may not have been clear: you have WONTFIXed this on the grounds that you don't want to have different cache sizes for each WMF wiki. Good: consider this to be a request to STOP having different cache sizes for different wikis. The request here is really to START offering the SAME (in one case, bigger) cache size that is ALREADY being offered to sv.wikipedia. These files are already being cached; they're just not being offered to everyone. If your goal is to have the same sizes at all WMF sites, then the correct response to this request is to change the current three-different-configurations settings in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php 'wgThumbLimits' => array( 'default' => array( 120, 150, 180, 200, 220, 250, 300 ), '+itwikiquote' => array( 360 ), 'svwiki' => array( 120, 200, 250, 300, 360 ), ), to a simpler, all-wikis-get-the-same-options configuration: 'wgThumbLimits' => array( 'default' => array( 120, 200, 220, 250, 300, 360 ), ), (As far as I'm concerned, the exact numbers chosen could be adjusted, so long as one option is the bigger size currently offered to two wikis.) If you really want to stop supporting multiple configurations, then the response to this bug should be "yes, immediately" rather than "no, never".
WhatamIdoing I appreciate your effort. But please follow up on wikitech-l and eventually on the RFC talk page as well.
Lets just reword this: The community really wants an option for bigger images and doesn't want to wait, The foundation wants bigger images by defat but needs months more to decide where it truly wants to go, before it wants to dedicate resources on the complicated process that is required to realize any sort of more substantial change. Can we not just, for ALL wikis: * remove a few small sizes from the thumb options * delete their thumbs * Add one larger size (360 ?) * Not change the default for the thumb size Other than human effort, this should be a differential of almost 0 (or at most a few gigabytes). This would probably keep the communities OK for a few more months, while we all debate over a more permanent solution (and keep sending users from the front desk to the information desk, to the helpdesk). At the very least, sending the common user to wikitech-l doesn't seem like the right response either.
Let me remove myself from this bug CC list. Bring it to wikitech-l PLEASE.
I can't quite understand what Antoine is saying "no" to as he seems to be addressing something other than that which is being asked. How did two other projects get approved for 360px? Although with next gen retina displays even 360px is going to be an issue. However, I'd take 360px as a start if it is easy to implement.
(In reply to mac.kenzie from comment #10) > I can't quite understand what Antoine is saying "no" Sigh... Antoine didn't say "no" in this bug report. You mistake a summary of previous arguments&discussions for personal opinions by the messenger. And yet another time: Please bring this topic to wikitech-l@.
I am not being obtuse just rather uninformed about process. So I would love to bring it to wikitech-l if I knew what that was.
http://www.google.com/?q=wikitech-l
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for Mac.Kenzie to interpret marking a request as "WONTFIX" as "saying no", regardless of whether Antoine is doing this on his own authority or as a messenger for some unknown person.
(In reply to WhatamIdoing from comment #14) > I think that it is perfectly reasonable for Mac.Kenzie to interpret marking > a request as "WONTFIX" as "saying no", regardless of whether Antoine is > doing this on his own authority or as a messenger for some unknown person. Well hashar's comment states why he marked it wontfix. Its not that uncommon in bugzilla to mark something wontfix to reflect a previous decesion on the matter even if the decesion is made by somebody else.
Things that are common here are not common to my experience. That said I should have perhaps used Google first. Looks like I'll have to register for other mailing list. BTW, not that I should suppose anyone cares, but this is being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#I_hate_it_here_too_sometimes...
(In reply to mac.kenzie from comment #16) > Things that are common here are not common to my experience. That said I > should have perhaps used Google first. That's ok :). Just keep in mind that MediaWiki development is its own separate community, with similar but different norms then say Wikipedia. > > BTW, not that I should suppose anyone cares, but this is being discussed > here: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: > Jimbo_Wales#I_hate_it_here_too_sometimes... Perma-link for posterity for anyone who cares: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=603391713#I_hate_it_here_too_sometimes... (Its your standard constructive dialog that takes place on Jimbo's talk page)
I have sent the e-mail to wikitech list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-April/075849.html
